HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-30-1996 SpecialI.
H.
1996 LEGISLATIVE DINNER
JANUARY 30, 1996
6:00 P.M.
Public Safety Training Room
Welcome and Introductions Mayor Tierney
Legislative Issues
Transit/Metro Mobility Fred Moore
Housing Goals/Livable Communities Anne Hurlburt
Wetlands Act Proposals Anne Hurlburt
Tax Base Equalization Dwight Johnson
Tax Increment Financing Dale Hahn
Elections Kathy Lueckert
M. Open Discussion
City of Plymouth
1996 Legislative Issues
Transit/Metro Mobility
The City remains very concerned about the provision of paratransit services to Plymouth
residents. This service was slated to end on October 1, 1995. However, an agreement
was reached with the Metropolitan Council to continue the service through 1996.
Although consideration of paratransit services throughout the region may not be
appropriate in this year's short session, the City is interested in a supplemental
appropriation to fund paratransit services through June 1997. Attachment I explains the
City's concerns in greater detail.
Action Requested.- Keep the City apprised of any legislation involving the
provision ofparatransit services.
Staff Contact. John Sweeney, Transit Administrator, 509-5521
Housing Goals and Livable Communities
In the 1995 session, the Legislature passed the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
MLCA). The Act provides incentives for metro area cities to adopt goals and develop
strategies to increase housing diversity and affordability in their communities. The first
step for implementation of the MLCA was for cities to elect to participate, then negotiate
with the Metropolitan Council to develop housing goals within the areas of affordability,
diversity, and density.
Plymouth adopted a housing goals agreement (Attachment II) which is included in this
packet. Some of the issues identified in Plymouth's housing goals agreement include:
there is a small amount of land within the existing urban service area available for
residential development, contributing to increasing prices and reducing opportunities
for all types of new housing.
property values of existing homes continue to increase faster than the Metro Area
average, putting more of the existing housing stock out of reach of lower income
families.
a very low vacancy rate in rental housing is accompanied by rising rent levels, while
tax laws make new multi -family construction difficult. .
d
The next step will be for the City to adopt housing strategies in the form of an "action
plan" which must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996.
Attachment III addresses the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund and theMHFA
Project Selection Criteria.
The Metropolitan Council currently is in the process of developing criteria for use of
housing funds provided by the MLCA. Staff is monitoring this process to determine what
opportunities may be afforded for meeting the City's goals.
Action Requested. • Receive the information on the City's housing goals and keep the
City informed of any legislation which may impact actions taken so
far.
Staff Contact: Ed Goldsmith, HRA Supervisor, 509-5412
Wetland Act Proposals
There are several bills pending which would amend the Wetlands Protection Act. Staff is
most familiar with the Munger bill (BF2006). This bill contains some provisions that
would appear to provide more flexibility for public transportation projects, clarify when
replacement plans are required and streamline some of the permitting process. The
Munger bill would also allow upland buffers and treatment ponds to be used for some
required wetland mitigation. The AMM and other organizations representing cities are in
favor of some of these changes.
Early in 1995, Plymouth conducted an extensive project to document and evaluate the
function and quality of all of its wetlands. A significant amount (21%) of Plymouth's land
area is wetland. The City adopted a wetland protection ordinance which provides for
buffers and setbacks around all wetlands. This ordinance is coordinated with the state
Wetlands Protection Act, so any changes in state regulations would affect Plymouth's
ordinance.
Action Requested. • Keep the City apprised of any significant changes to the
current Wetlands Protection Act.
Staff Contact. Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director
509-5401
Tax Base Equalization
1
Representative Orfield has introduced legislation on tax base equalization. The effect of
this bill would be to raise property taxes in municipalities like Plymouth which have
substantial residential homestead market value over $200,000. An increase in property
taxes would adversely impact the City's ability to meet affordable housing goals. The
proposed legislation does not base increases or decreases in property tax on a household's
ability to pay; the net effect would be that low income households in the suburbs would
see property taxes increase while wealthy homeowners in St. Paul would experience a
property tax decrease. It also may possibly discourage development, since cities would be
penalized for adding value to the community. The City strongly opposes tax base
equalization legislation.
Action Requested: Keep the City apprised of discussions on Representative
Orfield's bill.
Staff Contact: Dwight Johnson, City Manager, 509-5051.
Tax Increment Financing
During 1995, the City of Plymouth updated its TIF plan and reaffirmed the City's
commitment to the various planned projects. Many of these proposed projects are
essential to the thoroughfare guide plan of the City, and cannot be accomplished without
TIF financing. The City believes that any changes to TIF should not apply to existing TIF
districts.
Action Requested: Keep City staff aware ofpotential changes to Tax
Increment Financing.
Staff Contact: Dale Hahn, Finance Director, 509-5301
Elections
If a referendum on Metropolitan Sports Facilities is held during 1996, the City supports
adding the referendum question to the September primary or the November general
election. Either of these dates would not require additional funding to run the election.
The City understands that an amendment to a bill may be introduced which would require
cities, counties, and school districts to hold elections only in odd numbered years. The
City's charter calls for elections in even numbered years. This was done to assure a good
turnout and to save costs. The City is opposed to any legislation which would compel us
to hold odd year elections. The City is also interested in legislation which would
streamline the absentee voting process.
Action Requested. • Keep City staff aware of the status of legislation.
1
Staff Contact. Laurie Ahrens, City Clerk, 509-5080.
aua'alwA+ 1
DATE: January 25, 1996
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
4J_
FROM: Fred G. Moore, P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: FUNDING OF PARATRANSIT SERVICE (METRO MOBILITY)
1. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND ISSUF,:
Paratransit service (Metro Mobility) was proposed to be discontinued for
Plymouth citizens on October 1, 1995. This service is provided to the majority
of the Metropolitan area by the Metropolitan Council. Under the American
Disabilities Act (ADA) the Metropolitan Council was not required to provide
this service within the City of Plymouth since there are no fixed mid-day
Transit routes. Funding for this service is provided to the Metropolitan Council
by the State and because of budget shortfalls, they proposes to eliminate service
in eight cities.
In order to continue service to the disabled, many of which rely on Transit as
their only means of transportation, Plymouth reached an agreement with the
Metropolitan Council to continue the service through June, 1996. As part of
the agreement, both Plymouth and the Metropolitan Council share about equally
in the cost. The estimated cost for the nine month period is $314,000.
