HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 12-19-1994 SpecialPLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1994
5:30 P.M.
Public Safety Training Room
I. HOUSING ISSUES
Receive report from Municipal Legislative Commission
W
DATE: December 15, 1994 for City Council Meeting of December 19, 1994
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: eJiiui urt, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Presentation By Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) on
Affordable Housing
In conjunction with the MLC's presentation of Thomas Research's report An Overview
of Affordable Housing and Related Issues, we will be making a short presentation of
research that City staff have done regarding this topic as it directly relates to the City of
Plymouth. Attached to this memorandum are copies of three reports that staff have
recently produced regarding housing in Plymouth. These reports were compiled in
response to separate requests for information and some overlap does occur in the
information presented. The first report, Housing Affordability in Plymouth, gives the
broadest overview of the subject. Additional details are provided in the other two
reports; Housing in the City of Plymouth: An Excerpt of Characteristics, Needs and
Barriers, and Public Sector Housing Activities.
Staff is in the process of completing one master report that will include the information
in these reports plus additional material. The master report will be used in discussions
with the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the City Council
to develop a strategic plan for the HRA and a revised Housing Component to the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Housing Affordability in Plymouth
The affordability debate has focused on two major claims:
1. There is an inadequate amount of affordable housing in the suburbs.
2. Suburbs exclude affordable housing with zoning and development regulations.
1. Is there affordable housing in Plymouth?
There are several ways to measure the cost of housing in order to assess its affordability. The
Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) report uses assessed value. Other measures are the
average sale price during a defined time period, the median housing value (from the Census),
and the median monthly mortgage or rent payment (Census).
According to City assessment records, 7,254 of homesteaded housing units (42 %) in Plymouth
are assessed at less than $110,000, an amount affordable to households earning 80 percent of
the Twin Cities area median income or less'. This proportion is lower than the percentage
reported by the Municipal Legislative Commission for all participating communities, 48
percent.
The assessed value of a housing unit is not equal to the amount it would take to purchase that
unit. According to the Multiple Listing Service, in the first half of 1994 the average cost of
buying a house on the market in Plymouth was $151,290. Twenty -four percent (24 %), 688
properties, of all housing units sold during this period sold for less than $100,000.
The median housing value in 1990, according to the census as reported by respondents, was
127,500. This value is significantly higher than the median value for Hennepin County,
90,600, and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)2, $87,400.
According to a survey taken by the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in
March of 1994, there were 5,130 apartment rental units in Plymouth. The greatest number of
these apartment units, 1,226, were renting for between $604 and $668, followed by 1,187
units renting for between $702 and $785. A small number of apartments, 320 units, were
renting for $490 or less and all were one bedroom units. The median contract rent in
Plymouth, calculated for one, two and three bedroom units only (98 % of the total units), was
650. A household income of $26,000 would be required to afford the median rent in
Plymouth, according to affordability standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
I The Twin Cities Area Median Income for a family of four is currently $51,000. Eighty percent (80%) of
median income equals $40,800.
2 The Twin Cities MSA, as defined by the census, includes the following thirteen counties: Anoka, Carver,
Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Pierce (WI), Ramsey, St. Croix (WI), Scott, Sherburne, Washington, and
Wright.
1,090 to 1,130
900 to 964
800 to 897
702 to 785
604 to 668
505 to 595
443 to 490
Subsidized Units
Number of Units by Rent Levels
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Number of Units
Source: HRA survey of Plymouth apartment rents, March 1994.
Note: The HRA only surveys unit sizes eligible for the City's Section 8 certificates so rate information on studio -
size and four bedroom units is not included in this calculation.
Housing Affordability
There are several ways to look at these measures of housing cost to determine whether or not
there is an adequate amount of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.
One way is to use a general standard such as the Metropolitan Council's 1985 Housing
Development Guide recommendation that 63 percent of a community's owner - occupied
housing be affordable to households at 80 percent of median income. Using the proportion
calculated in the MLC report, 42 percent of Plymouth's homesteaded housing units were
affordable at this income level.
Making comparisons between the cost of housing in a City and its neighboring communities
and/or its larger region is another way to judge the adequacy of the amount of affordable
housing available. Compared to seven neighboring communities, Plymouth has the fourth
highest median mortgage cost, the fifth highest median rent (according to the Census), and the
third highest median housing value. Plymouth generally has higher housing costs than Maple
Grove, New Hope, and Golden Valley, approximately the same costs as Minnetonka, and
lower costs than Medina, Orono and Wayzata.
2
Cost of Housing in Adjacent Communities
Community Median
Mortgage Cost
Median Rent Median Housing
Value
Golden Valley 896 522 109,200
Maple Grove 919 710 96,000
Medina 1,117 629 121,700
Minnetonka 1,007 660 120,000
New Hope 766 523 92,700
Orono 1,354 675 174,300
Plymouth 1,104 611 127,500
Wayzata 1,187 543 137,700
HENNEPIN COUNTY 833 487 90,600
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
Looking at how affordable a community's current housing stock is to its current residents can
be another indicator of a sufficient supply of affordable housing. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as housing for which a household
pays no more than 30 percent of its income. Information from the census indicates that 4,002
households (22 %) in Plymouth were paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing
in 1990. Of these households, 1,093 of them (6% of total households) paid more than 50
percent of their income for housing.
Because some households may choose to spend more than thirty percent (30%) of their income
on housing, it is important to look specifically at those households that are least able to spend
more of their income on housing. In Plymouth, there were 563 households with incomes 30
percent of median income or less (75 % of households at this income level) that paid more than
30 percent of their income for housing. Five hundred sixty -four households with incomes
from 31 -50 percent of median income (76 % of households at this income level) paid more than
30 percent of their income for housing. And 1,030 households with incomes from 51 to 80
percent of median income (52 % of households at this income level) paid more than 30 percent
of their income for housing. By contrast, 12.5 percent of households with incomes greater
than 80 percent of median paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
Low Income Households with Affordability Problems
Income Level Number of Households Percent Households Percent
Households Paying > 30% Paying > 50%
of Income of Income
30% of Median 752 563 75% 509 68%
Income
31-50% of Median 744 564 76% 265 36%
Income
51-80% of Median 1,971 1,030 52% 217 11%
Income
80% of Median 14,746 1,845 12.5% 102 0.7%
Income
Source: CHAS Databook, Table 5, Parts 5 and 8
3
w
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Low Income Households that Paid More than 30 Percent of Their
Income for Housing
1971
30% of Median 31 -50% of Median 51 -80% of Median
Income Level
Households ® Paid > 30 % for Housing
Source: HUD CHAS Databook
Affordable Units
In 1990, 1 percent of Plymouth's housing units were affordable to households earning less than
30 percent of median income, 11 percent to households earning between 31 and 50 percent of
median, and 35 percent to households earning between 51 and 80 percent of median.
Units Affordable to Low Income Households
Income Level Owner - Occupied Renter - Occupied Total Housing
Units Units Units
Units Affordable to Households < 30% of 64 150 214
Median Income 0.5 %) 3 %) 1%)
Units Affordable to Households 31 -50% of 261 212 473
Median Income 2 %) 4 %) 2 %)
Units Affordable to Households 51 -80% of 2,013 4,201 6,214
Median Income 14.5 %) 75 %) 32 %)
TOTAL Occupied and Vacant Units 13,8321 5,611 1 19,443
Source: CHAS Databook, Table 4, Parts 1 and 2
A comparison of the number of units affordable to households of certain income levels to the
number of households at the same income level indicates there is a shortage of units affordable
to households with incomes less than or equal to 50 percent of median income (the greatest
portion being households with incomes less than 30 percent of median income) but a surplus of
units for households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent of median income.
4
This "surplus" of housing units affordable to households with incomes 51 to 80 percent of
median income does not, however, mean that the households with incomes in this range are
actually living in the units affordable to them. There were 1,030 households in this income
category paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing. The comparison does not
account for households with incomes greater than 80 percent of median income that may be
living in units affordable at the 80 percent level and below.
Affordable Housing Units Compared to Households
Income Level Total Housing
Units
Number of
Households
Shortage /Surplus
of Units
0 -30% of Median Income 214 752 538
31 -50% of Median Income 473 744 271
51 -80% of Median Income 3,876 1,971 1,905
80% of Median Income' 0 63 3,467 1,096'.
Source: CHAS Databook. Table 4. Parts 1 and 2: Table 5. Parts 5 and 8
Public Sector Housing Activities
There are several things Plymouth has done to increase affordable housing in the City. They
include the following activities:
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Section 8 Rent Assistance Program The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
HRA) has administered its own Section 8 Certificate program since 1976. The HRA was
originally created to enable the City to enter into its own Annual Contributions Contract
ACC) with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive Section 8
Certificates. At this time, the City is under contract with HUD for eighty -seven certificates.
Because Section 8 Certificate recipients may use their certificates throughout the metropolitan
area, Plymouth has certificate holders who are "port outs" and who are "port ins".
Specifically, 24 of Plymouth's certificates were being used outside of Plymouth, and 60 of
other communities' certificates were being used in Plymouth as of November 30, 1994 making
a total of 123 Section 8 Certificates being used in Plymouth.
The HRA consistently has many families on the waiting list to receive a Section 8 certificate
and has applied but been turned down for additional certificates to serve this unmet need.
HUD currently requires jurisdictions to operate a qualified Family Self- Sufficiency program in
order to receive additional certificates. Plymouth is working with the St. Louis Park HRA to
develop a self - sufficiency program to serve families in both communities and enable the cities
to apply for additional certificates.
5
Only a small number of apartments in the City rent for under the Fair Market Rent (FMR), the
level required by HUD for a unit to qualify under the Section 8 program. Because of this, the
city of Plymouth has applied for and received exception rents which set a higher rent standard
for the City at the point where 45 percent of all rental units qualify for the Section 8 program.
These exception rents are currently between 13 and 14 percent higher than HUD's FMRs.
Plymouth Exception Rents Compared to Fair Market Rents
Unit Size Fair Market Plymouth Difference Percentage
Rehabilitation
Rents* Exception Rents **
33%
Higher
1 Bedroom 483 546 63 13%
2 Bedroom 615 716 101 16%
3 Bedroom 834 950 116 14%_
As of October 1, 1994
Applied for in July, 1993
Section 8 Vouchers The city of Plymouth has contracted with the Metropolitan HRA to
administer any Section 8 vouchers used in Plymouth. There were fifty vouchers being used in
the City as of August 31, 1994.
Community Development Block Grant Program The city of Plymouth is an entitlement
community for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Since 1975, the
City has received $3.2 million in CDBG funds and 74 percent, $2.4 million, of the City's
funds have been used to fund housing activities.
Over one -third of all CDBG funds have been used for housing rehabilitation. Twenty -three
percent (23 %) have been used for two different first -time homebuyer programs.
In addition to these two primary housing activities, the HRA has used CDBG to fund pre -
development and planning costs for a senior housing project, to help support special needs
housing developments, non - profit housing developments, and a tenant advocacy service.
CDBG Funding for Housing
Housing Activity Total
Funding
Percent of
Total CDBG
Housing Funds
Percent of
Total CDBG
Funding
Number of
Units
Assisted
Rehabilitation 1,077,725 45% 33% 154
Homeownership 739,731 31% 23% 48
Scattered Site Development 394,631 16% 12% 5`r
First -time Homebuyer Program 345,100 14% 11% > 43 !_
Senior Housing Planning /Pre - development 432,149 18% 13% 97
Special Needs Housing 118,228 5% 4% 3
Non - profit Housing Development 41,000 2% 1 % 2
Tenant Advocacy 10,000 0.4% 0.3% NA
TOTAL 2,418,833 1 100% 74% 304
Source: Plymouth HRA, CDBG Funding Summary
2
Senior Citizen Housing: Plymouth Towne Square In October 1994, the first subsidized
apartment building for senior citizens in Plymouth was completed. The ninety -nine unit
building provides subsidized housing for senior citizens, with priority given to applicants with
incomes 50 or 80 percent of median income. Plymouth Towne Square is financed, owned,
operated and subsidized by the HRA.
Non - Profit Activities In the last two years, the HRA has allocated CDBG and other funding
to a number of non - profit housing developers. Several non - profit units are in the process of
being purchased or constructed. The developers funded are as follows:
Community Builders: Operating a Lease -to- Purchase Program for two units in Plymouth.
A household will rent the unit for two years while participating in a homeownership
training program and then assume ownership of the property.
Community Home Program: Constructing a duplex for foster care housing for physically
handicapped adults.
Hammer Residence: Purchasing one single family unit for supportive housing for
developmentally disabled adults.
Plymouth Housing Alliance: Currently constructing a single family home for first -time
homeownership by a low- income family.
Housing Revenue Bonds The City approved an application to the state for nine million
dollars in multi - family housing revenue bonds for an individual to purchase and rehabilitate a
313 -unit apartment complex. The use of revenue bonds requires that 20 percent of all units be
leased to households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median income.
Non -HRA Affordable Housing Units
Section 8 New Construction There are 153 project - based, federally subsidized units in the
City. These Section 8 New Construction developments rent to families with incomes less than
50 percent of median income and limit rent to 30 percent of a tenant's income. The four
Section 8 buildings are on scattered sites throughout the southern portion of the City.
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency - Funded Units A limited number of Plymouth
developments have received funding through various Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
MHFA) programs:
A seventeen unit apartment building received an Apartment Renovation Mortgage (ARM).
ARM limits the building to charging fair market rent (FMR) and requires that 75 percent
of the units be rented to households with annual incomes no more than sixty -six times the
gross monthly rent.
A development utilizing Low Income Tax Credits (LITC) is in the approval process. This
sixty -four unit building will serve tenants with incomes no more than 60 percent of median
income.
7
The Community Involvement Program, a non - profit organization, rehabilitated a HUD -
foreclosed property through MHFA's HUD $1 Home Program to provide one unit of
supportive housing for persons with mental illness.
The Homeward Bound program received funding through MHFA's Developmental
Disabilities program for the purchase of one supportive housing unit for persons with
developmental disabilities.
Summary
The number of affordable housing units assisted with public funds are summarized in the
following tables (as mentioned previously, some units are in process).
Publicly- Supported Affordable Housing Units
Program /Development Units for Units for Units for Units for
207
Essential Service Bonds
50% of 60% of 80% of Special
Section 8 Surplus Operating Reserves
Median Median Median Needs
305>
Income Income Income Individuals
HRA UNITS
Section 8 Certificates 123 123' >''
Section 8 Vouchers 50 50'
Plymouth Towne Square 33 64 97
Housing Rehabilitation 154 154
Scattered Site Homeownership 5 5
First Time Homebuyer Program 43 43
Non - profit Homeownership 2 1 3
Non-profit Special Needs Housing 3 3
Subtotal 206 156 113 3 478;;
NON -HRA AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing Revenue Bonds for 46 46
Multi - Family Rehabilitation
Section 8 New Construction 153 153
MHFA programs 64 17 2 83
Subtotal 199 64 17 282
TOTAL 405 220 .130 5 760
Source: Plymouth HRA
Summary of HRA Funding Resources
Program Amount Number of Units
Community Development Block Grant 2,418,833 207
Essential Service Bonds 6,700,000 97
HRA Tax Levy (maximum annual subsidy) 300,000
Section 8 Surplus Operating Reserves 42,415 1
TOTAL 9,4 1 248' 305>
Source: Plymouth HRA
2. Is Plymouth Excluding Low and Moderate Income Housing Through Zoning and
Development Regulations?
While it may be disputed whether or not zoning and development regulations artificially drive
up the cost of land, it is difficult to deny that these regulations increase the cost of a housing
unit. The extent to which they increase the cost, however, has not been determined.
A report published by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, Land Use Practices:
Exclusionary Zoning. De Facto or De Jure, compares the local land use regulations and
development fees of several developing suburban communities in the Twin Cities including
Plymouth. The report illustrates that Plymouth charges fees that are similar to other
communities but has several land use regulations that are more stringent -- both of which can
increase the cost of a housing unit. Of the ten communities studied, Plymouth has the second
largest minimum lot size requirement of 18,500 square feet.3 Plymouth has the largest
minimum lot width (I 10 feet), and the largest minimum lot area requirement for multi - family
housing (4,000 square feet). Plymouth also has several other regulations that apply
specifically to, or are more stringent in cases of multi - family development.
The minimum lot sizes for the ten communities range from 9,000 square feet in Edina to
22,000 square feet in Minnetonka. The lowest minimum lot width is in Shakopee with a
requirement of sixty feet. Minnetonka is the only one of the ten communities without a
minimum lot area requirement for multi - family housing. The Metropolitan 1985 Housing
Development Guide recommends a minimum single - family lot size of 6,000 to 8,000 square
feet, minimum lot widths in general be reduced, and that multi - family minimum floor area
requirements be reduced or eliminated.
The zoning requirements listed in the report are only the requirements for the "strictest"
zoning district in the City. There are four additional districts with a minimum lot size as low
as 5,000 square feet for a two - family home. However, 74 percent of the total land in the City
land within the MUSA and zoned residential) is guided LA 1 with a minimum lot size of
18,500 square feet.
The City does provide some ways that a development can earn credits to reduce the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit in residence districts R -2, R -3, and R -4. These criteria include the
following:
excess underground parking spaces are added,
the site is adjacent to a business or industrial use zone,
the site is adjacent to an arterial street with daily traffic volume greater than 10,000
vehicles,
the residence is taller than three stories,
a dilapidated structure is razed, and /or
3 The report actually lists 15,000 square feet as the minimum lot size. Although some zoning districts in the City
allow for lots that are 15,000 square feet and smaller, the largest minimum lot size required in a zoning district is
18,500 square feet.
0'
the development contains units affordable to low and moderate income families.
In addition, the City allows for planned unit developments (PUDs) which can utilize flexibility
in the density of development. PUDs can also earn bonus points that allow for increased
densities above the guide plan limits. Bonus points are awarded for PUDs meeting any of the
following criteria: the project size is larger than forty acres, the project provides a significant
percentage of low and moderate income housing, the project provides a variety of housing
types, and /or the project demonstrates affirmative design in the provision of open space. City
staff estimate that about half of the residential developments they review are PUDs.
Barriers not Present in Plymouth
There are several zoning and development regulations that can add to the cost of housing that
are not required in the city of Plymouth. Plymouth has no minimum floor area requirement,
does not require certain construction materials be used, has no ordinances governing historic
preservation of housing units, and no garage requirement for single family homes. In
addition, City zoning allows for manufactured or mobile homes that have permanent
foundations.
Barriers to Affordable Housing Beyond the Control of the City
In addition to these regulatory requirements, there are several other forces that affect the cost
of housing but are beyond the immediate control of the City.