Attached is a memorandum dated September 7, 1995 giving more details of the
cost sharing agreement for the continuation of service. Also attached is a letter
dated July 19, 1995 to the Metropolitan Council from Mayor Tierney on the
proposed discontinuation of service. The legislators who represent Plymouth
also received this letter.
WENGMANSMMEMOSTUNDING. DOC
SUBJECT: FUNDING OF PARATRANSIT SERVICE (METRO MOBILITY) W
2. DISCUSSION:
The funding for the interim service is coming from property tax dollars for both
Plymouth and the Metropolitan Council. The majority of the funding for other
Paratransit service within the Metropolitan area and in the State is not provided
from property tax dollars, but is provided from other State or Federal revenues.
It is the shortfall in the State funding that resulted in the cutback of service in
Plymouth and other cities throughout the Metropolitan area. Also, throughout
the entire service area there was a cutback in service hours and an increase in
the fee charged to the rider.
The shortfall in funding has not only affected the Metro Mobility service
operated by the Metropolitan Council, but has affected the many other adjacent
service providers which connect through Metro Mobility in order that a rider
can ride to and from a destination in the entire Metropolitan area. Three of the
other larger providers are Dakota County (DARTS), Scott County, and the
Anoka Traveler.
1 MM 010117.111 COM
During this short legislative session, it is not appropriate to consider the overall
policy issues related to Paratransit service throughout the entire Metropolitan
area and greater Minnesota. It would be appropriate for a supplemental
appropriation for Paratransit services to continue the program which existed
prior to October, 1995 through June, 1997. The legislature could then address
the entire policy issue during 1997. During the interim the Metropolitan
Council could also be directed to prepare a proposed plan for Paratransit
service. The preparation of this plan should involve all of the service providers
within the area. In discussing the amount of the supplemental appropriation
with the consultant to our Transit service we estimate the amount needed would
be $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.
attachments
G AENGMANSInMEMOSTUNDING. DOC
Agenda Number: z -
For Expenditures Exceeding $15,000
DATE: September 7, 1995 for the City Council Meeting of September 12, 1995
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PARATRANSIT SERVICE (METRO MOBILITY)
1. PROPOSED MOTION: Make a motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council to
provide Paratransit service within the City effective October 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996.
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, ISSUE, OR PROJECT: As a result of shortage of
State funding to continue the existing Paratransit service (Metro Mobility) as it has
previously operated, the Metropolitan Council has made reductions in the service. They will
also be increasing fares. The change in hours of operation will affect the entire service area.
There are seven communities where total service is proposed to be discontinued since it is
not legally required to be provided by the Metropolitan Council under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Plymouth is one of these seven cities. In July the Metropolitan
Council voted to discontinue this service in Plymouth but directed their staff to work with
the City on a program to provide a continuation of service. Currently there are
approximately 2,300 monthly Paratransit trips with either a beginning or ending destination
within Plymouth.
3. ALTERNATIVES: City staff investigated and considered the following options:
Choose not to provide a Paratransit service.
Implement a mid day fixed route transit service which could make Plymouth
eligible for Metro Mobility Service.
Contract with Met Council for Metro Mobility service.
Expand the existing Dial -A -Ride service, provide accessible Dial -A -Ride
vehicles, and implement a limited Paratransit service with connections into the
Metro Mobility system at Ridgedale or other connecting points.
CoWUPARMOC
SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PARATRANSIT SERVICE (METRO MOBILITY
Page Two
Implement a Paratransit Program, including the establishment of a dispatch
center.
4. DISCUSSION: The cutback in service is a result of inadequate funding provided by the
State Legislature. Before a decision is made by the City to establish a long term Paratransit
Program the City should work with the Metropolitan Council and other affected
communities to obtain adequate funding for a uniform program throughout the Metropolitan
area. For this reason, it is staff's recommendation that we enter into an agreement with the
Metropolitan Council to continue the Metro Mobility service in Plymouth. This service
would be changed to the same operating hours as the remainder of the Metropolitan system.
To implement this recommendation, staff has negotiated an agreement with the Metropolitan
Council staff for this interim service. Attached is the proposed agreement. The major
provisions of the agreement are as follows:
The agreement is for a period from October 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996.
Either party can terminate the agreement upon 90 days written notice.
Either party can terminate the agreement immediately as a result of lack of
funding.
Plymouth is responsible to pay the subsidy cost for all trips beginning within the
City. This is estimated to be 53 % of the total trips.
The Metropolitan Council will pay the subsidy costs for all trips beginning
outside the City but have an ending destination within the City. This is
estimated to be 47 % of the total trips.
The City of Plymouth can fund our portion of the cost for the service from our
unbudgeted Transit Tax Levy (Opt -Out).
5. BUDGET IlAPACTS: The estimated cost for this service for the nine month period is as
follows:
City Cost: $166,354
Metropolitan Council Cost: 147,521
Total $313,875
COWUPAR.DOC
SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PARATRANSIT SERVICE (METRO MOBILITY)
Page Three
The City's share of the cost, $166,354, will come from our unbudgeted Tax Funds which
are levied as part of the transit tax (Opt -Out). We estimate that there will be $305,000 of
unbudgeted funds. At the end of the year one-half of the unbudgeted funds are taken by the
Metropolitan Council and placed in the overall Transit System Account. For this reason the
actual expenditure from our Transit system will be $83,000.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS: A Paratransit service is a much needed service for our residents
and businesses. They have relied on the service which has been provided for many years by
the Metropolitan system. It would be a hardship to completely discontinue service. It is the
staff recommendation that we enter into an agreement with Metropolitan Council to provide
service for an interim period while the City and Metropolitan Council work with the
legislature to obtain adequate funding for the entire system. If adequate funding is not
provided by the State, then staff will develop other alternatives and make recommendations
to the City Council before the service is continued beyond the terms of the proposed
agreement.
Ar_
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
attachments: Resolution
Proposed Agreement
MhTUPARMOC
CITY OF
PLYMOUTFF
July 19, 1995
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
Dear Council Members:
The City of Plymouth has a number of concerns regarding the proposed elimination of
funding for Metro Mobility Service in Plymouth and other cities.
First, Metro Mobility is intended to be a state funded service. We are concerned by
the precedent created by any proposal that circumvents this legislative intention.
Current proposals would have the effect of shifting Metro Mobility costs to regional or
local property tax payers.
Second, even though ADA requirements may allow for reduction or elimination of
Metro Mobility service in Plymouth, this does not mean this is an equitable solution.
Our residents pay the same state, regional, and local taxes as anyone else and need the
same level of service as any other place. Plymouth and a few other cities should not be
singled out for elimination of service simply because it might be legal to do so,
Third, the Metropolitan Council should consider the unintended consequences that
might occur with elimination of Metro Mobility funding. Even if Plymouth could
provide some of the service, which is not yet known; our local funding for transit
would be so stretched that growth in other transit services would be impossible.
Extension of service for affordable housing and continuation of our current reverse
commuting routes would certainly be affected. Our ability to meet our obligations
under the Elm Creek Cluster Planning process would be substantially limited.
Finally, if funding for Metro Mobility Service is curtailed or eliminated, it is essential
that Plymouth retain the ability to use all of its 90% funding and to use its reserves
from prior years. We cannot be expected to assume any new obligations without
having the tax dollars we are now paying for transit returned to us.
We Llsten • We Solve • We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 o TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
Please reconsider the precedent, the fairness, and the unintended consequences of a
major change in funding for Metro Mobility in Plymouth. An across the board review
of the level of Metro Mobility Service would seem to be a more appropriate course of
action. The Metropolitan Council should allow time for the next Legislature to address
the funding problems before drastic changes in service are implemented. Also,
Plymouth had over 3110 Metro Mobility trips in May. We have many businesses such
as Opportunity Workshop and many special residential areas in need of Metro Mobility
services. Considerable study is needed before any vote is taken to eliminate this vital
service.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mayor Joy Tierney
City of Plymouth
cc: Senator Gen Olson
Senator Warren Limmer
Senator Martha Robertson
Representative Ron Abrams
Representative Peggy Leppik
Representative Richard Stanek
Representative H. Todd Van Dellen
10 a4"kwvw _: r
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
PRINCIPLES
The City of Plymouth supports:
A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels.
2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing
within the community.
3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life -cycle.
4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing.
5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to
accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to
and linkage between housing, transportation and employment.
GOALS
In 1996, the City of Plymouth will revise the Housing Element of its Comprehensive Plan. As part of the
planning process, the City will assess the housing needs of the community and identify specific actions needed
to achieve the goals identified by the Plan. The goals set forth in this agreement, as shown on Exhibit A,
attached, will be refined and adjusted as necessary before the City submits the Housing Element to the
Metropolitan Council for its review pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and to fulfill the
requirements for an action plan pursuant to the Livable Communities Act. In further developing its goals to
carry out the above housing principles, the City of Plymouth agrees to continue to consider the benchmark
indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development and to make its best efforts, given
market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks.
A: Affordability:
1. Rental Units: Plymouth will work toward expanding the share of its rental housing affordable
to low and moderate income families. Plymouth will work to make 35 percent of its new rental
housing affordable to families earning no more than 50 percent of the regional median income. In
addition, a significant portion of these new rental units should be affordable to very low income
households.
The limited availability of land for development will be significant barrier to constructing new,
affordable rental housing in Plymouth. Another significant barrier is the economic and tax climate
that makes new construction of any new rental housing very difficult. Since 1990, it is estimated that
only 8 percent of new housing built in Plymouth is rented, even though vacancy rates are very low.
Of the new units built since 1990, about 26 percent are affordable at 50 percent of median income.
All of these units are in Plymouth Towne Square, a senior housing project owned and subsidized by
the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA.) An additional 31 percent of the new
units are affordable between 50 and 60 percent of median income. These units include units at
Plymouth Towne Square and a 64 -unit tax -credit project for families, Lakeview Commons. A total of
City of Plymouth
Housing Goals Agreement
December 5, 1995
57 percent of new rental units built since 1990 in Plymouth are affordable at the 60 percent of median
income level or less.
In addition to new construction, the expansion of affordable rental housing may be accomplished
through additional section 8 existing housing certificates or vouchers, or other creative efforts by the
City to make existing rental housing in Plymouth more affordable. Recently, the City conditioned its
approval of the refinancing of a City revenue bond issue, in exchange for a guarantee of affordable
rent levels within the complex. In this project, 21 units are guaranteed to be affordable to renters
below 60 percent of median income during the 40 -year life of the bond sale. This an example of local
efforts that can increase the number of affordable units without building new ones. Recognizing that
rent levels are high, the HRA has also pursued and gained HUD approval for "exception rents" for
its section 8 program, which has made more Plymouth housing accessible for program participants.
The City and its HRA will continue to explore ways to expand affordable housing through use of its
CDBG funds and other programs.
2. Owner Occupied: There are severe limitations for construction of new affordable
ownership housing construction in Plymouth. Recent experience of the City has been that only 8
percent of new housing built in the 1990's is considered affordable at 1995 values. The City's goal is
to increase the construction of new affordable units from 8 percent to 21 percent, which is
equivalent to the percent of the city's owner -occupied housing that was built in the 1980s which is
affordable today.
In 1994 according to Metropolitan Council data, 42 percent of Plymouth's homesteaded housing was
valued at $115,000 or less. This is in contrast to the benchmarks of 69 percent for all developing
area suburbs and 77 percent for all communities in the Northwest Minneapolis planning sector. In
1995, based on the City's own data, 33 percent of the City's housing was valued less than $118,000,
the Metropolitan Council's housing affordability benchmark value for 1995.
Plymouth has a smaller proportion of affordable owner occupied housing than other Northwest
planning sector communities for a number of reasons. According to Metropolitan Council data, onl}
26 percent of Plymouth's owner occupied housing was built before 1970, compared to 46 percent in
the sector as a whole and 36 percent for developing communities. Of the Plymouth housing built
before 1970, 58 percent is affordable in 1995. Of the housing built since 1970, however, only 25
percent is affordable. Affordability is strongly related to the age of the housing stock.
Recent changes in the housing market have also influenced the housing affordability statistics for
Plymouth. Of the units built in the 1970's, 40 percent are affordable (valued less than $118,000) in
1995. Of the units built in the 1980's, 21 percent are affordable in 1995. Of the units built in the
1990's, only 8 percent are affordable. There were no significant changes in the city's planning and
zoning practices since the 1970's that would account for this reduction in affordability. (New
environmental regulations adopted in 1995 have not come fully into effect.) Density and lot size
requirements are similar, and the City has increased the use of Planned Unit Development to provide
development flexibility. There has, however, been an escalation of land prices and a surge in demand
for larger, more expensive ($148,000 and above) single family homes. The strong market for
existing housing in the City has meant that the values of existing units have been steadily increasing.
For example, increases in residential values from 1994 to 1995 were in the 4 to 9 percent range, with
an average increase of about 5 percent. In Minneapolis, the average appreciation in residential values
was near zero.