1. The property tax system in Minnesota creates disincentives for the production of affordable
housing.
Localities rely on property taxes for revenue. To avoid raising property taxes, which is
politically unpopular, localities look to alternative sources of revenue. Fees and
assessments are two areas that localities can look towards to increase revenue without
raising individual taxes.
Local reliance on property taxes for revenue creates an incentive for localities to
encourage higher value property as a means of maximizing revenue.
The tax rate for non - homesteaded property (rental property) averages three to three -
and -a -half times the rate for single family homesteaded, or owner - occupied property.4
2. The 1986 income tax reforms disallowed the use of investment losses in rental housing as
a tax deduction. This change, combined with the tax rate differential, leaves fewer
incentives for private developers to invest in multi - family rental housing much less rental
housing that is affordable.
3. Demographically, a large percentage of the American population is in the stage of the life
cycle when households have children and begin to seek move -up housing. This factor
creates a huge demand for single family homes large enough to accommodate families and
4 Citizens League. "The Case for a Regional Housing Policy in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area." May 1994.
10
in neighborhoods they perceive as suitable for raising children. Culturally, housing serves
as a status symbol for Americans. People reinforce their social standing with the type and
price of house in which they live. As people move through the life cycle, they may
improve their career status and increase their income. Subsequently, they purchase
housing to reflect these improvements in social standing. The private marketplace has thus
created a demand for housing in Plymouth that has driven up housing costs.
4. Fourteen percent (14 %) of Plymouth's land is outside the MUSA which means it can only
be developed at rural densities without public sewer and water. Of the City's residentially -
guided land within the MUSA, 1,444 acres remain vacant. Wetlands cover 29 percent of
the vacant land inside the MUSA leaving a little over 1,000 acres inside the MUSA
available for residential development.
The shrinking supply of vacant land within the MUSA is likely one cause of the increasing
land costs in the City. The City's Assessor's Office estimates that the average vacant lot in
Plymouth, without public improvements, is currently selling for $50- 60,000. Households
earning less than 80 percent of the area median income would be able to afford very little
house if they paid the average price for the lot alone.
Issues
Current land prices make the cost of developing affordable housing prohibitive.
The City is running out of residential land which only increases the price of land. There is
especially a shortage of land zoned for multi - family residential housing. While the MUSA
line very likely contributes to increased land costs in Plymouth, the City's large lot size
and low density requirements compound the problem. The location of the MUSA may be
outside the City's control, but the lot size, density and amount zoned for residential use are
decisions made by the City. Smaller lots, higher density, and more land zoned for
residential use would increase the supply and consequently reduce the price.
The City's large lot size and width increase the total cost of purchasing and developing
land for housing.
There is a need for a community to meet life cycle housing needs. As people move
through the life cycle, their housing needs change. The age and composition of households
in the City is changing. How will the City meet the housing needs of its citizens in ten,
twenty and thirty years? Will people have to move to other communities when their
housing needs change? Will Plymouth be left with an oversupply of large single family
homes?
There are things other levels of government can do to make it easier to develop affordable
housing in the suburbs. Differentials in tax rates for multi - family housing, public
resources for creating affordable housing, and environmental restrictions are under the
control of the state and federal governments.
11
The Housing Choice Approach
A question the City should ask itself is whether or not its housing stock meets the needs of
current residents and what those residents will need as they move through the life cycle. Also,
does the housing stock meet the needs of persons working but not living in Plymouth? Young
singles are likely to live in smaller apartment units, families with children in larger houses,
families with children who have left home will look to smaller homes, and elderly people
move back to smaller apartment units. People will also have varied buying power during these
periods so a housing stock with a variety of prices will better meet the different needs.
The following questions are important to consider when planning to meet housing needs:
What household types live in Plymouth?
At what stage are people in the housing life cycle?
What income levels live in Plymouth?
What income levels work in Plymouth?
What variety of housing types is available in the City?
What variety of housing prices is available?
What variety of housing tenure is available?
What changes can be expected to occur in housing need and demand?
Linking Jobs, Transportation and Housing Approach
A current Metropolitan Council policy emphasizes the linking of jobs, transportation and
housing within the metropolitan region. Using this approach, community plans should focus
on the types of jobs that are available in the community, or group of communities, and
whether or not people who work in these jobs can afford to live in the area. This policy also
encourages increased transit services to promote access to suburban jobs.
Staff have been reviewing employment statistics as part of an analysis of housing needs for
Plymouth workers who do not live in the City. To date, the results have been inconclusive
and will require additional study. The following table provides an example of some of the
employment data available and shows the range of earnings made by Plymouth residents
compared to the earnings made by people who work in Plymouth. The comparison shows that
there are slightly more jobs that pay $10,000 and less than there are residents who earn this
amount. There are fewer jobs that pay $50,000 and more than there are residents who earn
this amount.
12
Employment in Plymouth Versus Employment of Plymouth Residents
Earnings City of
Plymouth
Jobs
Jobs of
Plymouth
Residents
Difference Percent of
Total
Plymouth
Jobs
Percent of
Total Jobs of
Plymouth
Residents
5,000 2,512 2,793 281 7% 10%
5- 10,000 3,141 2,469 672 9% 8%
10- 15,000 4,088 2,807 1,281 12% 10%
15- 20,000 5,542 3,215 2,327 16% 10%
20- 25,000 4,681 2,893 1,788 13% 10%
25- 30,000 4,146 2,280 1,866 12% 8%
30- 35,000 3,068 2,667 401 9% 9%
35- 50,000 4,712 4,369 343 13% 15%
50- 75,000 2,188 3,085 897 6% 11%
75,000 + 1,343 2,322 979 4% 8%
TOTAL 35,421 28,900 6,521 100% 100%
Source: 1990 Census Transportation Planning Package
13
Housing in the City of Plymouth:
An Excerpt of Characteristics, Needs, and Barriers
An important part of planning to meet the future needs of a community is looking at the
characteristics of that community today and how those characteristics have changed from the
past. There are several pieces of information regarding the characteristics of Plymouth that the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority can use to plan for meeting the future housing needs of
Plymouth. Valuable information can be gleaned by reviewing demographic and housing data,
present housing needs, development patterns, and potential barriers to meeting identified
needs. Examples of some of this information regarding the City and what it suggests about
housing needs are included below.
Plymouth Demographics
Changing Household Composition
The household composition of Plymouth residents changed during the 1980s. Although
families with children under the age of 18 still make up the largest group, they grew at a
slower rate than all other types of households.
As the household composition changes, the needs for different types and prices of housing
change as well.
Sources: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census
1980 1990 Change Change
Households 10,491 180361 7,870 75%
Population 31,615 50,889 19,274 61%
Persons per Household 3.01 2.8 21 7%
Non - family Households (HHs) 2,425 4,646 2,221 92%
Non - family HHs: People Living Alone 1,798 3,248 1,450 81%
Non - family HHs: People not Living Alone 627 1,398 771 123%
Families 8,066 13,715 5,649 70%
Married Couple Families with Children < 18 4,492 6,335 1,843 41%
Number of Children < 18 years old 8,993 11,955 2,962 33%
Number of Children per Family 2.0 1.9 0.1 5%
Married Couple Families without Children 2,687 5,629 2,942 109%
Female Householder Families with Children 506 861 355 70%
Number of Children < 18 years old 841 1,328 487 58%
Number of Children per Family 1.7 1.5 0.2 12%
Female Householder Families without Children 188 509 321 171%
Male Householder Families 193 381 188 97%
Sources: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census
Changes in Age Composition
Plymouth's population is aging. An individual's age, or the stage at which that person is
in the life cycle, affects the type and price of housing he or she needs.
The number of people ages 35 to 44 grew by the largest number during the 1980s although
persons ages 25 to 34 remained the largest group.
The number of people ages 65 and older grew at the fastest rate of any age group, 140
percent from 1980 to 1990.
Age Range 1980 Total 1990 Total Change Percent
Change
0 to 4 2,343 4,111 1,768 75%
5 to 14 5,963 7,700 1,737 29%
15 to 24 5,817 6,856 1,039 18%
25 to 34 6,076 9,994 3,918 64%
35 to 44 5,395 9,862 4,467 83%
45 to 54 3,193 6,492 3,299 103%
55 to 64 1,794 3,331 1,537 86%
65 +
1
1,064 2,543 1,479 140%
TOTAL 1 31,6451 50,8891 19,244 61%
Sources: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census
Income Distribution
1990 Age
Breakdown
Number of
People
60 to 64 1,246
65 to 69 1,066
70 to 74 761
75 to 79 366
80 to 84 228
85 + 54
TOTAL 1 3,721
According to the 1990 Census, the median income in Plymouth was $51,314. The median
income for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was $36,565.
In 1990, 2,884 households (16 %) in Plymouth had an annual income of less than $25,000.
Housing Characteristics
In 1990, there were 19,616 housing units in Plymouth, a 78 percent increase in units since
1980. Seventy -four percent (74 %) of these units were owner - occupied and 26 percent
renter - occupied.
Age of the Housing Stock
At the time of the census, nearly half of all the housing units in Plymouth, 9,297 units
47 %), had been built during the 1980s.
753 housing units, 4 percent, were built prior to 1950.
Size of Housing Units
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 and 1 2 Bedrooms 3 or More
Bedroom Bedrooms
Owner - Occupied Units
Rental Units
Undefined Vacant
Units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS
Databook, Table 3, 1990.
3
Number of Units by
Year of Construction
1980 -90 9,297 units
1970 -79 5,882 units
1960 -69 2,624 units
1950 -59 1,060 units
1940 -49 341 units
Prior to 1939 412 units
TOTAL 19,616 units
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
According to the 1990
Census, only 589
renter - occupied units
had three or more
bedrooms.
According to a 1994
survey of apartment
and townhouse rental
units, conducted by the
HRA, there were 412
apartment and
townhouse rental units
with three or more
bedrooms in the City.
Cost of Housing
The median housing value for the City in 1990 was $127,400, compared to $87,400 for the
Twin Cities MSA. Median housing values were highest in the northern-most portion of the
City. [see Median Housing Values map for median housing values by census tract] The
median mortgage payment, for those households with a mortgage, was $1,104 compared to
819 for the Twin Cities MSA.
The median rent for Plymouth in 1990 was $611, compared to $479 for the Twin Cities
MSA. According to the 1994 HRA survey, a small number of apartments, 320 units, rent
for $490 or less and all are one bedroom units. Most apartment units in Plymouth rent for
more than the Twin Cities fair market rent, which is established as a "reasonable" rent for
the Section 8 Certificate Program. Only 301 units in Plymouth meet the fair market
standard. I
Compared to its immediately adjacent communities, Plymouth had the fourth lowest
median rent of the eight communities. It had the fourth highest median mortgage payment
and the third highest median housing value.
Cost of Housing in Adjacent Communities
Community Median Rent Median Mortgage
Payment
Median Housing
Value
Golden Valley 522 896 109,200
Maple Grove 710 919 96,000
Medina 629 1,117 121,700
Minnetonka 660 1,007 120,000
New Hope 523 766 92,700
Orono 675 1,354 174,300
Plymouth 611 1,104 127,500
Wayzata 543 1,187 137,700
HENNEPIN COUNTY 487 833 90,600
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
Housing Needs
Low and Moderate Income Housing Needs
According to the census, there were 3,427 households living in Plymouth in 1990 with
annual incomes of 80 percent of the Twin Cities area median income or less. Of these
households, 62 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing. A greater
percentage of lower income households paid more than 30 percent of their income for
housing.
1 The Twin Cities fair market rents (FMR), before October 1, 1994, were as follows: 1 BR, $474; 2 BR, $604;
3 BR, $819 (although the FMRs changed October 1, the old levels are used because the survey of apartment
buildings was taken prior to the change in fair market rents)
4
2
1
1
Low and Moderate Income Households with Housing Affordability Problems
Income Level
51 -80% of Median
Source: CHAS Databook, Table 5, Parts 5 and 8
Total Households
Is Paying > 30% of Income
for Housing
Housing Needs of Households with Incomes Less Than 80 Percent of Median Income
There were 1,792 non - elderly households with incomes 80 percent of the Twin Cities area
median income or less (69 %), who paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing.
Of elderly households at this income level, 392 households (43 %), paid more than 30
percent of their income for housing.
Housing Tenure/
Household Type
Number of HHs
80% of Median
Income
HHs Paying >
30% of Income
on Housing
Percent HHs Paying >
50% of Income
on Housing
Percent
Renters
Elderly Households 185 165 89% 75 41%
Non - Elderly Households 1,538 1,025 67% 342 22%
All Households 1,723 1,190 69% 417 24%
Owners
Elderly Households 730 227 31% 123 17%
Non - Elderly Households 1,014 740 73% 451 44%
All Households 1,744 967 55% 574 33%
Renters and Owners
Elderly Households 915 392 43% 198 22%
Non - Elderly Households 2,552 1,765 69% 793 31%
All Households 3,467 2,157 62% 991 29%
Source: HUD CHAS Databook, 1990
2
Affordable Housing Units
6,901 housing units (35 %) in Plymouth were affordable to households with incomes less
than 80 percent of the Twin Cities area median in 1990. As illustrated in the previous
table, however, of the 3,467 households with incomes at this level, 2,157 households
62 %) were spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. The existence of
affordable housing does not guarantee that the households who most need this housing will
benefit from it.
Income Level Owner- Renter- Total Housing
Units for
Occupied Units Occupied Units Units
Units Affordable to Households < 30% 64 150 214
of Median Income 0.5%) 3 %) 1 %)
Units Affordable to Households < 50 % 325 362 687
of Median Income 2 %) 6 %) 3.5 %)
Units Affordable to Households < 80% 2,338 4,563 6,901
of Median Income 17%) 81%) 35 %)
TOTAL Occupied and Vacant Units 13,832 5,611 19,443
Source: CHAS Databook, Table 4, Parts 1 and 2
HRA and Other Publicly- Supported Housing
The Plymouth HRA and other governmental and non - profit agencies have assisted 760
units of affordable housing for low and moderate income households and persons with
special needs (as of November 30, 1994).
Program /Development Units for Units for Units for Units for TOTAL
50% of 60% of 80% of Special
Median Median Median Needs
Income Income Income Individuals
HRA UNITS
Section 8 Certificates 123 123
Section 8 Vouchers 50 50 <
Plymouth Towne Square 33 64 97
Housing Rehabilitation 154 154
Scattered Site Homeownership 5 5
First Time Homebuyer Program 43 43
Non -profit Homeownership 2 1 3
Non-profit Supportive Housing 3 3
Subtotal 206 156: 113 3 478
NON -HRA AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing Revenue Bonds for 46 46
Multi - Family Rehabilitation
Section 8 New Construction 153 153 >
MHFA programs 64 17 2 83
Subtotal 199 64 Ill., 17:1 11 2$2
TOTAL 4051 220`, 1 130 51 760;
Source: Plymouth HRA
7
Public Sector Housing Activities
I. Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Section 8 Rent Assistance Program
The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has administered its own Section
8 Certificate program since 1976. The HRA was originally created to enable the City to enter
into its own Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to receive Section 8 Certificates. The City is under contract with HUD
for a certain number of certificates each year. Communities without an HRA may elect to
participate in the Section 8 program through the Metro HRA, however, these communities are
not guaranteed that anyone from their community will receive a certificate or that any
certificate holder will locate in their community.
At this time, the City is under contract with HUD for 87 certificates:
1 Bedroom -- 17 certificates
2 Bedroom -- 67 certificates
3 Bedroom -- 3 certificates
Because Section 8 Certificate recipients may use their certificates throughout the metropolitan
area, Plymouth has certificate holders who "port out" to other communities and who "port ins"
from other communities. Specifically, 24 of Plymouth's certificates were being used outside
of Plymouth, and 60 of other communities' certificates were being used in Plymouth (as of
November 30, 1994). This made a total of 123 Section 8 Certificates being used in Plymouth.
123 units
As of July 31, 1994, there were ninety -six families on the Section 8 waiting list, forty -one
waiting for a one - bedroom certificate and fifty -five waiting for a two - bedroom certificate. The
HRA opens its waiting list approximately once every three years although it may be longer for
one - bedroom certificates. Fifteen to twenty certificates turn over every year.
Additional Demand: 96 units
The HRA has applied and been turned down for additional certificates to serve this unmet
need. HUD currently requires jurisdictions to operate a qualified Family Self - Sufficiency
program in order to receive additional certificates. Plymouth is working with the St. Louis
Park HRA to develop a self - sufficiency program to serve families in both communities and
enable the cities to apply for additional certificates.
A small number of apartments in the City, 301 units (5 %)1 rent for under the Fair Market
Rent, the level required by HUD for a unit to qualify under the Section 8 program with a
bedroom size to match Plymouth's size allocation of certificates. The city of Plymouth has
applied for and received exception rents which set a higher rent standard for the City at the
point where 45 percent of all rental units qualify for the Section 8 program (45 % at the time
the City applies for the exception rents). The City last applied for exception rents in July
1993.
The current exception rents in Plymouth, the maximum rent allowable under the Section 8
program, are as follows:
1 Bedroom: 546
2 Bedrooms: 716
3 Bedrooms: 950
Landlords are not required to participate in the Section 8 program. Currently in Plymouth,
1,704 units (29 % of all units) are both eligible and willing to accept Section 8 Certificates.
Vouchers. The city of Plymouth has contracted with the Metropolitan HRA to administer any
Section 8 vouchers used in Plymouth. Unlike the Section 8 Certificate program, the City felt
it would not benefit from administering the voucher program on its own as it has with the
certificate program. Because the vouchers can be transferred nationally, staff felt that
Plymouth (or even metro area) residents would receive no added benefit from local
administration. There were fifty vouchers being used in the City as of August 31, 1994.
50 units
Total Number of Units Made Affordable to Low Income Households: 173 units
Total Documented Unmet Need: 96 units
Community Development Block Grant Program
The city of Plymouth is an entitlement community for the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program. Since 1975, the City has received $3.2 million in CDBG funds.
Seventy-four percent (74%), $2.4 million, of the City's total CDBG funds have been used to
fund housing activities.
housing developments, non-profit housing developments, and a tenant advocacy service.
Table 1]
The non -housing activities that have received the most CDBG funding are park
improvements and programs, $244,707 and child care subsidies, $230,500. [Table 2]
TABLE 1: CDBG Funding for Housing
Housing Activity Total Funding Percent of
Total Housing
Percent of Total
CDBG Funding
Rehabilitation 1,077,725 45% 33%
Homeownership 739,73131 23%
Scattered Site Development 394,631 16°l 12%
First-time Homebuyer Program 345,100 I4°lo 11
Senior Housing 432,149 18% 13%
Special Needs Housing 118,228 5% 4%
Non-profit Housing Development 41,000 2% 1 %
Tenant Advocacy 10,000 1 0.4% 1 0.3%
TOTAL 2,418,833 1 100% 174%
Source: Plymouth HRA, CDBG Funding Summary
TABLE 2: CDBG Funding for Non -Housing Activities
Activity Total Funding Percent of Total
Non -Housing
Percent of Total
CDBG Funding
Child Care Subsidies 230,500 28% 7%
Park Subtotal 244,707 29% 8%
Park land Acquisition 81,753 10%3%'>
Park Development' 87,854 11 % 3 %'
Park Accessibility 65,100'' 8 % 2 %'
Park and Recreation 10,000 1 % 0.3%
Community -wide Planning 173,751 21% 5%
Planning and Administration 146,815 18% 5%
Displaced Worker Training 1,000 0.1% 0.03%
Contingency Fund 10,000 1 % 0.3%
Early Childhood Education 10,300 1 % 0.3%
Reforestation 10,000 1% 0.3%
Runaway Youth 5,000 1%1 0.2%
TOTAL 832,073 100% 26%
Source: Plymouth HRA, CDBG Funding Summary
Housing Rehabilitation Program
1993 Program Statistics
Total number of applications 12
Total number of units completed 7
Total amount expended $37,391
Average grant per completed unit $5,342
Overall Program Statistics
Total number of units 154
Average number of units per year 8.5
Average allocation per year $57,000
Average grant $5,546
Total Units Preserved Through Low Income Rehabilitation: 154 units
First Time Homebuyer Program
The First Time Homebuyer Program, begun in 1992, provides a second mortgage to first time
homebuyers to write down the cost of a conventional mortgage. Households have to have an
income less than 80 percent of median income to qualify for a maximum grant of $20,000.
Forty -three households have received financial assistance through the program (as of October
28, 1994).
1994* Statistics
Average household income $24,006
Average household size 2.4
Number of recipients 19
Average home value $77,721
Total funds expended $218,000
Average grant $11,474
Overall Program Statistics*
Average household income 24,941
Average household size 2.7
Total number of recipients 43
Average number of recipients per year 14.3
Average home value 74,571
Total funds expended 495,300
Average grant 11,519
As of October 28, 1994
First -time Homebuyer Program: 43 units
4
Prior to the current First Time Homebuyer program, the City operated a scattered site
homeownership program. Through this program, the HRA either constructed or purchased
and rehabilitated homes for first time homebuyers. Households had to be moderate income
less than 80 percent of median) to qualify and have five or more family members. This
program ran from 1984 to 1992, and through the program the HRA constructed two units and
purchased, moved and rehabilitated three units.
Overall Proeram Statistics
Average number of units per year 0.6
Average funds expended per year $58,491
Average funds expended per home $93,586
Average sale price per home $60,000
Scattered Site Homeownership: 5 units
Total Moderate Income Homeownership: 48 units
Senior Citizen Housing: Plymouth Towne Square
In October 1994, the first subsidized apartment building for senior citizens in Plymouth was
completed. The 99 -unit building provides affordable housing for senior citizens, with priority
given to applicants with incomes 50 or 80 percent of median income. Plymouth Towne Square
was financed, developed, and is owned and operated by the HRA.
A portion of the planning and pre - development costs for the project were paid for with CDBG
funds. Purchase of the property and financing for the actual project, however, was provided
through City resources. The project was financed with one million dollars from the HRA's
property tax levy fund and $5.7 million in Government Housing Project Bonds which were
purchased by the City to provide low - interest financing for the project.
In addition, up to $300,000 of the HRA tax levy will be annually used to provide ongoing
rental subsidies to tenants, based on their income. Tenants with incomes up to 50 percent of
median income receive a subsidy so that they pay no more than 30 percent of their income on
rent. Tenants with incomes up to 80 percent of median income receive a subsidy so that they
pay no more than 33 percent of their income on rent. The average monthly subsidy is
estimated to be approximately $250 per unit. Two of the units are occupied by building
caretakers.
97 units
In addition to providing appropriate, affordable housing for elderly citizens, the HRA
anticipates that the senior housing development will produce an added benefit of making
housing units available to low and moderate income first time homebuyers as seniors sell their
homes to move into Plymouth Towne Square. Many of the City's senior citizens have lived in
5
Plymouth for a number of years and own housing that is older and lower -priced than newer
housing in Plymouth.
Non - Profit Activities
In the last two years, the HRA has allocated CDBG funding to several non - profit housing
developers. Several of the non - profit units are in the process of being purchased or
constructed.
Community Builders
Activity: Lease -to- Purchase Program; a household will rent unit for two years while
participating in a homeownership training program and then assume ownership of
the property
Proposed Unit(s): Two existing single family homes needing rehabilitation
Proposed Population: Low income renters (40 to 60 percent of median income)
HRA Assistance: $40,000 CDBG grant for acquisition costs
2 units
Community Home Program
Activity: Adult foster care housing
Proposed Unit(s): New construction of one duplex
Proposed Population: Physically handicapped adults (special needs)
HRA Assistance: $38,200 CDBG grant for acquisition of land and additional pre -
development costs
2 units
8 individuals)
Hammer Residence
Activity: Supportive housing
Proposed Unit(s): New construction of one single family unit
Proposed Population: Developmentally disabled adults (special needs)
HRA Assistance: $31,000 CDBG grant for acquisition of land and additional pre -
development costs
Note: Hammer Residences operates eight additional units in Plymouth as well (serving 32
people).
1 unit
Plymouth Housing Alliance
Activity: New construction with volunteer labor for first -time home ownership
Proposed Unit(s): New construction of one single family home per year
Z
Proposed Population: Large families (four or more persons with a priority given to families
with six or more) with a maximum income of $40,000 per year
HRA Assistance: -- $42,415 (as of 1993) of surplus Section 8 Operating Reserve funds were
used to provide staff support to the PHA and to purchase ($27,000) and
develop the property for the initial project.
The HRA has guaranteed the maximum $20,000 grant from the First -
Time Homebuyer program to write down the mortgage cost for the first
PHA homeowner.
City Council and HRA board members provided the initial impetus for
creating the non - profit organization.
1 unit
Total Non - Profit Proposed Housing Units (with HRA assistance): 8 units
Housing Revenue Bonds
In 1993, the City was approached by an individual who was interested in purchasing and
rehabilitating the Harbor Lane apartment complex in Plymouth. The City approved the
owner's application to the state for nine million dollars in multi - family housing revenue bonds
for the purchase and rehabilitation of Harbor Lane by this individual.
To qualify for the allocation of tax- exempt bonds, the project must rent 20 percent of the units
to households with incomes less than 50 percent of median income for 30 years. In addition,
the City added several stipulations regarding the acceptance and treatment of Section 8 clients.
A large proportion of the City's Section 8 clients had consistently been leasing units at Harbor
Lane, and the City wanted to ensure that the apartment complex remained a resource for
individuals with Section 8 certificates. The conditions added were as follows:
1. Section 8 clients and low income households were not to be discriminated against
as units were rehabilitated, i.e., management would not avoid making
improvements to units held by Section 8 clients or low income individuals because
these tenants have fewer rental options in Plymouth and are less likely to move.
2. The rent levels of units leased to Section 8 clients would remain at or below Fair
Market Rent for a period of two years.
3. Rent levels for units leased to the required low income tenants would not be
increased until the rehabilitation work was completed.
4. The owner would not discriminate against future Section 8 clients seeking to rent
a unit in the building.
Units for Low Income Households: 46 units
Units Preserved for Section 8 Tenants: 41 units
7
II. Non -HRA Affordable Housing Units
Section 8 New Construction
There are 153 project -based federally subsidized units in the City. These Section 8 New
Construction developments rent to families with incomes less than 50 percent of median
income and limit rent to 30 percent of a tenant's income. The four Section 8 buildings are
dispersed throughout the southern portion of the City. [Table 3] [see Map Distribution of
Rental Units]
TABLE 3: Section 8 New Construction
Development Number of
Units
Year of
Construction
Prepaid
Mortgage
Census
Tract
Financing
Kimberly Meadows 39 1980 N 266.07 MHFA
Mission Oaks 26 1981 N 265.12 MHFA
Willow Creek North and South 48 1980 Y 265.07 MHFA
20% of total units subsidized)
Willow Woods 40 1980 N 265.07 Section 202
TOTAL 153
Source: Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; Plymouth HRA Apartment Rent Survey, March 1994
153 Units
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency- Funded Units
A limited number of Plymouth developments have received funding through various Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) programs:
Apartment Renovation Mortgage (ARM)
One apartment building, South Shore Apartments, received an Apartment Renovation
Mortgage (ARM). A moderate income program, ARM limits the building to charging fair
market rent (FMR) and requires that 75 percent of the units be rented to households with
incomes no more than 66 times the gross monthly rent. A family renting a two - bedroom unit
could make a maximum income of $39,604 under this restriction.
Fair Market Rent: 17 units
Limited Income: 13 units
Low Income Tax Credits
A development utilizing Low Income Tax Credits (LITC) is in the approval process. This 64-
unit building will serve tenants with incomes no more than 60 percent of median income.
64 units
HUD $1 Home Program
The Community Involvement Program, a non - profit organization, rehabilitated a HUD -
foreclosed property through MHFA's HUD $1 Home Program to provide one unit of
supportive housing for persons with mental illness.
1 unit
Developmental Disabilities
The Homeward Bound program received funding through MHFA's Developmental Disabilities
program for the purchase of one supportive housing unit for persons with developmental
disabilities.
1 unit
6 persons)
III. Summary
The number of affordable housing units assisted with public funds are summarized in Tables 4
and 5 (as mentioned previously, some units are in process).
TABLE 4: Publicly- Supported Affordable Housing Units
Program/Development Units for Units for Units for Units for TOTAL
50% of 60% of 80% of Special
Median Median Median Needs
Income Income Income Individuals
HRA UNITS
Section 8 Certificates 123 123''r
Section 8 Vouchers 50 50,,'
Plymouth Towne Square 33 64 97
Housing Rehabilitation 154 154 <!
Scattered Site Homeownership 5 5'
First Time Homebuyer Program 43 43''
Non -profit Homeownership 2 1 3
Non-profit Supportive Housing 3 3'
Subtotal 206 156 113 1 3 478''!.
NON -HRA AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing Revenue Bonds for 46 46I'I'.
Multi - Family Rehabilitation
Section 8 New Construction 153 153;,.
MHFA programs 64 17 2 83 > >'
Subtotal 199 64 17 2 282 >>
TOTAL 405 220 130 5 760',1
Source: Plymouth HRA
10
TABLE 5: Summary of HRA Funding Resources
Program Amount Number of Units
CDBG $2,418,833 207
Essential Service Bonds $6,700,000 97
BRA Tax Levy (maximum annual subsidy) $300,000
Section 8 Surplus Operating Reserves $42,415 1
Source: Plymouth HRA
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Affordable housing is intertwined with other public policy issues. Often, these related
issues drive the needs for subsidized housing.
This report presents an overview of the public policy issues surrounding affordable
housing, including issues such as land economics, employment, public transportation and
housing costs. Some of the major findings of this report are summarized in the following
nine points.
First, the affordable housing debate in Minnesota has been primarily focused on
zoning practices by select cities, and the conclusions in these studies have been
reached without using scientific methodology. These studies have assumed that local
zoning practices have limited the supply of land for housing and, thereby, excluded
affordable housing options in suburban cities. These studies have not used established
techniques such as regression analysis to reach their conclusions.
The Urban Land Institute has shown that the cost of land has a dramatic impact on
housing costs. In 1980, for example, the developed lot accounted for 20 to 30 percent of
the cost of a typical Federal Housing Administration (FHA) financed single - family home
in the United States, compared to 15 percent in 1960. A 1993 study prepared for the
Metropolitan Council found that land prices may range from 25 to 50 percent of total
development costs for a home in areas within the Twin Cities.
Government can increase the price of land by restricting the supply. Local governments,
however, have little or no influence over rates of household formation or regional
population shifts. These two forces increase the price of land by escalating demand.
Professional articles in national journals on land economics present a more detailed view
of land costs than the Minnesota studies. These articles indicate that local zoning
practices, which restrict the supply of land, can artificially inflate the price of land only if
there are monopolistic practices among the local zoning authorities.
In a 1989 journal article, Professor Louis Rose presented the findings of his regression
analysis on land costs. His regression analysis was designed to identify and measure the
monopolistic practices among zoning authorities. Rose examined the land costs and
zoning practices of the 45 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, including the
Minneapolis urban area.
Rose's study found that with the exception of Houston, with no zoning, the Minneapolis
urban area had the lowest concentration of zoning power among the 45 largest
metropolitan areas in the country. Rose stated that there was essentially no concentration
2-
of zoning power in the Minneapolis urban area. Therefore, zoning practices of suburban
cities within the Minneapolis urban area were not causing an increase in land cost&
Beyond zoning, increases in land costs can be caused by natural factors such as lakes and
wetlands. Additionally, the Urban Land Institute has indicated that land prices are
generally highest and increase most rapidly in areas where the demand for new housing is
greatest.
Second, the public policy debate in Minnesota has generally taken a simplistic view
of lower- income households. This debate has grouped various income levels together.
However, professional articles on affordable housing indicate that the scope of social and
financial support needs may vary by household income. The social support needs for a
family with a household income at 0 to 30 percent of the Twin Cities median income are
likely to be different from the needs of a family with a household income from 50 to 80
percent of the median. Differences between these families can include educational
attainment, language skills, automobile ownership, job training needs and the ability to
purchase a home.
Third, when given the opportunity, suburban cities within the Seven County Area
have actively established multi - family housing containing affordable rental units for
low- and moderate- income households:
Since 1989, nine MLC communities reported spending $33,212,357 in locally
generated financial resources to expand affordable housing within their cities.
When unconstrained by allocation formulas, suburban cities created subsidized
housing in record numbers between 1980 and 1987. During this period roughly 6,000
rental units for low- and moderate - income households were created using tax exempt
bonds in the Seven County Area -- three - quarters of these units were located in the
suburbs. The financial advantages for using these bonds were eliminated in 1986.
The public policy discussion on siting affordable housing fails to take into account the
way in which public dollars are allocated among the cities in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area.
3-
Fourth, the discussion of affordable housing and access to job opportunities has not
made a distinction between the types of manufacturing jobs being created and lost.
Specifically, public policy must recognize that manufacturing jobs are not necessarily
identical, and that they may require different educational skills.
Manufacturing jobs are increasing in the suburban communities of the Twin Cities, such
as Fridley and Eagan. This growth has negated the manufacturing jobs lost in
Bloomington, Minneapolis, Roseville and St. Paul. Between 1987 and 1992, Roseville
and Bloomington jointly lost more manufacturing jobs than the combined loss of
manufacturing jobs in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Manufacturing jobs created in the developing communities are coming, for example,
from the electronic, electric equipment, and printing and publishing sectors. The
manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Minneapolis and St. Paul have been largely in
the industrial machinery and equipment sector.
This report found the following distribution of jobs within the Seven County Area:
In 1992, 32 percent of the manufacturing jobs (78,234) in the Seven County Area
were located in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 28 percent of the
manufacturing jobs in the Seven County Area during 1992. Forty percent of the
manufacturing jobs were located in the remaining cities within the Seven County
Area.
Between 1987 and 1992, net manufacturing jobs increased by 3 percent in the MLC
member cities. During this same period, manufacturing jobs increased by half a
percent in the Seven County Area. Manufacturing jobs across Minnesota increased
by 5 percent. Ninety-three percent of Minnesota's net manufacturing -job
occurred outside of the Seven County Area between 1987 and 1997
In 1992, 42 percent of the service jobs (147,501) in the Seven County Area were
located in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 27 percent of the service
jobs in the Seven County Area. Thirty -two percent of the service jobs were located in
the remaining cities within the Seven County Area.
Forty -three percent of the net service jobs created in the Seven County Area between
1987 and 1992 were in MLC cities. The remaining cities in the Seven County
Area created 57 percent of the area's service jobs during this period. Forty -one
percent of Minnesota's net service job growth occurred outside of the Seven County
Area between 1987 and 1992.
CE
In 1992, 36 percent of all jobs (461,900) in the Seven County Area were located in
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Twenty -seven percent of all Seven County Area jobs were
located in MLC cities. Thirty-seven percent of all jobs were located in the remaining
cities within the Seven County Area.
Fifth, very little public policy consideration has been given to the structural and
financial commitment necessary to greatly expand public transit throughout the
Seven County Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Council has established a general
policy that public transportation should be within six blocks of households needing the
service, and that workers should not have to ride public transportation for more than 30
minutes to reach their job site. The Regional Transit Board has established an aggressive
proposal for expanded public transit in the suburbs, but the proposal cannot be
implemented without a large infusion of public dollars.
Sixth, the discussion on affordable housing has inaccurately suggested that most
homes in the suburbs are beyond the reach of many households.
Nine of the 13 MLC cities were able to provide detailed information on the assessed
value of homesteaded properties in their communities:
Forty -eight percent of all homesteaded properties are assessed at $110,000 or less and
could qualify for the FHA first -time home buyer program.
A family of four at 80 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities could qualify
for a home valued at $105,000 under the first -time home buyer program. Almost 48
percent of all homesteads in these cities would be within their reach.
A family of two at 80 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities can qualify for
a home valued at $80,500 under the first -time home buyer program. The nine
communities have 23,934 homesteaded properties assessed at $80,000 or less.
Twenty percent of all homesteaded properties in these cities are within their reach.
A family of three at 50 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities could qualify
for a home valued at $60,000 under the first -time home buyer program. The nine
communities have 7,777 homesteaded properties assessed at $60,000 or less. More
than 6 percent of all homesteaded properties are within their reach. In addition, 1,470
single- family non - homesteaded properties would be within their reach.
5-
Seventh, there is evidence in the land economic literature to suggest that the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area line, established by the Metropolitan Council,
may be increasing the cost of land in the Twin Cities and causing urban sprawl as
families seek less costly land beyond the Seven County Area. As a result, this policy
may be increasing the cost of establishing affordable housing in the developing cities.
Eighth, the cost of housing and the cost of its maintenance are linked to the age of
the housing units - -newer homes cost more to purchase and older homes cost more to
maintain. Roughly half of the housing stock in Minneapolis and St. Paul was built
before 1940. In contrast, at least a third of the housing units in 9 of the 13 MLC cities
were built between 1980 and 1990. In 4 of the MLC cities, half of the housing stock has
been built since 1980.