N
City of Plymouth
Housing Goals Agreement
December 5, 1995
Plymouth will do what it can to influence housing costs, recognizing that since 1991 only
approximately 40 percent of new construction ownership housing in the region has sold for $115,000
or less, a level affordable to households at approximately 80 percent of regional median income.
Because land costs in Plymouth make single family detached homes at this cost almost impossible to
develop, most of the new affordable ownership units will be attached housing, i.e., townhomes and
condominiums built at higher density to reduce per unit costs.
The limited availability of land for development will be a significant barrier to constructing new,
affordable housing in Plymouth. There is currently about 1,100 acres of vacant land planned for
residential uses within the City's urban service area. Of that, about 875 acres (80 percent) has
already been subdivided or has been approved for development. Only about 225 acres remain, of
which about 60 acres (one fourth) is wetland or floodplain. And, the remaining property is in small
tracts (average less than 2.5 acres of upland in size) that are not attractive to larger -scale developers.
In addition to new construction, an important element of the City 's affordable ownership housing
efforts will be to encourage retention of its existing supply of affordable housing, as this housing will
be impossible to replace. The City, through its HRA, has also implemented programs to make
existing housing more affordable, such as providing subsidies to first time buyers to bring purchase
prices to within an affordable range. As of September 1; 1995, Plymouth had assisted 167 low -and -
moderate income households with its home rehabilitation loan program and 55 households with its
First Time Homebuyer program.
B: Life -Cycle:
1. Diversity: Plymouth currently has substantial diversification in its housing stock. It
recognizes that the new construction housing market and increasing life -cycle housing demands may
mean continued development of multifamily housing, especially townhomes and condominiums. For
the period 1996 through 2010, the City will make every effort to maintain the non -single family
detached share of its housing as at least 34 percent of its housing stock, the level of diversification
found in developing suburbs and suburbs in Plymouth's geographic area. If necessary to
accommodate this diversification, Plymouth may make land use and/or zoning changes to ensure that
there is enough land for continued multifamily housing development.
As noted above, most of the vacant land within Plymouth's urban service area has already been
subdivided or received development approvals. A review of approved lots and developments
indicates that about 43 percent of the units currently approved, but not yet built, are multiple family
units. And, of the vacant land that does not yet have development approvals, over half of the
property is planned to allow dwellings other than single Ifamily detached units.
2. Owner/Renter Mix: The City cannot directly control whether housing is rented or sold to an
owner -occupant. The City will work to maintain an owner/renter mix of 75/25 percent, through its
land use controls, approvals process and participation in housing development programs.
Significant rental housing does exist in Plymouth, most of it built at a time when state and federal tax
laws were more favorable to construction of rental properties. Very few rental units have been built
in Plymouth since 1990 (283 units of a total of 3,666 units, or about 8 percent.) The City has
recently approved development projects for rental housing, including a market -rate rental project
200+ units) which has not been built due to factors outside of the City's control.
3
City of Plymouth
Housing Goals Agreement
December 5, 1995
Preserving the quality of the existing rental housing stock in Plymouth is a top priority. The City's
housing maintenance code and the active Plymouth Apartment Managers Association are evidence of
the City's commitment.
C: Density:
Plymouth will establish density goals for new development that attempt to equal or exceed the current
gross density of development: approximately 2 units per acre of upland for single family
development and 10 units per acre of upland for multiple family development, These goals recognize
the amount of wetlands, shorelands and wetland buffers that affect the remaining property to be
developed in Plymouth. Detailed policies and regulations needed to achieve the goals will be
developed as part of the Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance revisions that are planned for
early 1996.
The Metropolitan Council has estimated the density of single family detached units in Plymouth at 1.8
units per acre, including road rights-of-way but excluding wetlands. Comparable data from the City's
own GIS is not available, because we exclude rights-of-way from the residential land use category.
However, by estimating the amount of road rights-of-way within residential areas, we have estimated
the density to be about 1.99 units per acre, based on an estimate of the amount of road rights-of-way
within residential areas. Because of the large number of wetlands in the City, the gross density
including wetlands) is less; about 1.86 units per acre. Comparable data is not available from other
cities included in calculating the benchmark, but it appears that based on City data Plymouth is within
the benchmark. Similarly, the Metropolitan Council estimates the multiple family density in Plymouth
at 8 units per acres. The City GIS data shows the density to be about 10.75 units per acre. Again,
this is within the benchmark range of 10 to 11 units per acre.
Plymouth recognizes that it may be desirable to increase densities in some areas to reduce land cost
for new construction, to use public services more efficiently, to increase the feasibility of transit, and
to generally promote compact and efficient development. Plymouth also recognizes that increasing
protection of natural resources, particularly wetlands, may require limiting the intensity of
development in sensitive areas. Efficient use of the land must be balanced with environmental
protection.
Increased environmental protection is one factor that has led to a decrease in density of new
residential development in Plymouth in recent years. Another factor is that as Plymouth's land has
been consumed for development, sites with more wetlands or difficult soil conditions that were
initially skipped over are now being developed. Data from a sample of recent single family, multiple
family, and mixed residential developments approved in the last several years shows that the net
densities of these developments has been less than the city-wide averages: 1.84 units per net single
family acre and 6.79 units per net multiple family acre.
Of the available, vacant land within the urban service area, fully one-fourth of the area is wetland or
floodplain. It is also divided into small tracts, making efficient subdivision more difficult. The City
adopted a wetland buffer ordinance in early 1995, and all new developments will be required to
comply with these new restrictions. Increasing densities, or even maintaining the current city-wide
average will be very difficult as these remaining sites are developed.
4
City of Plymouth
Housing Goals Agreement
December 5, 1995
To achieve the goals set forth in Exhibit A, attached, the City of Plymouth will make its best efforts to
increase the availability of affordable and life -cycles housing and maintain the level of diversity of housing
types already present in the community. However, the City cannot control the housing market in Plymouth
and can only produce small amounts of housing through its HRA. It can, however, influence housing
production and can proactively work to achieve its goals through its use of official controls, public service
requirements, local approvals process and the use of available housing assistance programs.
The new housing contemplated in this agreement will occur on lak d yet to be developed within the existing
MUSA boundary. There has been no decision by either the City lof Plymouth or the Metropolitan Council on
the extent, timing or location of any MUSA expansion. This agr ement does not imply that such an
expansion will take place.
The proposed goals do not apply to land outside the MUSA boundary, because the City does not have an
urban land use plan for that area. The City is now engaged in a Ind use planning process for the area outside
the MUSA. The City will develop housing goals for that area if USA expansions are proposed upon
completion of the planning process.
The City of Plymouth elects to participate in the Metropolitan Li able Communities Act Local Housing
Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996,
indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals.
CERTIFICATION
Mayor
5
Date
City of Plymouth
Housing Goals Agreement
December 5, 1995
Affordability
Ownership (80% of median)
Rental (50% of median)
Life -Cycle
Type (Non -single family
detached)
Owner/ renter mix
Density
Single -Family Detached
Multifamily
cd\p1an\memos\5059\hsgagre2.doc
Exhibit A
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act
Proposed Benchmarks and Goals
City of Plymouth
METRO METRO PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTHPLYMOUTH
COUNCIL COUNCIL DATA 1990 TO 1995 GOALFORNEW
CITY INDEX BENCHMARK, ALL DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT,
FOR NORTHWEST HOUSING TREND1996-2010
PLYMOUTH SUBURBS 1995)
42% 67-77% 33% 8% 21
15% 35-41% 25.8% 35%
39% 34-35% 25% 34%
74/26% 72-75) /
25/28) %
92/8% 75/25%
1.8/ acre 1.9-2.4/acre 1.99/ acre 1.84** 2/acre
8/acre 10-11/acre 10.75 acre 6.79** 10/acre
1.
1
No new comparable data available
Estimate based on sample of projects
r n
I
aBackgroundDat
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
November, 1995
HSGVAL.XLS
Homestead Units by Value and Year Built
3500
Affordability of Homesteaded Units by Year Built
100%
I
90%
80%
3000
O0 70%
N
2500
60% 118,000+
0 50% T
0-$117,99940% ;
v 30%
pd,
20% r
10%
I
500
0%
Pre- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990-
O
1950 1959 1969 1979 1989 1995
Year Built
Homestead Units by Value and Year Built
3500 I
3000
I2500 I
2000
E 1500
1000 I
500
0$148,000+
O 118,000-147,999o
Ln 69,501-117,999
0LnMc°0 rn 0-$69,500
p00
rn r` rn
Ln Value4. O 0
rn C3)
mmc0
rn n o
Year 00
rn
O
m
HSGVAL.XLS
City of Plymouth
1995 Assessed Value, Homesteaded Property by Year Built
Year Built 0469,500 Pct.
69,501-
117,999 Pct.
118,000.
147,999 Pct. 148,000+ Pct. Total Pct.
Pre -1950 147 1 % 359 2% 50 0% 46 0% 602 4%
1950-1959 28 0% 689 4% 14 1 % 59 0% 917 6%
1960-1969 6 0% 813 5% 67 4% 502 3% 1999 13%
1970-1979 292 2% 1374 9% 103 7% 1488 10% 4193 27%
1980-1989 75 0% 1075 7% 1236 8% 3022 19% 5408 35%
1990-1995 12 0% 181 1% 284 2% 1906 12% 2383 15%
Total 560 4% 4491 29% 342 22% 7023 45% 15502 100%
Summary
Percentages: All Homestead Units in City
Affordable' Units Other Units All Homestead Units
Year Built 0-$117,999 Pct. 118,000+ Pct. Total Pct.
Pre -1950 506 3% 96 1 % 602 4%
1950-1959 717 5% 200 1 % 917 6%
1960-1969 819 5% 1180 8% 1999 13%
1970-1979 1666 11% 2527 16% 4193 27%
1980-1989 1150 7% 4258 27% 5408 35%
1990-1995 193 1% 2190 14% 2383 15%
Total 5051 33% 10451 67% 15502 100%
Percentages: All Homestead Units built by Decade
Affordable" Units Other Units Alt Homestead Units
Year Built 04117,999 Pct. 118,000+ Pct. Total Pct.
Pre -1950 506 84% 96 16% 602 100%
1950-1959 717 78% 200 22% 917 100%
1960-1969 819 41% 1180 59% 1999 100%
1970-1979 1666 40% 2527 60% 4193 100%
1980-1989 1150 21% 4258 79% 5408 100%
1990-1995 193 8% 2190 92% 2383 100%
Total 5051 33% 10451 67% 15502 100%
0
hsg type
City of Plymouth
New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995
Total 2752 914 3666
75.1% 24.9% 100.0%
900
800
d 700
600
E 500
aL
400
300
200
100
0
New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995
Multiple
Family
25%
Single Family
75%
New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995
rn rn rn rn IM M
rn rn rn rn !112 rn
Year
10
mwtiple ramuy
n SinnlP Family
Single Multiple
Year Family Family Total
1990 386 220 606
1991 439 58 497
1992 631 196 827
1993 675 62 737
1994 376 269 645
1995 245 109 354
Total 2752 914 3666
75.1% 24.9% 100.0%
900
800
d 700
600
E 500
aL
400
300
200
100
0
New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995
Multiple
Family
25%
Single Family
75%
New Housing Units by Type, 1990-1995
rn rn rn rn IM M
rn rn rn rn !112 rn
Year
10
mwtiple ramuy
n SinnlP Family
new rental
City of Plymouth
New Rental Housing, 1990-1995
73 88 122 283
25.8% 31.1% 43.1% 100.0%
11
Affordable Affordable
at 50% of at 60% of 60% of
Project Median Median Median Total
Plymouth Towne Square 73 24 97
Lakeview Commons 64 64
Fernbrook Townhomes 72 72
Lancaster Park 50 50
73 88 122 283
25.8% 31.1% 43.1% 100.0%
11
City of Plymouth
Vacant/ Ag Land in MUSA
Availability for Development
All Vacant/ Ag Land in MUSA
Land not Available for Development
Residential Approved Projects/
Lots of Record
Approved Commercial/ Industrial
Projects
Other Unbuildable Land Area
Subtotal
Land Available for Development
All Vacant/Ag Land in MUSA
Wetland
Acres
21%
Floodplain
not incl.
wetlands)
2%
Upland
Acres
77%
sum. avail land
Floodplain
Total Land (not incl. Upland
Area Wetland Acres wetlands) Acres
2119.88 436.13 52.12 1631.63
875.36 183.73 10.03 681.6
128.91
62.18
8.55
18.87
0
2.03
120.36
41.28
1066.45 211.15 12.06 843.24
1053.43 224.98 40.06 788.39
12
Land Available for Development
Wetland
Acres
21%
Floodplain
not incl.