The struggle to rehabilitate aging housing stock is beginning to reach the older suburbs as
much of their housing stock surpasses 30 years. Increasingly, additional investment in
these suburbs will be needed to keep these homes habitable.
Finally, this study found several examples of questionable data being used in the
public policy debate on affordable housing.
1980 and 1990 census data on employment, developed initially by the Metropolitan
Council, is recorded according to where employees live rather than where they work.
Another employment database, developed for the Metropolitan Council, is unreliable
before 1987. Prior to this time period, numerous corporations (especially in
Minneapolis and St. Paul) reported the geographic location of all corporate
employment at their corporate headquarters- -even if some or most of the employment
occurred in other cities.
The debate on affordable housing in Minnesota has been applying statistics from the
free and reduced school lunch programs as a measure of an increase in financial need
among families within a school district.
The Minnesota Department of Education presents statistics for the free and reduced
school lunch program in two formats: participation in the programs versus eligibility
for the programs. Recently, there has been a national effort to encourage children
eligible for the free or reduced lunch programs to participate. Therefore, changes
over time in the participation rate in the free or reduced school lunch program may
reflect the school district's success in persuading eligible children to participate in the
programs.
For example, just over 67 percent of the students in the Brooklyn Center
school district participated in the school lunch program during the 1993 -94 school
year. Forty-two percent of these participating students received the lunch at a free or
IRS
reduced price. However, 36 percent of all students enrolled in the Brooklyn Center
school district were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. By comparison,
almost 47 percent of the students in the Eden Prairie school district participated in the
school lunch program during the 1993 -94 school year. Just over 9 percent of these
participating students received the lunch at a free or reduced price. However,
15 percent of all students enrolled in the Eden Prairie school district were eligible for
the free or reduced lunch program.
At an October 5, 1994 meeting on affordable housing, a colored map entitled
Percent of Elementary Students on Free and Reduced Lunches (1993 -94)" was
distributed. The map presented the participation rate of children in the free and
reduced lunch program. The problem with this statistic can be highlighted in the
following example.
This map showed that less than 8 percent of the children participated in the free and
reduced lunch programs in Eden Prairie. However, the Eden Prairie school district
has 15 percent of its children eligible for the free and reduced lunch programs. In
addition, the eligibility rate increased from 4 percent of the school district's students
to 15 percent over a five -year period, an increase of 447 percent.
In its "Community Profiles," the Metropolitan Council has excluded owner- occupied
manufactured housing and multi - family housing in its count of housing units
available for purchase. This arbitrary policy excluded at least a quarter (13,494 units)
of the housing units assessed at $110,000 or less in nine MLC cities.
As highlighted in these nine points, to successfully develop public policy initiatives we
must ensure that the problems surrounding affordable housing have been properly
captured and that the underlying data supporting the initiatives are bias-free.
11 /03/ °4 15:06 MESScRL I KRAMER - 6126727777 N0.217 CO2
CITY OF LAKEVILLE TEL:1- 612 -469 -3815 Nov 03 94 13:44 N0.015 P.02
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Position Statement
BACKGROUND
Affordable housing has been the focus of intensified public discussion, political debate and legis-
lative proposals in recent years. This issue does not lend itself to easy answers because it is
closely related to complex factors such as economic development, job opportunities, transporta-
tion and local government actions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Monitor the Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprin#, Regiona :Strategy for Guiding
Growth, Expanding Housing opponunides in the Region, AcdmrStep 5F. "The Council
will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of housing needs of
people at various life -cycle stages; broaden locational choice and access throughout the
region for people of all income levels; and support use of public funds to help achieve these
goals.,'
2. Monitor Metropolitan Council actions: (fee- l;
Give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditure of public dollars to
communities that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and
moderate - income and life -cycle housing opportunities.
Establish criteria for reviewing housing elements of local comprcllensive putts.
Make into aacount-the progress made by cities six months after establishing criteria for
reviewing housing elements.
Establish density standards on a community basis or in clusters of communities by
December 1995.
Monitor and evaluate progress in expanding life -cycle and affordable housing in the
region.
I Encourage Metropolitan Council proposals for partnership actions:
Sec At=chment A for complete description):
Support use of public funds for development and rehabilitation of owner - occupied
and rental housing.
Work with local governments singly or in clusters to review comprehensive plans.
Work with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development to target new public dollars for housing.
Work with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and other local governments in the region
to implement the provision of replacement housing.
11/23/ 134 15:06 MESSEF- l KPAjM -• 6125723777 NO. 21? 1;03CITYOFLAKEVILLETEL:1 -612- 469 -3'815 Nov 03 94 13:44 No .015 P.03
Page two...Affordable Housing, Position Statement
4. Support tax policies to encourage affordable housing;
Remove the state sales tax on building materials for production of multi - family housing
units for which the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and/or local housing and
redevelopment authorities have provided assistancee.
Permit the use of tax increment financing to nduc4 housing development costs for
purchase and clearing of land and relocation of existing structures.
Provide additional funds to increase the supply of mousing in locations where the Iocal
housing real estate market discourages construction of housing to meet local needs,
including added funding for the state Affordable Rental Housing Investment Fund.
Lower property tax classification sages for residential rental buildings.
Support federal Fair Market Rents at a level sufficient to make affordable rental housing
widely available.
5. Sponsor legislation to expand definitions in the Qrfieid legislation of low valued homes to
include manufactured housing and rental units.
6. Continue support of the High Speed Bus Coalition's legislative effort to obtain funding for a
demonstration project, including the reverse commute component.
7. Monitor Hollman vs. Cisneros (HUD) class action discrimination lawsuit.
8. Wort: with area legislators to counter the growing attitude that our communities exclude low
value housing.
9. Support legislation that will enable all communities to further develop affordable housing
opportunities.
10. Work with the Metropolitan Council to encourage consideration of all factors that underpin
housing, such as economic development, job training, school district growth, workers corn_
pensation rates and high commercial and industrial property taxes.
The Dakota County League of Governments and Dakota County Managers should maintain a
pro - active role in the debate on housing and other issues that relate to poverty and urban decay.
1i0°4 15:07 ME66c-;LI KRA,''ER -° 622'672: 777 N0.217 G05
CITY OF LAKEVILLE TEL:1- 612 - 469 -3815 Nov 03 94 13:45 No .015 P.05
I rte MWT rr
Expanding dousing Opportunities in the Region
Actfon Stop 13F. Tha Council wilt work with local communities In s partn*mhip to meet the range
of !lousing needs of people at various life -cycle stages; broaden locatioml chotce and access
throughout the region for people of all irtQOMB levels; and support use of public funds to helpata.11leve these goats.
PHOTOS Metro l=ast housing project, coMoitownhouse mixed dayslopmant
Council actions:
1. Givc priority for regional infristructure investments or ezpenditure of public dollars to
comrt3uDW0 that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and
moderate - income and life -cycle bowing opportunities- Work with local government to develop
measures of progress Unymrd meeting housing goals, whedser achieved individually by
communities or through participsting with other communities in a multicommunity cluster.
2. Establish criteria for reviewing housing elements of local comprehensive plans. By December
1994, working with local governments and municipalities, develop goals for life -cycle and
affordable housing by municipality and/or cluster,
The Council will continua to review the housing end implementation eiennert[s or local
comprehensive plans, provide local govrst meats with Technical =istanca and information on
housing finance mechanisms, and actively monitor and evaluate progress in the provision of
affordable and life -cycle housing in the region.
Information needed to develop affordability goals includes:
Housing profiles for individual communities.
Ittdex to compare 1=1 housing market with region and subrcgicn.
IdentifIeation of barriers to housing production or rehabilitation
3. Six mourns after mtablishing criteria for reviewing housing ekatents of comprehensive plans
Action Item 2, above) take into accotmt L' a progress trade by cities toward life -cycle and
affordable housing goals when making discretionary funding decisions, and reviewing
comprehensive plans and amendmems. In 1997, evaluate results in achieving expanded life -cycle
and affordable housing, and dtiormine whether to pursue additional legislative authority Ln order
to increase Hfa -cycle and affordable housing.
4. By Doczmbcr 1993, establiab deaaity standards on a community basis, or in clusters of
communities (subregions) areas) that have cooperative agreements to address housing needs
jointly. Tice goal of these standards is to increase density along selecxd transportation corridors
and to address long -term objectives regarding devclopmenc of life -cycle housing, affordable
housing, and redevelopment plans.
Calculate densities on the basis of net developable land, recognizing historical trends, unique
circumsu nccs and needs of each individual community or cluster of communities.
Work with local governments and dcvclopers to develop and implement models of tmnxit-
oriented, pedcsrrian friendly development that arc appropriare or adaptable to various urban
or suburban locations.
51
11/03/94 15:07 MESSERL I KRAMER -• 6125723777CITYOFLgKEVILLI_ TEL:1 -612 -469 -3815 7 9-04
Nov 03 94 13:45 No .01S
217 .
015015 P,04
Monitor and evaluate progress in czpandin life -eycle and afj'otdabie !rousing in the ionandpublicizefindings:
Work with Iaeal governments to measure housinoflocalhousingconditionold it Performance through a biannual reportingpgrossduringreportingpesiod_ntunbtr thousingUnitsbuiltorrehabilitated/coavertad, znaing standards in er%ct and propod changcsfotherPetmentinfommation.
Provide technical sssistsnca to increase affordable housing oregion, pportunities throughout the
larmership &=uses;
6.
SuPpart nse of public funds for development and relzahBitltian of owner - occupied andrentalIrousittgtoschicvchousinganddensitystandards, including:
Work to oreatt a rttetropolitan enterprise fund which could berevitalizationactivities, including a ' for a wide range of
owner - occupied housing ee
8 ausirt rehabilitation in dis7ressed areas and tncrecsedS ( Action Step 2S, page IS).
Support legislation to target federal and state - financed or - authorized home ownership andhousingrehabilitationprogramsandfederaltaxcreditstoimplementregionalhousinggoals.
taxExaminestatepropertyPe7"5' laws to dMrmine how to remove disinccatives that discourageimprovementstorentalpropertieswithoutimposingundueadditionalburdensonhomesteadedandcommercial- industrial properties,
7. Work with local governments singly or in clusters to revise mprehensivc 1 nscommunitywithintheUrbanserviceareatoplanforadiversityofhousingt
p each
meets residents necds at all stages in their lives. g ypeS and costs that
A-
Wert; with top iEuvesota 3Yausfng Flaaacr Agetzcy and the U.S. Departurcat of$oasinUrbanDevelopmenttotargetrwwpublicdollarsforrrr:tal housing pmduetion and feat asingtsn
d
for low- and mod-mte- incorne households todohave IMAS that do not have conc rtrations of poverty buttrertsitserviceandemploymentopportunities.
9•
Work with the CIties of Minneapolis and St. Paul and other local governments in the rrbioatoimplementtheprovisionofreplacementhousinglegislation (Minn. Stet. 504.33), which allover to the requirements of 1994
assist)+ith the r- Iron of annual housin replacementut OLI.%ide Minneapolis erred St. Paul; andF ` S Q t reports, as rrc}uired.
Under the Metnsive pl Land planning Ac; the Council reviews and comments on housing elements oflocalcamprehcruivcplans, but cannot
the
changes in those housing elements. Local governments ueresaonsibleforprovidingopportunitiesforaffordablehousingintheirlanduseordinances. The LandPlanningArequireseachlocalgovarum=t in the metropolitan area to adopt a land use plan whichincludesahousingelemenrcontaining:
standards. platLr and programr for providing qprojectedlocalandregionalhorningneeds, including but
note
limited to the use of rc. tcon acrd
and lard use plmrning to promote the availabFlJ! o land lb,-- ° income Rousing, S' the devCiapmenr of low and moderate
52
I
F VIA
ILAT
First, the affordable housing debate in . Minnesota has been primarily focused on
zoning practices by selected cities, and the conclusions in these studies have been
reached without using scientific methodology.
Second, the public policy debate in Minnesota has generally taken a simplistic view
of lower- income households.
Third, when given the opportunity, suburban cities within the Seven County Area
have actively established multi - family housing containing affordable rental units for
low - and moderate- income households:
Fourth, the discussion of affordable housing and access to job opportunities has not
made a distinction between the types of manufacturing jobs being created and lost.
Fifth, ve: little public policy consideration has beers given to the structural and
financial commitment necessary to greatly expan d public transit throughout t1`te Seven
County Metropolitan Area.
Sixth, the discussion on affordable housing has inaccurately suggested that most
homes in the suburbs are beyond the reach of many households.
Seventh, there is evidence in the land economic literature to suggest that the
Lfetropolitan Urban Service area line, established by the Metropolitan Council, may
be increasing the cost of land in the Twin Cities and causing urban sprawl as families
seek less costly land beyond the Seven County Area.
Eighth, the cost of housing and the cost of its maintenance are linked to the age of
the housing units -- newer homes cost more to purchase and older homes cost more to
maintain.
Finally, this study found several examples of questionable data being used in the
public policy debate on affordable housing.
I
MLC HOUSING REPORT
Manufacturing Growth Rays
From 1987 through 1992
16
14
12 ........ .............. . . ..
1
I
10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T
L g
a. 6
4 1 ------------ - - - - -- - --- .._._. --- ...
2
0
1
I
r
i
I
i
M LC 7 Cty MN Gt MN
f
U
N =
r
LO
0 f C
O
mc
now
to
i
P2, G:
T
2.5 R: U
O V v U V - N v' • yr_ V
A Vr VV -r a
C
U r
G .. O r > V O v Y - U R C
V r O
N
RVrrV
ate..
CC- Cd O .V.
e'Iv
x' v
G O 2:5
u -
r r O_
1
1.
r r C Orr — y. Y' 1
P2, G:
T
2.5 R: U
O V v U V - N v' • yr_ V
A Vr VV -r a
C
U r
G .. O r > V O v Y - U R C
V r O
RVrrV
ate..
CC- Cd O .V.
V
G O 2:5
u -
r r O_
L-
v C ~- C L r
i
V
I A
Z
Q
IIzf
V:
M
J
V~
V~
1 w
D
r CC _ O e
ri
A - V O • V CO C r V r ... O A r— _
O-, „. CCi _— V C: C .0.. N
y r = D C V O
ty.
O G .•.V. y -- R A G -' -G„ G ci V e7 0 r L
C t O rn V^ C •- = C ' C O
C G C r
5.4 si -
FVCVVrL t N
A e O C= V` u V 3 V ^ u y m_ O• •• u= u in
L •- c V V u > > -
a
4 2
G- A
V
u -
r r O_
L-
Z "
Ci
V C
ear
d .•- r ' V u JO
I A
Z
Q
IIzf
V:
M
J
V~
V~
1 w
D
r CC _ O e
ri
A - V O • V CO C r V r ... O A r— _
O-, „. CCi _— V C: C .0.. N
y r = D C V O
ty.
O G .•.V. y -- R A G -' -G„ G ci V e7 0 r L
C t O rn V^ C •- = C ' C O
C G C r
5.4 si -
FVCVVrL t N
A e O C= V` u V 3 V ^ u y m_ O• •• u= u in
L •- c V V u > > -
a
4 2
G- A
D
O
3
O
r V 1
O
U
O
r1.^
J
0
l ^l
T
4J
cc;
ppwkv
U 4: Cn O E O^ 12 U
cu cn C r ./_1
A O^
O C C.7 ^ '^... ^ y U'Z
V^ 0 h V3 O N V
L .0 U C O IIn
o
cr _U.. U-3
v Cy L UF•n y — cz
O -C
CU.
AW n U_ r 7 C r r
0 J L cn c51 V _
tnY •
y
0 Q 0 ' O L 0 Cn V r' U O U CJ
O O y C.
e1 cn _ C) y^ c3 z U cr oGL :n U 0 .. L
W.
O v L r
ca
cz u_
rz
x E L O_
C-4
c
or
c
U
c'
a _ - o
y G. V .. L j U 4i c3 `' U= V J
eC•
Z C O Ci
U
U
0 J _ _ c3 L JGti- Q r_ 'a1 - C v7
L
I ! J
O y p U W a4 d d >=
ca C) ,
O _ = y
y ci
L. ^
0 y 2 .2 E CE
H C.i C C 0 Q
i
to
c 04 mss -' c
CU to
R E 401 0 3 y y .= O
cn CJ
L°
L C O L U L O to L
c. ° , ti a on_ o ° p E
al De
m
U '
y y 1= U _T. _ 0 0
I o -' CG1C
C
U C.1 CS car.
3 o c L `34 ° c vCli.0 C O U =U- N u
ci
Rai;L Dr.
p"
C
C w
C to r '" ° O
E C3 E RJ C1 GJ y '.•' 61 y OECJtoG ..`^- V _O y} y na O .> C C U U C1 '
C C y
W c O C. cs c Z x° v a
EyOy > OaO G y 0 C C O O .N EG '' O
m V > cr oc rn
CL$
X0.5cjc
3 u , Leo cu cv ° cv = = .o ca .a - ° in c
L
I ! J
O y p U W a4 d d >=
ca C) ,
O _ = y
y ci
L. ^
0 y 2 .2 E CE
H C.i C C 0 Q
i
to
c 04 mss -' c
CU to
R E 401 0 3 y y .= O
cn CJ
L°
L C O L U L O to L
c. ° , ti a on_ o ° p E
y y 1= U _T. _ 0 0
I o -' CG1C
C
U C.1 CS car.
3 o c L `34 ° c vCli.0 C O U =U- N u
ci
cUS L cyUC
M = '-' U y C.1 O CJ U J y G y r •-• ci
O •Op"
C
C w
C to r '" ° O
E C3 E RJ C1 GJ y '.•' 61 y OECJtoG ..`^- V _O y} y na O .> C C U U C1 '
C C y
W c O C. cs c Z x° v a
EyOy > OaO G y 0 C C O O .N EG '' O
m V > cr oc rn
CL$
X0.5cjc
3 u , Leo cu cv ° cv = = .o ca .a - ° in c
J
0
7:7-
O N
L/
O O •— C O .J C C C U
V cV E
m C r. O
WN Bt
i3. N C'C C O. V ..' L
Ca
C
L
Li >,a cs._ • c
0 Cc
z
O VC ... cz V
ca Q U, .
y V C .O C .y
cz
V 47 CG G y ..+ y y •C c4
V C C 4m c3
3 0 °.r m ' > c U o
CZ
to ca y
J a ca oo >3' a°• E-' o _,
y" C CZ
LV
d V H C1 O C
m-r ° .. m o, o c o a eo 3
cz _ate y c - au
M cn F o, a) cz n.- —0
IA
Q
O
W
Z
0
U
N
W
F-
C,
c
v
J
U
O
i
2
H
V
v 1
JO
CID
O
s
s`
3
u-
o H i -ya u cn ao cu ur, i
Eo iii.. :'c TEa °ocn auo°y cV3 uo.a.m
E"a'•CC OL ncu UG =c`
o °-co '`'m`3ai
o LCacoc ci
nuc u c- c c•.J. •o _ ^3o`,v >'vo :'
oy.cun o
a-
v.
c••• - °"- °
u of u _ :. n ncY v n v=iccF ° ac° 3. °_
a' c 'm,•; o u
Oa o m- • H u
e a •n u
F;roHa m
L 9 r L C a.2 nL
7
o a'
o =°3"u cm•.=La ?^n ^`' U'a•nN .'^. `o '°`3L
c
o n N u
00 u o
H
Jp
u
n
3N-ruG >u
u3au .
arc
N V
141 F2j
f/,
J
r
J
nucr °'^;v= Tc
E Q 23y
c =°Jm °c u >• m ; nv >•n._
Tr •1 •-
U
ecu
cTCi
T.= = n L L a C r ' a ."-' .n - U nGn »`.a.oeu`
a:. .,i 3ea na E-
Z m; E -\
ar o
O N dVT cuLbyCC) crvarm"-'E-u3
f
N N .- o E 3 3° c a° c
w
c•cw °oc'^ - c._c = °m 3_mao
L 0 3:73 0 3r
nTO
Z m
Hof"'. nnm_. o'- C- 3= aoyu.F-- 'E.Sa4-"T'mmCv
m
i.
s
s`
3
u-
o H i -ya u cn ao cu ur, i
Eo iii.. :'c TEa °ocn auo°y cV3 uo.a.m
E"a'•CC OL ncu UG =c`
o °-co '`'m`3ai
o LCacoc ci
nuc u c- c c•.J. •o _ ^3o`,v >'vo :'
oy.cun o
a-
v.
c••• - °"- °
u of u _ :. n ncY v n v=iccF ° ac° 3. °_
a' c 'm,•; o u
Oa o m- • H u
e a •n u
F;roHa m
L 9 r L C a.2 nL
00 -= u c 'u_-• a - °-' co` Ems, 3 .. m _r
N NH nGa Sao t -•n
L— T E • O T r9 a° L O q v. O
a a J_ O L V O V OaO 'C E
T''
a ` aE_ na E
o =°3"u cm•.=La ?^n ^`' U'a•nN .'^. `o '°`3L
o n N u
00 u o
H
m2
u
n
3N-ruG >u
u3au .
arc
E•nugo o' cc
f/,
J
r
J
nucr °'^;v= Tc
E Q 23y
c =°Jm °c u >• m ; nv >•n._
Tr •1 •-
U
ecu
cTCi
T.= = n L L a C r ' a ."-' .n - U nGn »`.a.oeu`
a:. .,i 3ea na E-
ar o
E 'F c Hc=a w m o•-•
Cc
00 -= u c 'u_-• a - °-' co` Ems, 3 .. m _r
N NH nGa Sao t -•n
L— T E • O T r9 a° L O q v. O
a a J_ O L V O V OaO 'C E
T'' c,-d -= E ° n c E ¢ o euo = ^o E. ry v o m .L-.. .g u E ° u`'° -•
o =°3"u cm•.=La ?^n ^`' U'a•nN .'^. `o '°`3L
W
u
n
3N-ruG >u
u3au .
arc
o , o v' u -1 •.c
o` '^c'E n a a`
C -O yQQ UL 6n V
u O a c '^ ` t u o, a 7` E
f/,
J
r
J
nucr °'^;v= Tc
E Q 23y
c =°Jm °c u >• m ; nv >•n._
Tr •1 •-
U
ecu
cTCi
T.= = n L L a C r ' a ."-' .n - U nGn »`.a.oeu`
a:. .,i 3ea na E-
ar o
Ec °n_y e.:o`ou ocai- °O.= re mae_ m°uuc a
U ° ° -L
oG
v n mean cc` u vLm -E c
E° 3„
2 c
C of v :J y.° C w U L O mma 6. •J .'r..> ,j O
ct`
TO
Z a a y> — ' `p°- •
in. _"
y a a H .. O > e O O ,j .a.. A N a
N
aJ=
va' ° "a o9., CV
o a e a7* 3 a ., > O'_, e? c _.e .0 _E V •e E u
rTl m E °uc`;`b'aci c aAS'x.2
ic._cp`E3oEcEo.E3°Ja °uv U
H 3dn
uL3 nc 'm
V •nL -.p
LD C H
c
E v
a`'
3uN
Efc °cV
a yj (j C
c -ooE
F, aicU -a
o =°3"u cm•.=La ?^n ^`' U'a•nN .'^. `o '°`3L
W
n
3N-ruG >u
u3au .
arc
cai o'm4a'c 'C ate_. Ec
o = -Oa°o uo•..
Cv u -° ,u` '•H 'r `u as cam-
E 'F c Hc=a w m o•-•
Q f v c•cw °oc'^ - c._c = °m 3_mao
CO h: Hof"'. nnm_. o'- C- 3= aoyu.F-- 'E.Sa4-"T'mmCv
i.
H 3dn
uL3 nc 'm
V •nL -.p
LD C H
c
E v
a`'
3uN
Efc °cV
a yj (j C
c -ooE
F, aicU -a
A an- yReduction Ab"
JOUCI Twin gties.,-,-.-., forthe ..
THE ROOTS OF POVERTY IN OUR REGION
Poverty is caused by many factors, including economic policies and forces that depress development
ofliving wage jobs forpeople oflow skill, lack ofeducation, drug and alcohol abuse, single parenthood,
absent fathers, and the perpetuation of a multi - generational culture of dependence that promotes despair
rather than achievement.
No easy or simple solutions to poverty exist, and some of the causes of poverty may be beyond the
reach of government. To be effective, future efforts to fight poverty must address its root causes and
not merely treat its symptoms.
Any realistic effort to attack poverty must also recognize and work with, not against, these facts:
Advances in technology have enabled employers to disperse jobs and locate businesses away
from downtown areas. This trend will continue and accelerate.
The number of no -skill or low -skill jobs that pay a living wage has declined sharply in recent
years. These jobs have not just left the urban core, they have left the state and the country.
The increase in poverty in our region has not been historically driven by a shift of jobs from
urban to suburban areas. To this day, Minneapolis, St. Paul and the first ring suburbs still have
far more jobs than the rest of our region combined. As of 1990, the central cities and first ring
suburbs had 730,000 jobs while the developing suburbs had 377,000 jobs.
The migration ofpeople from other states to Minneapolis in recent years has contributed to the
increased level of poverty and the swelling number of people on the welfare rolls in our region.
The motivational forces driving middle -class taxpayers from the core are the reality or
perception of inner -city crime, high taxes and the deterioration of services.
Concentrations of poverty are really concentrations of joblessness. Creating jobs and training
people how to do those jobs well should be the primary goal of any legitimate poverty reduction
proposals. Jobs are not created by cute slogans or propositions by politicians. They are created by
companies who have work to be done and who are able to pay people to do that work. Every effort mustbemadetocreateandretainjobsinourregion, particularly in the central cities.
The most appropriate way ofdealing with these problems is to reform the welfare system, bring jobs
and job training to the core, and increase the availability of mass transit to areas of suburban job growth.
A great deal of attention has been paid to housing in the recent debate regarding poverty in our
region. The lack of affordable housing is only a symptom ofpoverty.'Efforts to address poverty which
focus primarily on housing are doomed to fail. Affordable housing issues should be addressed, but they
should not occupy center stage in this debate. More important, affordable housing strategies must not
repeat the mistakes of the past.
Rep. Myron Orfield' s heavy -handed approach to solving the problems ofpoverty in the Twin Cities
region focuses too narrowly on housing the poor in the suburbs. His proposal will not eliminate blight
at the core. Rather, it will propagate blight in the developing area by mandating the construction of low -
quality, high - density housing projects. Further, Rep. Orfield's proposal is inherently incapable of
producing scattered -site affordable housing.
The DFL politicians who dominate the aging urban core blame the suburbs for their growing
problems and have demanded that the western suburbs, in particular, house more of the region's poor.
Yet, these same politicians consistently oppose the IR pro jobs and pro- employment legislative agenda
that would permit the working poor to achieve greater economic opportunity. They prefer to address
the symptoms of poverty rather than the causes of poverty.
Because the problem of poverty in our region tends to concentrate in the urban core, the bulk of our
resources should be brought to bear on the deteriorating core. Money should be spent on rehabilitating
existing inner city neighborhoods and to provide incentives for business to locate in those areas. The
central city transportation infrastructure should be brought up to date so that the flow of both people
and goods can proceed unimpeded. Finally, social services in the core need to be reformed.
WELFARE REFORM: FIGHTING THE CULTURE OF DEPENDENCE
A culture of joblessness and dependence dominates areas of concentrated poverty. This situation
is the result of a lack ofjob skills and education coupled with a welfare system that penalizes work and
rewards dependency. Our region' s relatively generous welfare benefits attracts the poor and then traps
them here, impeding them from becoming self - sufficient.
Gov. Arne Carlson and IR members of the legislature have proposed sweeping changes in our
welfare system that will remove barriers to work, reward personal initiative and mandate a new social
contract with those who wish to work rather than receive welfare.
The welfare reform proposal calls for:
A Working Family Credits joint venture to provide monthly income credits to families.
Work First to match individuals needing assistance with job openings and then provide such
support services as child care, subsistence assistance and follow -up in order to ease the transition
into the job market.
A redesigned STRIDE program to make jobs the first step toward self - sufficiency. For example,
we would require AFDC cases receiving full child support payments to work.
Requiring minor parents who wish to receive AFDC to reside with their own parents.
Providing extra staff at hospitals with a high - volume of births to unwed mothers in order to
increase the recognition of parentage.
Expanding the Parent's Fair Share Program to reach more fathers who dodge their child support
obligations.
Expanding MFIP for two- parent families in Ramsey County.
Eliminating the 100 hour rule that creates obstacles to two- parent AFDC families who are trying
to enter the job market, disregarding student earnings and student loans in benefit calculations,
and raising the allowance for a car.
Increasing investigations into welfare fraud and adding a sharpened focus on the early detection
and prevention of fraud.
JOB CREATION & RETENTION
A job is more than a way ofmaking a living. It is a means of building self - respect, breaking the cycle
of dependency and becoming a contributing member of society. Jobs are the only viable solution to
poverty. True housing choice results from having a job, not the other way around.
1. Removing the Barriers
Minnesota employers have spoken loudly and clearly about the barriers that block job development
and retention in our state. First and foremost, we must reform our expensive and red -tape ridden
workers' compensation system and reduce commercial and industrial property tax rates.
These hidden costs are depriving us ofjobs, particularly the dwindling number of living -wage jobs
that are available for low -skill individuals. Additionally, under the guise of protecting workers, an
intricate bureaucratic network of rules and regulations is constricting Minnesota's job market and
harming the very workers it's supposed to protect. Labor regulations are of little value to the
unemployed. When you address the issue of economic competitiveness, you also help address the issue
of poverty.
2. Enterprise Zones
Transplanting the poor to the suburbs will do nothing to reverse the decline of the core. In fact, it
may accelerate the deteriorative process by emptying neighborhoods and generating block after block
of boarded -up houses, empty apartment buildings and vacant storefronts. Encouraging the economic
redevelopment of the core is critical to saving these neighborhoods from being turned into wastelands.
The Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development will have the authority to designate
certain declining areas of the central cities as enterprise zones. These zones will offer tax incentives for
businesses that locate within the designated area and employ residents. We believe the judicious
establishment of enterprise zones will be an important first step in an effort to return economic vitality
and job opportunities to the core.
TRANSPORTATION: BRINGING JOBS AND PEOPLE TOGETHER
A person without a car who relocates to the suburbs may not have increased access to jobs. Because
the opportunity to vie for employment should not be dependent on relocation, we need to provide
reliable transportation options for those who do not own or have access to automobiles.
1. Express to Success
We propose to establish a pilot transportation model, the Express to Success Transit (EST) program,
to provide commuter service from the core to suburban zones identified by the Regional Transit Board
RTB) and the Metropolitan Council as containing high job concentrations. The RTB will work with job
service organizations to identify the pockets ofpotential employees located within areas ofconcentrated
unemployment in the central cities.
Suburban employers will be offered tax credits to participate in the program and hire central -city
workers. In addition to the EST program, we advocate renewing the ability of suburbs to opt out of the
RTa system in order to design and create their own innovative reverse - commuting transportation
services to serve their unique needs.
2. Urban Freeways
The freeways that provide access in and out of the central cities are increasingly clogged. Poor
access is a deterrent to job creation and retention. It is also a factor in the decision of businesses to
abandon the core. Despite this fact, urban politicians continue to zealously resist efforts to expand
freeway capacity. In other states, city governments fight aggressively to obtain improvements to their
freeways because they understand the economic benefits that come from an efficient transportation
infrastructure. The political leaders of our central cities should end their opposition to the reasonable
expansion of these commercial arteries.
HOUSING: REHABILITATION AND REALISM
No degree of tinkering with local zoning laws, as proposed by Rep. Orfield, could result in the
construction of a meaningful number of affordable housing units on a scattered -site basis. The result
would be poor quality, high - density developments that are an invitation to trouble. Many ofour northern
suburbs constructed such projects in the 1960s and the 1970s. Today they are paying the price with
blighted areas accentuated by concentrated pockets ofpoverty. We cannot afford to ignore this lesson.
The developing suburbs must retain the option of voluntarily undertaking efforts to ensure that their
communities offer a broad array of housing opportunities. However, we stress our belief that this
objective is best realized via voluntary actions, not the imposition of penalties and mandates.
1. Eden Prairie Pilot Project
Utilizing existing scattered -site housing is the most effective way of deconcentrating poverty. This
approach does not require new construction, yet it also provides the greatest opportunity for positive
interaction with the rest of the community:
The mayor of Eden Prairie has agreed to seek approval for his city to host a pilot project which will
use state grant money to fund vouchers to assist as many as 400 families with gross incomes at or below
60 percent of the region's median income. The vouchers can be used for rent, mortgage payments or
down payment assistance for existing housing on a scattered -site basis.
2. Exempt HRA Building Materials from Sales Tax
Under present law, the state sales tax applies to contractor purchases of building materials for
property improvements. We propose to exempt these purchases if the materials are designated for the
construction of qualified affordable housing.
To qualify, the housing would have to be located in a designated developing area, be developed and
financed by a local housing authority, meet federal income guidelines and meet requirements to ensure
the units are scattered.
3. Earmark Affordable Housing Investment Tax Credits
The federal government allows investors in affordable housing to receive a tax credit for their
investments. Each state has a specific allocation of credits for use on projects within the state. We
propose that a portion of the first round of allocations of Minnesota's share be set aside for affordable
housing in the developing areas.
4. Broaden Housing Trust Fund Eligibility Criteria
The housing trust fund is a program administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
Under present law, the trust fund may only be used for housing development and redevelopment
projects in which the majority of residents are at or below 30 percent of the region's median income.
Further, only 20 percent of the funds may be used for home ownership projects.
We propose that 50 percent of the fund's revenue be available for persons between 30 percent and
60 percent of the region's median income and that up to 50 percent of such funds be available for home
ownership projects.
5. Establish Housing Information Network
The Metropolitan Council's report on "Draft Housing Policy for the 1990s" found that only 21
percent of the total housing stock available to low - income renters is actually occupied by low - income
renters. The balance is occupied by persons with incomes that place them outside of that range. Clearly,
a better way of bringing together low - income renters with appropriate housing must be found.
Evidence shows that low- income renters commonly make their housing decisions based upon
accessibility to mass transit. We propose the establishment ofa regional service that will simultaneously
provide information on the availability of affordable, housing and public transportation. One way in
which this can be accomplished is by integrating the existing MTC and Metropolitan HRA databases to
combine the information services they now provide separately.
6. Promote Urban Homesteading
The Metropolitan Council will designate one neighborhood in St. Paul and one in Minneapolis as
urban homestead pilot projects. It will offer incentives (e.g., property tax waiver, reduced interest loans,
reduced sale price)`to individuals who purchase a home in a designated neighborhood and agree to reside
there for a minimum number of years.
This program will encourage the return of working home owners. The presence of employed
individuals and families will have a stabilizing effect on troubled neighborhoods. .
7. Remove Blighted Housing
Breaking up concentrations of poverty requires the removal of blight. The central cities should
make every effort to rid neighborhoods of deteriorating housing stock as well as crack houses and other
buildings in which illegal activities and actions destructive to the community take place. We propose
to expedite the legal process for renovation and rehabilitation, and add a $2 million appropriation to the
Housing Finance Agency for removal of blighted housing.
8. Repeal the "No Net Loss" Requirement
Minnesota law currently requires entities that remove low - income housing units to replace them
with an equal number of low - income units in the same vicinity as the ones that were removed. This
applies to the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth. Because this requirement is inconsistent with
the idea of breaking up concentrations of poverty, we believe it should be repealed.
9. Centralize Section 8 Application Process
Currently, 10 Twin Cities metro area HRAs administer Section 8 certificates and vouchers. In effect,
this means an individual seeking assistance in our region must fill out 10 forms to apply to 10 different
offices. This is too cumbersome. We believe the Metropolitan Council should negotiate with mm to
create a one -stop shopping system that would grant a single application access to a regional pool.
Achieving this goal will increase mobility throughout the metro area, and decrease the in
preference for local residents currently demonstrated by the individual HRA districts.
Mus t suburbs
be abolished
to save cities?-,
Urban scholar proposes
provocative prescription
to address the crisis
in nation's inner cities
By Steve Berg
Washington Bureau Correspondent
Washington, D.C.
Forty percent of the nation's central cities, including
Minneanolis and St. Paul, are destined to fail becattse
social welfare and economic develop.
ment programs, while conservatives
stress self-help and tax breaks for
inner-city businesses. Both are selling
essentially the same idea, he says,
which is to "quarantine" minorities
in ghettos and barrios far away from
the elite while helping them rebuild
their communities through moneyandmoralincentives.
This . "separate but equal" strategy
cannot work, Rusk says, because
ghettos and barrios create and per-
petuate an urban underclass. Bad
communities defeat good programs,"
he says- "Successful clients of social
programs typically move away. As a
result, in inner cities, individual sus
cess does not translate into commu-
nity success. Life in ghettos and bar-
rios gets worse."