wetlands)
4%
land by LUGP
City of Plymouth Land Use Inventory, 1995
Land Available for Development in MUSA
Total Floodplain
Land Use Guide Plan Land not incl. Wetland Upland
Classification Area wetlands) Acres Acres
Commercial 498.37 10.78 60.06 427.53 48.5%
Industrial 312.23 16.22 19.84 276.17 31.3%
Residential 228.51 12.84 7.06 168.61 19.1%
Other 10.13 0.22 0.73 9.18 1.0%
Total 1049.24 40.06 1 7.69 881.49 100%
Land Available for Development in the MUSA
500
450
400
350
300 O Upland Acres
250 Wetland Acres
Q O Floodplain (not incl. wetlands) =
200
150';
ki
100
2i50
Commercial Industrial Residential Other
Land Use Guide Plan Designation
Residential Land Available in the MUSA
I
6% j
I
I
21%
y" ® Floodplain (rot incl
wetlands)
Wetland Acnis
Ili
0Upland Acre I i
I
Jj
I
73% I
I
I
13
existing density
City of Plymouth Land Use Inventory, 1995
Estimated 1995 Density
Multifamily
DUP 14.33
Minus Equals Estimated Estimated
0.32
Land Area Wetland Upland Add ROW Net Land 1/2/1995 Net Gross
Land Use Acres) Acres Acres Est. Area Units Density Density
Single Family
364.35
835.96 76.06 759.90 49.39 809.29 8,700 10.75 9.83
SFD 6558.59 483.06 6075.53
MHP 5.78 0.00 5.78
6564.37 483.06 6081.31 547.32 6628.63 13,650 2.06 1.92
Multifamily
DUP 14.33 1.52 12.81
TWIN 22.62 0.32 22.30
TH 178.19 1.03 177.16
CONDO 215.87 32.59 183.28
MFR 404.95 40.60 364.35
835.96 76.06 759.90 49.39 809.29 8,700 10.75 9.83
All Residential Uses 7400.33 559.12 6841.21 596.71 7437.92 22,350 3.00 2.79
Area of City in ROW: 18.2%
Percent of Single Family: 9.0%
Percent of Multfamily: 6.5%
Net Density- land area excludes wetlands, includes ROW
Gross Density-- land area includes wetlands, includes ROW
14
N
a)
C2.
E
aXm
N
C
a) O
i Q
N
C
u
N 0
I- Co O Cf)
M tT r O
N N
N O Cn ((00
V-: N c :
0 r (0 N CO
tt co co (0 T
M M (D to
r -
LO In — N
0 (D (D
O O (D d M
OR M 00 co t`
O O O N r
T q 00 1, -
CO O N t- M
t CC) N N
CO N O Cf)
co U) N N CA
T CA M 00 N
r
ti 'V' CO N O '4-
DO - N N 'It
r N O M OO N
r r
co O r- IT V O
M h co t -
N m - M
r
T O O O LO
N 0j
O
t` t- t- It Iz O
0 ti CO 'V, [I-
04N
C14
M O co 'IT O O
CD (0 O (D O r -
M
r- CLO M N
c0 T N U-)
v rn m
ui M
O O coq
O M [t t`
U) O) O N
Ln
CD
tiN
O N 00
LO I -(
D N
M O (D CD
ti r r M
0) N v
Oa' 14-
C) O CO g 0) 0 - N O N
CD O (0 O ti O (D O M
J O N t- CO co t- N N
D 00 co LO
r r CO
T
C Y
C
T
N
N `°
0O
O T
d _ E
d
O
U >
E
O LL
d
cn c
z
LL m
m
OU
cu
y =
m
i
c m
G
o
Al i
E a) r 9
Cn U-
CL
0
d
d
d C
I- Co O Cf)
M tT r O
N N
N O Cn ((00
V-: N c :
0 r (0 N CO
tt co co (0 T
M M (D to
r -
LO In — N
0 (D (D
O O (D d M
OR M 00 co t`
O O O N r
T q 00 1, -
CO O N t- M
t CC) N N
CO N O Cf)
co U) N N CA
T CA M 00 N
r
ti 'V' CO N O '4-
DO - N N 'It
r N O M OO N
r r
co O r- IT V O
M h co t -
N m - M
r
T O O O LO
N 0j
O
t` t- t- It Iz O
0 ti CO 'V, [I-
04N
C14
M O co 'IT O O
CD (0 O (D O r -
M
r- CLO M N
c0 T N U-)
v rn m
ui M
O O coq
O M [t t`
U) O) O N
Ln
CD
tiN
O N 00
LO I -(
D N
M O (D CD
ti r r M
0) N v
Oa' 14-
C) O CO g 0) 0 - N O N
CD O (0 O ti O (D O M
J O N t- CO co t- N N
D 00 co LO
r r CO
T
C Y
T
O N `° O
U >
E cn c
LL m
m
OU
cu
y =
m
a)
a) rn
w .0
o
Al i
E a) r 9
r` O
M t -
N N
co
O N
r N
U
N
IT N U
co n
N
a)
C2O
ci
O M YM (0
r Q
O
vi
a)
7
M LO
CD U
CA O -6
LO rl-
N Cn CCu
a)
Lo3
C) c
to N
r 3
N 0
r
CA
L
tm_
V O ` (A
N c c
OCu
CMC
fl C
t` MQ)
N (D C XXa)
W
a cu
a) cu cu C
XcuQ)
O aU) i w
a)
c
C C
rn N
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund and MHFA Project Selection Criteria
In implementing the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the Governor's Economic
Vitality and Housing Initiative, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and the
Metropolitan Council have joined with the Minneapolis -St. Paul Family Housing Fund to
convene the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group (MHIG). The MHIG has developed
a set of draft project selection criteria that is to be used by the three agencies in a coordinated
funding process for housing proposals in the Metropolitan region.
One element of the draft criteria establishes a threshold for funding homeownership / home
improvement projects with funds from the Metropolitan Livable Committees Housing
Incentive Account and MHFA programs that are part of it's Single Family Combined Program
Application. This threshold provides that a "community must have met or exceeded its
Metropolitan Council established benchmark for affordable rental housing in order to [be]
eligible to receive funding for homeownership projects. "
This criteria would prohibit a community that does not meet its affordable rental housing
benchmark from applying for these funds to work towards meeting its affordable
homeownership goals, regardless of the community's efforts towards meeting its affordable
rental housing goals. Staff believes that this threshold criteria is:
is a punitive criteria, rather than an incentive, that is contrary to the spirit of the Livable
Communities Act and is not supported by the legislation
inhihits the develonment of nrnnnCAIC thnt nttPmnt to nmvirt- a hal nr•rri rPennnen to lv,+t,
the Minnesota Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies (MALHFA). In response
MALHFA voted to propose legislation in this session that would allow Cities that did not meet
the 50% requirement in 1995 to be eligible to re -apply in 1996. This proposal by MALHFA
would be beneficial to the City and should receive its support.