The best way to halt the trend, Rusk
argues, is by amalgamating cities and
suburbs, thereby broadening the tax
base, forcing middle-class and under-
class residents into the same jurisdic-
tions and making it clearer that sub-
urbanites have a stake in solving ur-
ban problems. Prosperous suburban
residents shouldn't "have the right to
c.__ %... U:q
When state Rep: Myron Orfield,
DFL -Minneapolis, proposed in Feb-
rutry a strengthened and elected
Metropolitan Council with power to
di perse low-income people and
h sing into more prosperous south -
erg and western Twin Cities suburbs,
he was blocked by a veto from Re-
p1lican Gov. Arne Carlson. Carlson
said he objected to, among other fea-
tures, "imposing housing quotas on
local government." He assembled a
ta* tome to study the balance of
hobsing, jobs and transportation in
thi metro area.
Otield's plan did not call for erasing
city -suburban boundaries. But it
aimed to mitigate the race -class sepa-
ration that has begun to divide the
metro Twin Cities in the way it has
already divided Chicago, Detroit and
other cities. It proposed to do so by
forting high-growth suburbs to accept
to,k-income housing in exchange for
sewerage and highway money. It also
raised a troubling question about the
ef%ctiveness of the Metropolitan
Council, a formerly celebrated Min-
nesota innovation now increasingly
criticized as too weak to face pivotal
social problems the way it once tack- t..,a.,t. - r^1 1;—C "A hiahtvav
the core problem with underclass
poverty lies not in its culture but in
its concentration, that once poor peo-
ple are dispersed metrowide, they be-
gin to act middle class. It's a notion
that offends political extremes of left
and right. Yet it lies near the heart of
the metropolitan dilemma. Inner-city
residents desperately want the jobs
and safety that suburban life appears
to offer. But they are thwarted by
high housing costs, long commutes
and cultural barriers. Conversely,
suburbanites strive to preserve thea
gains and regard what they see as
underclass behavior - crime, gangs,
teen pregnancy - as a contagion
spreading toward them.
Wherever a solution may lie, Rusk
and Orfield believe Minneapolis -St.
Star Tribune/Sunday/July 11/1993 ...
25 largest metropolitan areas
Ranked by income disparity between >
central cities and surrounding suburbs :1
The higher the index number at the far right, the larger the incoew?
differences between residents of poorer central cities and weaftttiet
suburbs. The lower the index score, the more central cities and, --,,,a
suburbs are alike. Minneapolis' score of 228 percent, for exams f __A
means that it houses more than twice its equitable share of htlpoorpeopleintheentiremetroarea. Conversely, Phoenix's
of 115 means that it houses only slightly more than its share
Miami, with a score of 85, has less than its share of poor people'+
when compared to its suburbs.
Paul can no longer afford to ignore I 1. Miami 17.9% 15.3% 24.5% 85%
these tensions. Contrary to more
troubled urban areas, Minnesota's ; 2. New York 17.5 19.3 155.
2
110
central cities aren't viewed yet by 3. Phoenix 12.3 14.2 115
4. San Diego 11.3 13.4 0.6 119
affluent suburbanites as "totally alien 5. Los Angeles 8.5 18.9 2.2 125
places; as "failed cities populated 6. Houston 15.1 20.7 6.3 137
only by those who. have no choice
about where to live," Rusk says. 7. San Francisco 9.0 12.7 1.2 141
J 8. Dallas 12.0 18.0 4.7 150
But Minneapolis, especially, is get. l 9. Kansas City 9.8 15.3 1.6 156
ting poorer. Incomes there have 10. Seattle 7.6 12.4 2.7 163
dropped 7 percent against metro- i
wide incomes over the past decade, I 11, Tampa 11.4 19.4 5.5 170
he says. Of the nation's 25 largest 12 ChCh - . icago 12.4 21.6 2-9 17A
t
a
o .c
a a• rb o R O _y •y
c o O o 3.. °aa & o a w
amm=
8 'gaow °' °io$0 :9 oo' °c
yb i o C 3
02;5 e y O
aH°o v,, a.$ayo o. moo= do
aja 1>``tti.'. W R: m "_ a.
o'.0 aNayw
3 aa; 0.4 >
cd
cdcauU)
0 °• =
3 .. u.a o',a o:':.a u1:te.-
93 call ci 4>
go
f
aocd
0i, y
C° Q.°c.,o .
ti
o
00aap ra oo.
O ' e)
a.
H
i.C°...y'
O'5 yy Q.0,p
catoo.4j3
w'
o
ytio
4 a a w „•I
0 .3 v?'c A
T1a4,eo- I i ,
L > d Cd .d, .a °
hca•5..
o, + " solo .. ° ° „ - .
3 a a ° p ' ta.q eaiw0
0 's 0.
oo°0a a ° °a•a x
awE+ 0.0 crop
oow
y u t~
q0 b,: y°
o _ oqua.
1x1.0 ca b . -e).d ~.
M > •
a02•0'w±Q
oFay!
N J
a8s,moosc P osrnua 1113 pus sivaut
118ds ligigold `azts 101 a38lndtls
is111 s03usutplo aql Butliusutstp ,(q os
OP of utagi shat OH •ssionb 8utsnoq
300ut of satl13 altnbal pinom pjat310
3t luanaid of Imoutun s.liasn8o2q3nqsgoftumpslagitosn$oaqI1lswudIOUA3110d3tlgnd1adold
St uotgai atp punom 100d a11l gutslad
stq •autu3 VITI.pus uommnpo Moltp!m palBtooSSS St `SatitlOIIiut 10pd
3o uoilslost aql AUM34dsa `,Ciaanod
3o uo1l84ua3uo3 Bulljnsal agZ •spdoqiogg8taupo;ugoiBas ut s)I3ejq (tmlu
sdawl IIt3S uotlsututuasf suu033o
tubs d •spoogiogggtau $aslq food
autos ut autts3 3o uOnu4uoouoo oqi
PE19 kn6gtq altgm :sansst ilnotgjtp omi.
pa1u013uo3. A630 -up aq 3t Butlladu103
stout aq Pinom luotunlm s.Platgjo
Buisnoqia112qolutlab21dooddlaq0182pt
IIs s.alagl mom •Satitut83 000`0Z 30
11382 of giuoui s 00ti$ aptnold pinoo
IIotlliut 001$ `ALM 2113 AEJ) -SOXM
AJRO1d ui. asu Butllof 8 23133 Plnom
1811T 4MO s 'satlt3 3o Sanumoi 1elttgaiatDutoif182,( lad uotlitUI 001 $.
usgl,aiotu anoutal pinom 1I azl3T uo01Asea .OSIs st `sautoq panl8n- .iagei11uoPaW11OiSUMAUadoid3o . loud
aqi `8p1129¢ s.plagl0 3o alnlsaj PWO
ud •sgof woq a3MRP uMp POAold
arson 2111:133 d83tpuLq 1a18a18113nut
s Sumum SHgS 30 3I3E'I '8218 ollaut
2113 3O 021 2111 ut s8 InBd '1S PUL.
SllOdi'aIIII W. III sqo f Auvw SB urav
3m q XIMII an APm* le aiagl uoti
Blndod• of 2n118I221 .*IU2tun m s.pl2g
10 23n3a1 01 As8a S.lt Iaeal auo .ld
suond113said
pII8 stsou88tp 8Tq 1nq Aitllg8 stq Sou
st palgop aq 01 sp20 ui isgM '1anoqsgtt. PL 03MM use lIIauttuanog iu03
32u?q. 8 38113 IIotlgtAUO0 Sr . osls j
inq `ssauPloq pim, S'ulmq `unauoo
sits 103: fldo loII u8totigod antlosalle.
9 4 . MOS p - • jaq
Sell
2x
e o os us 11 tp q PI UJO.
a
q ;
Uy°
W
07 O
El 0
00A '3wa: a
0 y oQw $,
M oqu.
f
Rezoning to build 4/2
lowincome housin,
voteddown ihnE a-
Dennis Cassano day's vote could return to haunt the
Staff Writer, city.
Faced with 100. angry Eagan residents
opposed to low- income housing in
their neighborhood, the City Council
ignored legal advice from its attorney
and blocked plans to build 42 town-
houses near a development of expen-
sive homes.
I was just floored," said Mark
Ulfers, director of the Dakota County
Housing and Redevelopment .Au-
thority (HRA), of Wednesday's refus-
al to approve a zoning change neces-
sary for the project near Oak Ridge
Elementary School and Johnny Cake
Ridge Rd. Other Dakota County cit-
ies have approved similar projects,
Ulfers said, "because they feel re-
sponsible to provide affordable hous-
ing. I'm just amazed."
He said the irony is that the HRA
may respond by building 100 to 200
low- income apartment units at the
site . instead of the townhouses, a
move that would not require council
approval of a zoning change.
Mayor Tom Egan, who supported the
project, also warned that Wednes-
If we don't voluntarily show our
social responsibility" by approving
more affordable housing, he said, leg-
islators will "cram it down our
throats."
But those who fought the project
Wednesday said they were afraid —
of crime, of increased traffic, of de-
clining property values. The 8 -acre
site is near a neighborhood of mar-
ket -rate townhouses and of single
family homes valued at $200,000 to
300,000.
What I'm looking at is the people,"
one man told the council. "I hate to
say that because that sounds like I'm
being prejudicial here, but I'm look-
ing at the caliber of the neighbor-
hood. Not only the aesthetic looks of
it, but the people that are coming in."
But Ulfers said many of those new-
comers probably already are living in
Eagan: 300 Eagan families already
are on waiting lists for low- income
housing units.
Housing continued on page 513
r
Housing / Legislator criticizes counci1
large buildings.
State Rep. Myron Orfield, DFL -Min-
neapolis, criticized the council's ac-
tion Thursday.
Continued from page 1B
Yvette Quarfot, HRA finance coordi-
nator, said the people living in the
proposed project would have in-
comes averaging about $20,000 a
year, the maximum income fof a
family of four would be $30,600.
She said half of the people who work
at Blue Cross Blue Shield, the city's
second - largest employer, make less
than $30,000. The largest employer,
Northwest Airlines, has 1,800 work-
ers who make less than $30,000, she
said.
Egan said his daughter, Shannon, is a
recent college graduate who fits that
income description. "I don't want
my daughter to move back to some
slum in the core city because she
can't afford to live in the town she
grew up in," he said.
Of the 15 people who spoke Wednes-
day, two supported the plan. One
man said that one way of reducing
violence in America is to get people
to live next to each other "and begin
to get to know each other and live
and work together."
Egan and Council Members Sandra
Masin and Shawn Hunter voted for
the plan, but Council Members Patri-
cia Awada and Ted Wachter voted
against it. The measure required four
votes for passage.
Wachter said the proposed site "is
the improper location for this one.
I'm not being prejudiced against
anybody."
Awada said she prefers owner -occu-
pied housing to rental property. Al-
though the city has been rezoning for
years so that fewer apartment build-
ings with fewer units will be built in
Eagan, she said she prefers more
Star Tribune Map
owner- occupied condominiums
rather than fewer rental apartments.
Egan said the opponents' reasoning
violates the legal advice that council
members were given by their own
staff. That advice was that they could
not make zoning decisions based on
whether units would be owned or
rented, that they cannot make deci-
sions based on the income of poten-
tial residents and that decisions have
to be consistent with previous deci-
sions to "downzone."
Awada said in an interview later that
she wants low- income housing to be
on scattered sites in the city, not in
Orfield, who has successfully spon-
sored bills two years in a row to force
suburbs to build more affordable
housing only to see the measures
vetoed by IR Gov. Arne Carlson,
said Eagan should not reject low -
income housing proposals when its
own residents need housing.
It should take care of its poor peo-
ple. The central cities shouldn't have
to do it."
Orfield said he was inaccurately
quoted by people at the Wednesday
meeting who claimed that he said
Eagan has enough affordable
housing.
Eagan is doing better than most
cities," he said in an interview
Thursday. `It's doing better than Ma-
ple Grove, the super- restrictive
cities."
The Maple Grove council recently
rejected a low- income housing pro-
posal because of neighborhood oppo-
sition, but later approved a similar
plan in a different location.
The 8 -acre site proposed for the Ea-
gan project is now zoned for 12 to 24
units per acre, or 100 to 200 units.
The HRA had asked the council to
reduce the zoning to five units per
acre.
Ulfers said the HRA is considering
three options: dropping the matter,
suing the city or building an apart-
ment building.
Egan said that the issue will be dis-
cussed again Dec. 20.
3
Im
T
UTU
a
W
C N
Q 13 E (D10
H r'n z° =' CL
0
d
0
L
4)
G
1 u
0
co a uE3 ae
h mCCo00VN > _u O.
c_
rrc[
O F" _
aYEiw E.uC ^ O C d C
p E c v
O
6 R N..V. ^ r R F3 Nb O
a U R H Q >' -
o E cn
N
U)
0
mc
N
Lm
0
U)
0
L
Cl)
A- a =
zEa.
0 .0:
was
y R d O
w =
aCEi
z
C
O .
O
O ° ' ^
E
a
o ,
wc
E .
G
hF °o ha °
0 ' •> R
ono °oor =¢'
c
oo° y ` p°
0 w R QisZ C 0 p
r
C
o c` E oumRm
C c
c o
c ma
0 °' 7
oE 3
O
ECo0
aoroH a`>>,
ow O
CoohR
4
d
O C 0 u C O
o O
RcE„ O.«
2
E
CGOaERy.
o > •v.=
4 R= C^
y
a,°O
Q L
N t C O UV —cl
O N p tV6•
C'O Q M 5EOEC=
E EooCS 1Ell
0."•
0.. 2 = H o ° o3 R. 0R
N > 't O
0-0-0- -
c E0mEOoo°
3 0 ° 3^ "' C U o
H E Eo C o
aC zC •
TOO ^ Cam RO O .
a=°00,0
w 0
U O m U
o.E
aR,
aat v a. °u d e E
E
C
o c` E oumRm
C c
o c ma
0 °' 7
O d_ C c C
a
4HNed a.
2
E
o&CC
Om pON p7
H
y E O
O o0 O N p tV6• O RO•C TEms„ •'
y o.C°OO o °
O
d —
C6
O
R o• -.
y^
o E
0r"Oy04oRCNbaFV .0 V
C >+ i u m
E o o-i O w
o Hr
vCfi
E
dC •CJ m
y 0y0 y
R x a
C 3`•'c d
V R O T y r
Cy" W 0- A N= Cry
y L .0
0
3 oaE Caa
y O 'D, L V R OCNA.C.E R 0
0.0 3
H> E o
H c•Ss° <u a. vst
e
a
f
2B.
types of senior
housing available
Most senior housing in Minnesota
fits into these categories:
Condominium: Senior -owned
apartment- or townhouse -style unit,
with common areas owned jointly.
Cooperative: Apartment -style com-
plek owned by a corporation in
which occupants buy shares in ex-
change for the right to live in a
specific unit.
Continuing care retirement com-
munity: Campus -style housing,
ranging from independent - living
units to nursing home. Residents
pay an entrance fee and monthly
fee for a package of services that
can be provided as needed.
Nonsubsidized rental: Housing
rented at prevailing local rates.
Low /moderate rental: Apartments
for low- or moderate - income peo-
ple, developed without direct feder-
al rent subsidies but with federal
tax credits, local tax increment fi-
nancing or other local subsidies.
Federally subsidized rental: Pri-
vately owned apartment buildings
developed with help from several
federal programs to provide hous-
ing for low - income people.
Public housing: Apartments owned
by local public housing agencies
offering federally subsidized rents,
typically one -third of income, to
low- income people.
Board and lodging: Licensed room
and meals.
Board and lodging with services:
Licensed room and meals, plus
personal care or some health su-
pervision.
Non - certified boarding care home:
Licensed housing with personal
care for five or more aged or frail
adults.
Assisied living'apartment: Private
apartment with kitchens for frail
people who need such services as
meals and housekeeping, and per-
sonal care provided by a licensed
home agency. Services may be
purchased as needed.
Subsidized rental with assisted
living: Privately owned, federallysubsidizedassistedliving
apartments.
Adult foster care: Licensed super-
vision and personal care for up to
five residents (the survey includes
only facilities owned by corpora-
tions, with 24 -hour paid staff, not
family- operated foster care).
Nursing home: Licensed 24 -hour
medical and personal care and su-
pervision for frail or ill people, in-
cluding those recovering from hos-
pital stays. Most residents are older
than 65, and about half are older
than 85.
Sunday /November 6/1994/Star Tribune
7than g for Minnesota seniors
0 percent of older Minnesotans live in houses they own, an d
main there until they die. But for those who decide they want tomustmovebecauseoffailinghealth — the choice of senior
xpanding rapidly.
omprehensive survey of senior housing, a study by a statenursing -home association found that the number of Minnesota seniors in
nursing homes is far exceeded by those in other types of senior housing.
Type Facilities Beds
Nursing Homes 467 47,312
includes 445 nursing homes and 22 certified boarding care homes) Other Senior Housing ' 1,333 62,296
Other Senior Housing Facilities Beds
Independent living " 1,046 50,636
subsidized rental 899 42,471
nonsubsidized rental 147 8,165
Housing with services "' 253 7,805
subsidized rental 10 1,074
nonsubsidized rental 243 6,731
Senior -owned co-ops and
condominiums 27 2,620
Continuous -care retirement
communities 7 1,208
Unidentified 11 32
Does not include 11 facilities with 32 beds that could not be categorized.
Includes federally subsidized rental apartments, public housing andmoderaterentalapartments.
Includes corporate adult foster care, assisted - living apartments, boardandlodginghomes, non - certified boarding care homes, subsidized
apartments with assisted - living and market -rate apartments with assistedliving.
Sources: Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Association of HomesfortheAging.
Star Tribune Graphic
Seniors Continued from page 1B
most of the immediate growth proba
bly will be outstate, she said.
Although state officials have accurate
descriptions of all the facilities that
they license, including nursing
homes, "there's a lot of housing that
we don't have a clue about," said
Glenn Silloway, a long - term -care pol-
icy analyst for the state. "That's why
I have a secretary keyboarding this
report into our [computer] system
right now." His interagency group,
with members from the state Depart-
ments of Human Services and
Health, has been studying whether
the state should regulate additional
aspects of assisted living housing.
The state regulates home care agen-
cies that provide personal and medi-
cal care in assisted living. Some ad-
vocates argue that the buildings and
other services should be regulated
because the residents tend to be frail.
Providers generally argue that exces-
sive regulation could drive up costs.
how quickly we need to make deci-
sions. It would be nice to act, one
way or the other, while the industry
is still small. That would help every-
one — developers, residents and reg-
ulators."