CAMPBELL, KNUiTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Lary
Suite 317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, hdinnesota 55121
612) 452-5000
FAX (612) 452-5550
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - COVER SHEET
PLEASE DELIVER TO:
FAX NUMBER:
DATE:
SENDER:
RE:
COMMENTS:
DWIGHT JOHNSON and BARB SENNESS
5095060
JANUARY 259 1996
ELLIOTT B.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 (INCLUDING COVER PAGE)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL SHERRY AT (612) 452-5000.
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The information contained in and transmitted with this facsimile is:
1. SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE;
2. ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT; OR
3. CONFIDENTIAL.
It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in or transmitted with this facsimile by or to
anyone other than the recipient designated above by the sender is unauthori2ed and strictly prohibited. If you have
received this facsimile in error, please notify CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS BY TELEPHONE AT (612) 452-
5000 IMMEDIATELY. Any facsimile erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately returned to the sender by
U.S. Mail or, if authorization is granted by sender, destroyed.
900/TO02 KOSIIINf 'I'ISSINVO 0559 Z96 ZT9ZZ 6T:9T 96/9Z/T0
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUC: HS, PA.
Attomeys at Law
Tllmmns J. (1uupt"'Al
Roger N. Knursnn
Thomas M_ Sena
Cary G. Fuchs
James R. W. krmn
I:Ilinrr S. Kneuch
Mr. Dwight Johnson
Ms. Barb Senness
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 554471482
612) 452-5000 Andre, Mcl)iiwcll Puehler
Fax (612) 452-5550
M. tncww K. FhUkl
ohn F. Kelly
Uirpicrite M. McGu'rifln
January 25, 1996 GcOrge 1. SLCE111 n;0n
Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance
Dear Dwight and Barb -
VIA FAC MLE AND MAIL
Enclosed please find the proposed Noise Ordinance. We recommend that the City's
noise consultant review the technical aspects of the ordinance such as the definitions and
whether the impulsive noise standard should be on an A -weighted scale or unweighted.
I also intend to send a confidential letter to the City Council summarizing the major
provisions of the ordinance and discussing the City's legal position in the event of litigation
initiated by Ameridata.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
FUCHS, P.A.
By:
Elliott B. sch
EBK: slc
Enclosure
Suite 317 - Eagan ate. Office C.:cnter i 1380 Cori orate Center Curve • Eagan, MN .55121
900/ZOOz NOSIaNN 'TIagdKV3 0959 Z96 ZT9,Q, 6T:9T 96/9Z/TO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE
PLYMOUTH CITY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR
NOISE CONTROL IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter VI of the Plymouth City Code is amended by adding Section
620 to provide:
Section 620 - Noise Control
620.01 Findings and Policy. Subd. 1. Findings. The City Council finds that
excessive sound and vibration are a serious hazard to the public health and welfare, safety,
and the quality of life for residents of the City. A substantial body of science and technology
exists by which excessive sound and vibration may be substantially abated. The residents of
the City have a right to be free from excessive sound and vibration that may jeopardize their
health or welfare or safety or degrade the quality of life or property.
Subd. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the Cityl of Plymouth to prevent excessive
sound and vibration which may jeopardize the health and welfare of its residents or degrade
the quality of life or property.
620.03. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this Section shall
have the following meanings. Any other word or phrase used in this Section, and defined in
regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agencyoise Pollution Control Rules
Chapter 7030, has the meaning given in those regulations.
a) "City Official" means any duly authorized representative of the City as
designated by the City Manager.
b) "Daytime" means the hours between 7:00I a.m. and 8:00 p.m. during
weekdays and 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. during holidays and weekends.
c) "Decibel (0)" means a unit for measuring the volume of a sound, equal to 20
times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound
measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20
micronewtons per square meter).
31737
900/£000Pj NOS,LIINM 1111a0dKV3 OSSS UP ZT9ZZ OZ:ST 96/SZ/TO
d) "Impulsive Sound" means a sound of short duration, usually less than one
second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sources of
impulsive sound include explosions, drop forge impacts, and the discharge of
firearms.
e) "LlO Level" means the noise level, expressed in dBA, which is exceeded ten
percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures
approved by the City Official.
f) "Loading Dock" means a building, part of a building or area in which freight
is assembled, stored or loaded for routing or shipment by truck; or an area in
which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are
parked, left idling or stored.
g) "Nighttime" means the hours between 8:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. during
weekdays and 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during legal holidays and weekends.
h) "Noise" means any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which causes or
tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans.
i) "Noise level" - see "sound level".
j} "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, trustee,
association, the state and its agencies and subdivisions, or any body of persons
whether incorporated or not. With respect to acts prohibited or required
herein, person shall also include employees and licensees.
k) "Sound" means a temporal and spacial oscillation in pressure or other physical
quantity in a medium with internal forces which causes compressions and
rarefactions of that medium and which is propagable at finite speed to distant
points. The description of sound may include any characteristic of sound,
including duration, intensity and frequency.
1) "Sound Level (Noise Level)" means the A -weighted sound pressure level,
expressed in dBA, obtained by use of a sound -level meter and frequency
weighting network, such as A, B, or C as specified in American National
Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI SI.4-1983, or
the latest approved revision thereof).
m) "Sound Pressure" means the instantaneous difference between the actual
pressure and the average or barometric pressure at a given point in space, as
produced by sound energy.
31737 -2-
900/rooQ NOSIMM 11affiNvo OSSS ZS6 ZT9JQ OZ:ST 96/SZ/TO
n) "Sound Pressure Level (SPL)" means a level expressed in decibels (dB), is 20
times the logarithm to the based ten of the ratio of the observed sound pressure
to a reference pressure of 20 micropascals.
620.05. Noise Source Re uireme _ Subdivision 1. Loading Docks. A loading dock
sound source located within 300 feet of residential property shall not exceed the following
noise levels, as measured at the property line of the receiving land use:
L10 Level
Daytime 60 dBA
Nighttime 50 dBA
Subd. 2. Impulsive Noise Standards.
A. No person shall operate or cause to be operated on private property located within
300 feet of property zoned residential any source of sound which emits an impulsive
sound which exceeds 80 dBA on more than two (2) occasions per three (3)
consecutive hours as measured at the property line of the recciving land use.
B. Exemptions. The impulsive noise standards in this subdivision do not apply to:
a) motor vehicles operating on public streets, construction; aircraft and airport
operations; stationary nonemergency signaling devices; emergency signaling
devices, motorboats; outdoor power tools; refuse collection vehicles;
recreational motorized vehicles operating off public streets;
b) the unamplified human voice;
c) interstate railway locomotives and cars; and
d) all agricultural activities.
620.10 General Testing and Measurement Procedures. The City Official shall adopt
guidelines establishing the test procedures and instrumentation to be utilized, and a copy of
the guidelines shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
620.15 Noise Impact Statements. The City Official may require noise impact
statements in association with, but not limited to, changes in zoning classifications; issuance
of conditional or interim use permits, site plan review, the planning of a structure; or any
operation, process, installation, or alteration which may be considered as a potential noise
source.
31737 -3-
900/SOOZ Hos, aNx 11agdKV3 OSSS ZS6 ZT9Z TZ:ST 96/SZ/TO
620.35 Penalty. Violation of this Section is a misdemeanor. A person convicted of
violating this Section shall also be responsible for paying the costs ofd prosecution. The
imposition of one penalty for any violation of this Section shall not excuse the violation, or
permit it to continue. Each day that a violation exists constitutes a scparate offense. The
City may also seek equitable relief as necessary to cure the violation.
SECTIO. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
ADOPTED by the City Council this day of
19
ATTEST:
Laurie F. Ahrens, City Clerk
31737 4-
Joycelyn Tierney, Mayor
900/900 Q Nos, amm 11agaNvo OSSS ZSV ZTOU TZ ; ST 96/SZ/TO
Star Tribune,
Sat., Jan.27, 1996
presented at the
request of
Councilmember
Anderson
1 vul
r
Twin 'Cities'best in h
By Am Buchts
Star Tribune Staff Writer
How the T
Compared with the
Minne-apple," New York City
A look at the me
cant compete when it comes
urban areas of tl
to housing affordability.
Among 18 metropolitan ar- Characteristicseassurveyed, first-time home
buyers in the Twin Cities met- Medan ehuNnho
ropolitan area had the lowest Frst
Repeat buyeraveragemonthlymortgage
payment as a percentage of
Dorm paymsrr
after-tax income — 28.9 per-
sale p
cent. y Peyt
If you were an averagd first- of after -{ax
time buyer in New York City,
Frst-time buy
Repeat buyeryou'd pay 40.1 percent of your •
after-tax income on your Buying for flrst
house payment, according to Previous' 0va
the survey by the Chicago Title 0- Median houset
and Trust Family of Title In- Frst-time buy
surers. Repeat buyer
Twin Citians spend less of Metro are sum
their paychecks on mortgage Atlanta
payments than home owners Boston
in other parts of country most- Chicago
ly because of low housing Cleveland
costs and healthy wages. Dallasfort Wor
Denver
Turn to SURVEY on D2 Source: Chicago rrtk
r cities of our size and
I a lower -than -average
from Di
she
she
said.
Nin Cities area consls- shot of the U.S. housing marifet, ated in the top 10 list of the survey indicates that middle- rdable places to' bdy a income home owners are cau- he National Association tious about re-entering the mar- iuilders. - ket, in part because of job jitters30strOm, director of thecaused by widespread corporateaofficeoftheFederal
Mortgage Association
ae), said she's not. sur-
downsizing: Nationwide, 27.2
percent of first-time and repeat
home buyers had incomes be- Twin Cities fazed so tween $41,000 and $60,000, the
e 20th annual survey, group's lowest share of all home- Twin Cities area enjoy buyers -since 1985, when income
ian average median in- . first was questioned in the sur - 51,000 fora family of vey. In 1993; that group's share ofhissignificantlyhigherthehomebuyingmarketwas33.4
r cities of our size and
I a lower -than -average
percent.
Other survey findings -
she
she said. The average home buyer inTwinCitiesarea, the the Twin Cities metro area was ;.
yew and used home slightly more youthful thap those
midpoint of all sales,
1 numbers of homes
nationwide. Locally, the average
first-time . buyer was 29.8 yiears
r higher and lower old and the the. average repeat
e from $99,700 in 1993
in 1994 to $108,700 in
buyer was 39.7. Elsewhere in the
country the average age was $2.1
ie four Midwest cities
the Twin Cities
for first-time buyers and 40.7 for
metro
ie largest rise in aver-
repeat buyers.
Twin Cities area home buy -
rices (total dollar vol- ers are increasingly more likely to
ad by the number of buy a home out of wedlock From
age prices were up 6,1 1993 to 1995, the number of mar-
In $116,000 in 1994 to ried buyers -decreased from 75;-. '
1995. percent of all buyers to 64.3 per
n Cities area. houses cent.
nificantly less expen-
sewhere in the United
year the national me -
price was $147,700; ;
eco was the highest at
id Memphis was low-
10.
igenerally rosy snap - i
January 29, 1996
Mr. Curt Johnson, Chair
Metropolitan Council
230 East Fifth Street
Mears Park Centre
St. Paul, MN 55101
tit mW j - 3 D•- `t='
T
DRAFT
Re: Selection Criteria for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Affordable Housing
Incentive Account
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Metropolitan Council will be asked to adopt the Metropolitan Housing Implementation
Group Project (MHIG) Selection Criteria as the selection criteria for the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Affordable Housing Incentive Account. The Project Selection Criteria for
Homeownership / Home Improvement Projects in Section 5 of the draft of the MHIG Project
Selection Criteria includes a Threshold Criteria that requires that: "A Community must have
met or exceeded its Metropolitan Council established benchmark for affordable rental housing
in order to be eligible to receive funding for homeownership projects. "
This criteria would prohibit a community that does not meet its affordable rental housing
benchmark from applying for these funds to work towards meeting its affordable
homeownership goals. We believe that this threshold criteria:
DRAFT
The Metropolitan Council's Community Development Committee is scheduled to consider the
selection criteria at its meeting on February 5, 1996, followed by action by the full Council on
February 8th. For the reasons stated above, we urge the members of the Metropolitan Council
to fully review and discuss this proposed threshold criteria and consider deleting it from the
Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group Project Selection Criteria.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Johnson
City Manager
cc: Metropolitan Council Members Jim Solem
Plymouth City Council Members Craig Rapp
Plymouth State Legislative Delegation Tom McElveen
hra\corms\5047\metcahia