The nursing home association will
update the report early next year
when it conducts another survey, this
one aimed at getting more informa-
tion about people who live in various
types of senior housing.
Many association members also are
developing other types of senior
housing. "But we'd like to get a better
handle on that," Youle said. The
association includes 242 nursing
homes and 200 other senior housingfacilities. Most of them are nonprofit
corporations.
The association also is sending copies
of the report to the 14 regional Area
Agency on Aging offices. People with
questions about senior housing op
But we don't even know for sure LinkageaLineaat (00)t333 -2433, or inhowmuchassistedlivingthereis," the metro area, call the Minnesota' Silloway said. "We know it's grow- Senior Federation metro region officeing. This list may help us figure out at 645 -0261.
l
South St. Paul alone bears
Cood, bad news: Some get
1.,.1% hike, others 20.7% Reactions-mixe(
B7 Anthony Lonetm
Sua.`rWriter
Tax notices arc arriving in the Twin
Cities area, bringing anger, relief and
confusion — all in South St. Paul
alone.
if-its elected officials approve pro
posed city, county and school levees
next month, South St. Paul would
find itself on both ends of a "good
news, bad news' tax scale, according
to Star Tribune projections.
The owner of an avenge - valued
home in the South Si. Paul School
District would pay 20.7 percent more
in taxes. Neighbors in the city who
live in the Inver Grove Heights dis-
trict would see only a 1.1 perccat
increase -
A reason for the disparity. The South
5:. Paul district is proposing an 18
percent levy hike, while the Inver
Grove Heights school board is weigh-
ing a 7 percent increase.
The Dakota County community is
not alone in its potential for double -
digit increascx The Star Tribune has
found such notices to be plentiful in
five of seven metro area counties.
The newspaper calculated the worst -
mse tax bills for owners of average -
valued homes in 73 metro area com-
munities. The numbers reflect prop -
trry -value increases, and also include
multiple calculations for cities such
a {.South St. Paul whose boundaries
intrude more than one school
d4rlri ct-
W.:ile that community's odd tax situ -
ati on can be attributed largely to gov-
ernment spending, homeowners in
other cities can point to increasing
property values as the main culprit
behind their double -digit hikes.
Tbat's because the state tax system
th to worst-case
r ru - e ... _ ..
be told rt taxPropertytaxes °95 pror
relies on the value of one's property
as one of the two major components
of the property -tax bill.
Citizens who began receiving their
truth -in- taxation notices about a
week ago will find that they have
limited options to challenge those
valuations now. The numbers were
set by county assessors earlier this
year.
But the truth -in- taxation statement
lists public hearing sites where prop.-
erty owners can fight city, county and
school spending plans. Often the lev-
ies are trimmed before final votes are
taken in December.
Here are some of the larger levy
increases being proposed by local 1u -.
risdictions:
Cities /townships: Forest Lake Town-
ship, 41.75 percent; Andover, 24.3;
Lino Iakes, 22.1; Rosemount, 20.9;
Chanhassen, 17.2; Woodbury, 14.9;
Savage, 13.8; Brooklyn Park 12.9;
Hugo, 12.4; White Bear Township,
12.3; Mahtomedi, 12.0; Brooklyn
Cents, 11.6; Golden Valley, 11.3,
and Hastings, 11.0.
Schools (with district number):
Brooklyn Center (286), 28.6 percent;
Anoka - Isanti (15), 25.7; Chaska
112). 22.45; Hopkins (270), 18.7;
South St. Paul (6) and White Bear
Lake (624), 18.1; Eden Prairie (272),
18.0; Prior Lake (719), 17.9; Shako-
pee (720), 17.7; Anoka- Hennepin
11), 15.7; Farmington (192), 15.1,
and Rosemount (196), 10.7.
projections;
See
va"
15-"
rlow much are your property saxe s goingHome&w,ers aties N, i:. StarTribune has calculated potectwJ tax b4ls'-. averac)e dvvxym in property values and averagehavebegunnx*"V Wh-rks;rmlion roxm, for homes of average value in 73 metro area • jr in taxes. Mur pW calculations were
go,
which Provide a worst-case soenano of next communities (wlth at least 5,000 resicients) done for crbes vA-sow bourKjanes WxAlde More. years tax biL -_4 . , . 1, .: ', , - . - . .... . . . - - . :
ft*?,
than one school distrimtForeach -to*. the Percentages rafted
NU 1995 I Market I'r.Clt, or 1994
City Or School market _,199i.:,. m t-,j School market -1994 :market - lies MarketTownshipTownship'. 'dIxtrict...valuG i1. tax us Lzlv fax - I: :valor TaxVal ToWnallp diabict! .'value value tax value Tax",
Hennepin'Co
Hoover 11 S94.800 $1287 $100.300 $1.496 5.8% 1162'.' -.'Blooff'w"n*gIon 271 1$110.000 $1.875 1 S115.000 $2.008 4.5% 7.1%
5 iA= . ''110.000 "; 1.9643 115.000 Z146 ' .4.5':! 10.2:"! j .1.387 100,300 :-,-1,523 5.8 .8
Anoka 11 77,000 . 950 71.11 _1:01 "3:: 13.0 11_nfL`.-2,273 .1 10.0DO -9,133 4.5., 7-6
00 11. .
110.ODD • -2,078. 3 1 S.000e; Blaine 1 80,400 1.013 83.5 11.2 BrooidynCenter 11 73,000 950 73.000' 1,006 0.0 S.8
2 7'86:400 ;71.073 83= :;1,156 3.9.. "t.73.000 1.028 "173,000 -1.065 0.0 3.7
80,400 992 83,500 1,100 3.9 .73.000 't-1,010 73.000 -.1.046: 0.0. 3.6 .w. - Columbia Heights 13 69.100 902 69,300 968 0.3 .3 i- ;WVa ;,t.,73,000 -.1.112 :0.0- l6.8 X-._-
Coon Rapids 11 80.400 973 83,200 1,034 3.5 11.4 Brooklyn Park 11 88,000 1.311 89.000 1,426 1.1 8.8
East Bethel 15 69.800 810 74,100 891 1 6.2 10.1 _88.(W J,4= ---rt 89,000 .I -1,511 1;1
69,8W 782 74,100 877 62 122 281 88.000 jj.395 Z 89.000 .:.jz .484.* _1.1 64,-.
Fridley 11 77,700 928 79.600 1.011 12.4 9.0 Champlin 11 88,000 31.?82 93,000 1,465 5;71377.700 -;1,028 79,600 "i.14 -1 2.4. 11.7 Corcoran 279 108.000 I.&rA 119.000 ZI
14.2_
58 10.2 16.4
2S4 '1.751 -.119,0001477.700 1,040 ...79.600 -.1,107. 2.47.. . 6.5 '; , . - - 14.S. - 108.000 ZOOS 10.2''
16 .,77,700 906 :..:79,600 - r 987. 2.4:.. 108,000 1,726 ri-119.000 2,145 10.2-. 24.3'
Ham Lake 11 84.700 1.012 89,600 1,163 5.8 14.9 M .108,000 .1,826 `719,000 -.2,115 10.2 15.7
831 84.700 1.062 -1' 89.600 1,168. 5.8 10.0 883 :)08,000 J,SM :1 19,000 ;1,987- 102;4 9.0:;-,7-; Lino Lakes 12 97.700 1.63D 105,600 1.874 8.1 1 so crystal 281 _ 74,000. J,025 77,000 _1,127 9.9
624 1`97;M *'JM -l()5,6DO 'ZOW 6.1 20.9 Eden Prairie 270 150,000 3,145 162,000 3,628 1 8.0 1 SX_f•
83 97,700 1,W7 -t105,600 'TU5 8.1* -3 -162000 ' "3.428 J,"B4, .
u, -7',Z_-'272 !50JDW '- 019
11 80.600 1164 $7.100 1,366 3,,Sql • Oak Grove. 8.1 17.4 150,000, Nii; 8.0 9.0jig-
Edina 185.000 3.824 197.000 1 4.334 6.5 13 37. J5 60,600 _.i 44 -' ;'87,100 x•1390
271. =185,U00' 73.537 '"-'l 91.*006 7-3.82f 6.5 8.277vRamsey1185.700 _1.0891 '91.800 1.2S5 7.1 1 0
aS,700 1,275 7.1_: 1.193 1:: 91,800 272 115.000 X3,1560 -:197.009 1.4.079 11.4
pring Lake Park 16
t
78,600 ..VI983181,ODO 1,090 3.1 10. 273 Z,185.000 fiB86_ 2I97.000,-,4,019-6S!F - 3A w-il-1
43,786ryCo 47 .280 :'185,000 "3 '4197 000 4.137:
ja!i 0 97,00q _4 -&-l't OA*-X,- F 0% -$,.Golden Valley 270 117,000 22M 122.00WO 2500 .3 2.0
6 $3,lil 16.;. 16.- Chanhassen 112 S135. ** , t r
J;J43,600 -.3,316 6.4..1 102' :-.1- - fu
4135.000 ...3,0091
112Chaska 1,791 ...... ;7.281. 7-'117,006 1?,1&5; Z1240plY _LZ:W64 ',496.0001 1.5281 101,0001 15.2 117.2 P.' . _ Hopkins 270 101,000 -1.817 109.000 2.133 7. 9 7.4--
S Dakotai Cc-'- n.- 04f :1101.bW z 000 Z
28.3: V:428.3: ;XV. 1 S11Z300 kil" .4% 6.7% 91AppleValley9 $1. S116.1D0 $
X191 _.Z221 3.4 - rove 11 .000 Z01 1 118,000 .2213A 7.31, JZ300 ZOU .6 12.6 •
Qf 060 Z>,tjP :7- 1&9-7urnsville191109,400 1.987 -114.000 2,092 4.2 10.9-6- 0.1000VfK, . 81
1z" .000 '42 78-600 1 _)C)6 80.300 1.291 2.2- i':169.400 !I.W r.114 7.0
196 ,109,400 1,689. f 114,000 -j1.801 - 42 Minnetonka 270 140.000 2.755 3.205 7.1
Eagan 61961112, 100 1.926 4.9 WO- -_150'00W 73,2298.3 .7, TSW
4 0.000 1.; 600 100 nw;W .2K.340.000 SOPW2=' 49
AJZ600 1 _..PIIIPW ..j.649 6.51-110.6 Z118,100 ;;j 44.1145'_,, .000
Farmington 192 87,100 1,387 91,9W 1 !1:, New Hope 281 89.000 402 9Z0DD .1.502 3.4 -i•7.1
20D 92= 1,364 94,300 :1,512 1Z.- ,O.g L- Iom -5,611 9.1 -110 .1Hastings2760D05.063 240.1
Inver Grove Hgts. 199 101,100 1.734 105.700 .1,86414-5 7.5 40F
CYO crr•r ,r.277_ 220,000jj t.711Z;. 306 ;711;i4.ios.7ooV,9` 4_57 4,64t. _7240.15M. a.20t. 2_1' J. 96 -_-ibf. 6791 . _2" ,.. 220,000. ;_ t -
97. E-101 .100 Lz 95.7 ;66S411-4. 71' ?2D,0001 tf -qjj:.Z0.Qq0. "`4,974 .40015-
00 .1Ukeville19a4107.700 -114,100 - 1.9W 15.9 .4, 7-7-4 Plymouth -270 139,0001 2,6311:.150.000 3.049 .;7.9 =115.9• .
n 150,000FA42',192 •.107,70( 'S '492r ?7•04 110 '5_"
ACV.-- UW407,700 Vj Al M.14 -1.7, OW L;I.z 40.5 9 . I100r --7aQ'i* 11
Mendota Heights: 19 Z717151:: 2 .2. 3 6 . . 71].: 79;r 1.*9734z.158,000
e Rosemount'-' :1 96,L 656 .'108.ODO 19&
32 4'1
Richfield., - 280 ..81,000 .1= 9S4 i27016.0-- 12.9 #1 5.0,.:. 1
R -281 74.00q0610-9 J,Wl 75.000 Atq(K 3.3:'
SL 282 98.000 1.694 1 1.811 -5.1 6.9
obbinsdade
l r-49, 03,000
79.6001 1,0291
308o .1,
05
1 _Zt_ 6 .7k odo- --:-i msFS. St. Paul OD61 '480,100 1.242 0.6 2 . St -Louts 'F-97.000 _1.7bl§':4.3 13.
9tf-79 VITNSE - f, 4 4a. If --%Pcolri"ig . P --, 0(Q 7=0- 31
97W.. Paul... 197 93 .4W 1 1-373 L 94,000 -1.385 10.6 1 0
s7 horewood 2761- 181,000 1. 4.081 196,000 154,536 8.3- 11.1
2 M_ , Nj $ 0yr
r Arden Hills 6211$1 - 32.5M I SZ-cm $136,219 S2,6601.2.8%.1 '41
Falcon Heights • 623 --113.858 2.1541--
Little Canada 621 105,359 2.028 ,
Maplewood 622 92,352 'j
641,
New
Y#"_6Z1 _'85.79_9.,_1AW.
NewBnghton 282 .107,787 1,920
AN; ;621 07 .905
No St eziq 167
Roseville 621 103,362 1,780
nzI
SL.AnVKM 282 .116.168 2,286
St Paul M 74,973 1,150 E.
Shoreview 6521 123.497 2,337 i;
Vadnais Heights 621 119,159 2,147
ZR , =:f' n-19.159. ;2,254t
White Bear Lake 622 - 892W • 1,375
White Bear _6211 108, J51I .& 51
4950. 2280 2.7 5.8--
594 2.207 5.0 - . 8.8 "
1-594 _2285 15,01- _t4.0S
119 - 1,624 1-9 - 7.6 -.
119 c11724 :- 9 5PMe
119 toxr. JAZ 10-8*
236 '1,45k 1.7'",_3.5.1
469 1.999 2.5-1 4.1 4-
309 _11.2661.2.6i^ 8.5
91.810
irove SM S&
rwo: 831 10•
WK621ic 9! ) - -
z 834 - 13:
IME:t5E Uj!
622 • "71
49 Prior lake ' i
5.0 ---r Savage - -
Shakopee
7.6
300
SR)T.
S127_9
4Z84
585200 5I,311 2.3%.2.
1,795
600 1.511 107.400 1.6118 27•11.7,;
17.0,
3700 2.397 440,4001 2, 8 5.0.-9.6
8W 1,053 79.600 1,093.
11.
1.0+ Ti
600
M:
1,468
M5
97100
F133.=
1,605 3.7 9.3 iFl
19 $98.800 51.882 107,400 S2.224 8.7%11&2%
M 9Z100 1,795 100,300 2.146 8_9 11.9.
15--
it 86,300 1I573 92.500 1.840 72 17.0,
T.-
f r.
50
sg
3/(
I ` . ` [
v . // `
r \ . \,
J . .. _ ` °•'<•
U
E=
O
y
E
EmN
C '
7 '
a;
uC
NC •
c
C
3OG 2C=
U > .•
m
Oc_ >
o=
C
i
L
4, ~,
p
nO-
n . .°'
oOL .
o
H '
RC"
w
vu mU
nvVi '"
YV
L •- p-
L
p '
G '('^ .
V • . _
Q
y 3 u ^ • R ,•
s-
L •-. .OyNu
H .
0 ` -K `- '•
Us
C°
N _
e•7 °' '-
a
9 + _
L =
ov
6N eA eo
R,- NU
N C .0 - K .• E C : O R Co.
p ° O CCCV
y
b E Q a OC E .ERDo
y''„
t U ' " •
ea ..
J4
O Oa O
ci
cz h O'U >s •p = A >,.= 'fl ui _ -0 p _> O •
C R u c ,
a CV G u R _4—j
pC
Q u C-i
C.) E o
u V R _O C%i U O N RO U < uEyCE
O CV G >'C E N R t V r O Oca
V "—.—= _ u OE , C;p
Gocj
C dv > oa ea.
O'- Co °E o• CC *> U ` UGoeoOUu - C V
ECEc ` E > u C'C. 0- C
boEGvO'
O
C-JOCDQvOME -44 C °
U nC U
G pGpp - -b-- -,—
0 EinOb CEQ '0
O
yV
u E p• p o Ham`Eu ° O U C o•p 2-0
s c
0 0
aC' >
i >o
a = o E ° 3u hEoc ..
j c-
ice•,`'•. _ .
1
a ;
i ,
l
I
1
i
a o°p
Q
a_
u ,.: o _ us_
E - L p s Eu •' v C R
I
m V
W.
ol•
O y•N -C ;._C::`.'C•EI .G {„ R R Q
G--' °
uIn R:•,:G Q.._i V,S•..- .•'J' :
r-. = N ccc
0 'O . C .D 3 " ` , = O r Q, R E .:... y .R , '• N = E T C v ° pCD O, N' C .
eon •
r"C ,'' ° R U ," ;• `vi .0.0.
0, ` ' 1
Q O E. m'o a> u `" 3 c• R o L 'N_
o N u E •:, •°o „ c R E y o A o •o = .• u i° u° N R w u a,•o G U_. u. o ;:._•: w> s N` .. -:
E .o C O
N o
N o
cD nCi C
E y.w E
s a u u R= C u °.• .N C o
NEEVOUp0 .. _ _ E N > R E O U R 'd - R J.
u D H c ^ .0 'G •_ > "" u O 'in 7 V :r •^ _O C .0 -, ' _ 1.
14-
N
CZ _
yC6 •-•, = V nCVUVO- > C C Q O i o.
o - pT-
O .
N
vE
M
0 p p= p C 'D p v EVOOO > U C V O u'O = . _ I p V
N
n
VG
R E p" O G 2 o -
O
OK C , pp.
U
O p RO n .
r 11 > C V 'y • U C `UJQCpOuyCR " V Yo
o U = 'm `cjEu ^.° fl o o C
p
u•. _,_•.
s..,_; - _ _ °
Y•tz _ ..,-
M'
AuCoZo
O0Op `
1f
t °
O= -
C., = = III 'a v : w -0 Co CW
Q eo=a. e`s
u >, r e>-. vs a O u o ^a V.y E m- 3 0'C- o X C V r_ i
R u V V u. ` '•_ C O - U G -Y y C .y oo C >, C, 00 C•- u= N O ,
c :: > >s U =>o^ o >Y °Eba0— u s,o =ue '.NC.e HUU2 ~ =E
s= seo- o uEu•'oWo°`_'- m- _cc.°oc.c°a,o >>N =,
uc„
Z,cu'uotz >
O R mph _'., O C L N'C C O U R.-.D E N c v •C u-`•N C C u O O--
O •c `w Rc - =' u r. - LEuv =
cc tn_.. °u N N r. us >
p = Q us O E, o y n._ C) Q- "vv -'
R° u E o a c n o> s R V a a o.o ,
u L` u `' E.N. n 0 C
u R n
R
L.A.0 V R E•O u p C u'•R b~ :V.. c u v..^.. .G N C R.
n•p ^'C••_•C? R... E•N•, -.0 a N = p Y rR,,.0 R w V%'V N O R R OD••~ C u = O C.Q
V C (-• 'fl O N N N 0 V U u C 0 ^J' K L .0 O '- C 'C i C N - Q L y> C •- G +
O Op .G •- _
L V Q C•-• 'C u v E > iq N C t= n'o _j ' U _u C Iu p >+ "- O L R _U 'u ,. u +.. > O U
L G '2 ° N R p' V O N G R N Do = . U w V 'O („t U V r_ n i R E•' L aJ L U i d X K vi 'fl UQcooLR ?t. ;° o_ L e 2 o c ae > y p p os u a u J
u
R.y v G u ° N coR•- R u._ y
V._ O N u O L >.0 R U y ,n C C G R 3 . '9
U = R pp.O G> .%, u R •o v C N C •o .. O. G v N N y •O N a G_ 'O • C O N
R•N O,O m' : ! OLL =,C' C•E u O O N O - > V m'O N v poN nE p0 .QgO.L . C ns° m =
01 ) > u•, V u Vt.:'OA E u .o '_' u•C G y .R,. •,C -„ ai 'Ri .y,/° ,R„•C :,. O C ii..1° u -,C-„
o E2l, E
pn.
m v E o a o° a E 3 u 0, _ E y o QS_ o c_ u g u E 570 >_> u o u a p o L U n_, c o _
n '_ o u os u E Q o o u oir _ e uLsoN..s nc N N R u E tnCL N nsvv..._ u.0 .w E. L.0 OO 4.3 'D H >L R R O
j_
L (
fV / j
j/ . . ). .
C
ZiA
o
GcR4
c ' '
vf = ,
v ° .
1 . . 1jL1 .
Jy
R
V
3tu
RC
L ¢ ':
o ,
u
h
w . . '_
j
O
RE
c = ' •._
3-
3 „
v
C ._•_
Yu
v
o = . ; ;` • - . -
F0
p_
V
T ;. • •
Nu
u ' .
w .
V
L ° . -_= % - ;
a
L7 '
J r • , -
U
C
ia
r. '
C
6 '' `
rvi° .
c
t'° _ .
c
yu
a -
a ,
u
d
3
oe.
i
C
cU .uu _
t7
u
V
p`'
hru _ . _.
s
Ypo
E- . =
c- -
v
ou
R,Vpri '',.
C_+'
e" •..•'
p=
G -
f
u _`.' '
E .. h_
s
uLE
o
tR >
c ° R v > • c E = o E o i
R u O c AC R s > '
L CR
v y O O .0 C= p
m O R
0 u >+ o y > O
L l u L w-a u ” U a L 0 Coo
s.EE` Q'0Gn E.`u e
06
V 0 - CtC >h G "RC
m o.
U
o G = °
CIA R
I = w= . a
uQc c 0 u 0 be , u
N
n o•-CQ C=o ST•- o
Cc .
U O ( E
O >.
V >.` .> V Ca > 0 CVNRuRVR = U O t° G CR
N rV V C `° = E E p01 ;p ti= L Y E
R '
oC . ' ;:' •. '
O u c p S
u _ O8. o
p G C u O
o Ca .2 C C Y U r 23 u 3LRuGCG•
Z t . G
0. n > . R
N
o rE '=: '4 j0.R o >p •
n"'
V&Euc'
i° : = ' EL* °R ° A R o p m oe
so `' `
E x -
17 '. : •-.•::'. . '
i :. '
r ,'•
41
c.
0 .. •• ':
r ..
z'_: `'+ `+
r":
c^• :._ :.•_;
r:'.
L'
e •_:-.,
Y.
1-.
f
j }
F '.
E /.
V. ..a..
Vdl
F•O dR VwN` ^R
C ctpVVyVV -sE U 0R0 VF
jam{ m G L O K - = N t> 00 6 G O a G O y V T
V
Y••-• T GL"' O O O t. -told p O V V L V G d uF0CRaOc,0 Z C N V " L c d ^•__••_ L u L Gd 6 R C.._ > y R^ V L _ E L u L ° a A L d R C_ O
L 0 d •y d R • V O N U C V R m m C^ d % a U L> R y G
L h t K S r pCL c = K E g O c y ° 0 d N C... ... Gam' G •fl T C V L C L
O -'- .°Z d .. p o O-U = u m o d
R
o'o „Tt °p R
d nub s o g e'L A.°-
o° c° dry
E u* °
o y V N u 7 A E d rt °u'- mie ° E a E 1° Frs w
CR L R :Sg FL.. -'•U N LF d E GCt AUaC ELccV
R _m C
7 O C w r O C S O U c r. L's ° G y L N^ ° R > '-' -' L .y+'O .>1 R G L w u
o m o ITR eo u " °° = E `
q°
u L Er`
Z +
w
yL
Ty S u G a` c E m G-`
p°.
u
G° E
0 c O V OHO C V K .•+' d a O c d Rata O 61 •u u N mGOOC pr dL K G 2 E.S. m0 GccF
L A_ a =tow U ^ G K L 3 V "` .-• L V '_-, G O V y y V V c y (
u
US N C =.E _ X p L 0 O K OL V K R G L O m V V L Oi y u c -0
L O A~L O G O dr L G O O C E V VLU p V R K
qoy _
y Ey y - V 00 7 OLq C o O eC p w R V E C
ER•.°
a• ° OF _ U•L F T
V R• O A O g R p N_] b ( R g R O.r b I, °^ E L V r VGapVSrOc . K R.d Nom. GOC.t M.^.+N y ... • ... .
rrr+
O ' U E R_H
u ° g p a1c c
L RLMz z -
o.y.. .. '. R•ocoiycLV u :g c.S' >.y. '° Euoc°°
R
qOq
R A u ^ °° u• ` %-+ iLa•v+ c 'o o
as 7 •-. O Q O O V O f°J •L•' L ;,u. L'• S G v V° V :O Gj E
t.. . o otO GM.. `y d G6y mo typ Ni S R G' LL' -Ip u o._L `cog c,
MAAIp •'OCV S. -.yAV VCU y- UGO °lpt OVALS AO VdFV_
A K R . a_ o; R v E c v E a -•'a GE o d L K`r
vd au,°
y NorZ- o p t O e L E> S
B. I- ._ - L 3 U o OLD R O F O N E U
v1 O ° L L A C' ' bL y 'T u R V K •O U O F r `.' U F y N C U ('-i . V K t.. tooOC._. V V ct mR >•_ L U c -...
tapM
tj ,= c tH > c .
L V E c^ H ` •..' .y V- U L.• C r^ G T R v> 4 y V" L
S S to p G S7 ; V G p C y d 0 0 r V C. T> V ydj K c> E L p, 0 0 A^ r t
o_ °.. u GO .- °_ n o u o ° o L o C-4 = ".
o d °ou U `. v mKL.,do -v o ELyuC1a odo
V : ._u_L t a, u m G ge.. :.oE _useR L>
i
V- ; H C V•, '.779 A E 5 G-6 d t? C T A d p N ..+ O_ mr g L O V SCCm -^ - O V 0^ 0 V 7 V L^ := .d+ __ V
Ld. ^
y C G T
C R R -.• ... c G 1^7 y'O > O O g `0 7 E A V p 1- V A^ O RKrNrv'm Ip3 Lc >oy Ln p ^A. c •
o^ o
yA Gu= ^o >u`
AGr °
Llpo=
yu"dv- jgE= °Lt°o'Lp c
ti• .-. rq (, i U y ^_ V V R V T9 E" C d V C U V d V >'."
E> R H O GM N O N
p A c y C CG L R. N O p
LV.
N U Ac E t a VL O rL A p•.-. ._ C
o V 1... OOLa+.E .. Oar..1•yt..•NJr.E:.ir'Gr.0 0.,.C....N;O..L.R
C,. QCaJ C ..R G C E` d d L L .J V y d L d w.
a KL..V 0 y:
i.+' VGti... C O
u d-; °t`e` y R 5°ge aFO^a. oS• e
KC J u L O E W. 0 K A
t OyG u1•tSL. U..uNaLand pLp yw H1/.;•`.^
L. 3
uL
d G1 =a ie u ` g .z .:o Lam•- fl'.G..._c c d G ° o d A o d .
11' A a d.. E GL p
ti:R °o L != >2L g "V d'O tnr i.. c.lVpRy +L U ^L- •'OOAr EC t C: 0 L - m G 0 n A'` C26 ": > RL 'O o
c^''. "a'` id p o =sm': EEC •vdu -°N co °
L
V/1 ''.0 3r r T 9 °:' i -g.T jt• ej K Lec°
EL
m '°' °o_.°. _LO Lo
C_
d ^tea G t'>ii . 6i d d V.O . LOO CNJ .O.. J O R d R OESAuCGGujG°.' A R -' O•n L ^ =Y Tt•' -N 7L 0 m•o L.G C...n E >.n
GA O... •L.L `•;r f O y.. i.L O.r t N_...d'•.' d
Vr
0... R C R._ -VM...
C R O [ u'O L -c O V m V m•- A
d •`.'G -. 4 ^'' O V j1=.'•ED.'tJ. .'-."L N - C C "O_V E C g V V •0 ... E w EM _.TOm O. U e'o p -ar R
E o u.A d .: V =L' •-' dr._
r omRE Rr>• y°de °e nL
Sc
y ....
L dL F %. d- aa. - RO•c CL C Lr__. y d V F L30ouo3'. <RdE.c. K.t O'.d00 ^AmmydumOKLOO GHAy>,oO•`.:o ^
oo
ca+o °.. dtL•F :R. •3w1 1°w>.FAc• .R yu LLAL
T= U _moo u:a s: k`c u _ E •o:._u d.canf" _ C 1' I... r......
cc
u c; eiov :.° p^ jjj •
l. Iri d OLt^ V FyGVB _ a v V .. O m V OaY'•h d_ INE LRd Ka yu- O.°..aaC G 6 C.'O >atfr, 110m -6Li:•'•,
yF..:dd_TR• S dR
C.
41
C
R -
to ^a:Jr, •d ='-u vY dd7 >
a1°
i.Lr.YV tddmL°ygGd oG'UO9m
i.
Kf .
c - .'t CJdNi m 7OC- iLr'g000.C.• p•- Kd _'
E c v oL E >,y o m G oL er - oa p
Ca
d a; L.+ °• O R L 'O O .... '." d N m' d -c moo ... 0^ y E .... Q. U
i/ _
4 > c q E T. ti i9 e'o p K d u m u y c o L =. E si pci.• : c C
W0
C.
y 0 9 _RUm wt. oo ° ^
m = >.eo.geo=d Gc_g 1
d o ' - G'L p+ y s g G oo G•ov q ov ^ogpLKT c-. O mLyL d V 0 0 y d UNL.+ R d dY p! K UL U d d {.O d o9oTB SY .S° o p,'.0 ° u3yk. .MC7 `L° »o` N y d.E9 E = o °rioo ... K• u•GC GT: o .'c aw°e'': sea .
A `p *
aR.
o
mr-
U V L d O• w i i
1!5 I
V m C O G VN V 7 Y R
V T V ZZ C r r7 L 7 1• - ± L V •C fOb1...._ It V
V G E LL71y/ Z L d u V v d V G N L L
y
L d
m S
e O c°
smdoZMp>
im -
Eo_g
r,'.. ._
uTgmv00 VL...7c'c N"' 7 O'- o e Hom eD O V d L E-°- g^ dL d L o y E
C R L R O C L. G R E C L A 6 •' t,r c UTOVO ._ r mtD •"' p O R` O
GaL9
V V J L O
Ma
LODK OG RK Tyr9u ti >K= VU.F.. ER V•RL i
a0c MyL G'pp. -•
pROddmgftYad
V
u dpy
RcNL."c E
1C
yCr
L+- Vcp V
y
V-:5:2 d ^ O . L R V d d dL
d p 'o F o tv E dL c mLO EH
Z lJ ^ V N
wia'o E.2 s
F•O dR VwN` ^R
C ctpVVyVV -sE U 0R0 VF
jam{ m G L O K - = N t> 00 6 G O a G O y V T
V
Y••-• T GL"' O O O t. -told p O V V L V G d uF0CRaOc,0 Z C N V " L c d ^•__••_ L u L Gd 6 R C.._ > y R^ V L _ E L u L ° a A L d R C_ O
L 0 d •y d R • V O N U C V R m m C^ d % a U L> R y G
L h t K S r pCL c = K E g O c y ° 0 d N C... ... Gam' G •fl T C V L C L
O -'- .°Z d .. p o O-U = u m o d
R
o'o „Tt °p R
d nub s o g e'L A.°-
o° c° dry
E u* °
o y V N u 7 A E d rt °u'- mie ° E a E 1° Frs w
CR L R :Sg FL.. -'•U N LF d E GCt AUaC ELccV
R _m C
7 O C w r O C S O U c r. L's ° G y L N^ ° R > '-' -' L .y+'O .>1 R G L w u
o m o ITR eo u " °° = E `
q°
u L Er`
Z +
w
yL
Ty S u G a` c E m G-`
p°.
u
G° E
0 c O V OHO C V K .•+' d a O c d Rata O 61 •u u N mGOOC pr dL K G 2 E.S. m0 GccF
L A_ a =tow U ^ G K L 3 V "` .-• L V '_-, G O V y y V V c y (
u
US N C =.E _ X p L 0 O K OL V K R G L O m V V L Oi y u c -0
L O A~L O G O dr L G O O C E V VLU p V R K
qoy _
y Ey y - V 00 7 OLq C o O eC p w R V E C
ER•.°
a• ° OF _ U•L F T
V R• O A O g R p N_] b ( R g R O.r b I, °^ E L V r VGapVSrOc . K R.d Nom. GOC.t M.^.+N y ... • ... .
rrr+
O ' U E R_H
u ° g p a1c c
L RL Mz z -
o.y.. .. '. R•ocoiycLV u :g c.S' >.y. '° Euoc°°
R
qOq
R A u ^ °° u• ` %-+ iLa•v+ c 'o o
as 7 •-. O Q O O V O f°J •L•' L ;,u. L'• S G v V° V :O Gj E
t.. . o otO GM.. `y d G6y mo typ Ni S R G' LL' -Ip u o._L `cog c,
MAAIp •'OCV S. -.yAV VCU y- UGO °lpt OVALS AO VdFV_
A K R . a_ o; R v E c v E a -•'a GE o d L K`r
vd au,°
y NorZ- o p t O e L E> S
B. I- ._ - L 3 U o OLD R O F O N E U
v1 O ° L L A C' ' bL y 'T u R V K •O U O F r `.' U F y N C U ('-i . V K t.. tooOC._. V V ct mR >•_ L U c -...
tapM
tj ,= c tH > c .
L V E c^ H ` •..' .y V- U L.• C r^ G T R v> 4 y V" L
S S to p G S7 ; V G p C y d 0 0 r V C. T> V ydj K c> E L p, 0 0 A^ r t
o_ °.. u GO .- °_ n o u o ° o L o C-4 = ".
o d °ou U `. v mKL.,do -v o ELyuC1a odo
V : ._u_L t a, u m G ge.. :.oE _useR L>
i
V- ; H C V•, '.779 A E 5 G-6 d t? C T A d p N ..+ O_ mr g L O V SCCm -^ - O V 0^ 0 V 7 V L^ := .d+ __ V
Ld. ^
y C G T
C R R -.• ... c G 1^7 y'O > O O g `0 7 E A V p 1- V A^ O RKrNrv'm Ip3 Lc >oy Ln p ^A. c •
o^ o
yA Gu= ^o >u`
AGr °
Llpo=
yu"dv- jgE= °Lt°o'Lp c
ti• .-. rq (, i U y ^_ V V R V T9 E" C d V C U V d V >'."
E> R H O GM N O N
p A c y C CG L R. N O p
LV.
N U Ac E t a VL O rL A p•.-. ._ C
o V 1... OOLa+.E .. Oar..1•yt..•NJr.E:.ir'Gr.0 0.,.C....N;O..L.R
C,. QCaJ C ..R G C E` d d L L .J V y d L d w.
a KL..V 0 y:
i.+' VGti... C O
u d-; °t`e` y R 5°ge aFO^a. oS• e
KC J u L O E W. 0 K A
t OyG u1•tSL. U..uNaLand pLp yw H1/.;•`.^
L. 3
uL
d G1 =a ie u ` g .z .:o Lam•- fl'.G..._c c d G ° o d A o d .
11' A a d.. E GL p
ti:R °o L != >2L g "V d'O tnr i.. c.lVpRy +L U ^L- •'OOAr EC t C: 0 L - m G 0 n A'` C26 ": > RL 'O o
c^''. "a'` id p o =sm': EEC •vdu -°N co °
L
V/1 ''.0 3r r T 9 °:' i -g.T jt• ej K Lec°
EL
m '°' °o_.°. _LO Lo
C_
d ^tea G t'>ii . 6i d d V.O . LOO CNJ .O.. J O R d R OESAuCGGujG°.' A R -' O•n L ^ =Y Tt•' -N 7L 0 m•o L.G C...n E >.n
GA O... •L.L `•;r f O y.. i.L O.r t N_...d'•.' d
Vr
0... R C R._ -VM...
C R O [ u'O L -c O V m V m•- A
d •`.'G -. 4 ^'' O V j1=.'•ED.'tJ. .'-."L N - C C "O_V E C g V V •0 ... E w EM _.TOm O. U e'o p -ar R
E o u.A d .: V =L' •-' dr._
r o mRE Rr>• y°de °e nL
Sc
y ....
L dL F %. d- aa. - RO•c CL C Lr__. y d V F L30ouo3'. <RdE.c. K.t O'.d00 ^AmmydumOKLOO GHAy>,oO•`.:o ^
oo
ca+o °.. dtL•F :R. •3w1 1°w>.FAc• .R yu LLAL
T= U _moo u:a s: k`c u _ E •o:._u d.canf" _ C 1' I... r......
cc
u c; eiov :.° p^ jjj •
l. Iri d OLt^ V FyGVB _ a v V .. O m V OaY'•h d_ INE LRd Ka yu- O.°..aaC G 6 C.'O >atfr, 110m -6Li:•'•,
yF..:dd_TR• S dR
C.
41
C
R -
to ^a:Jr, •d ='-u vY dd7 >
a1°
i.Lr.YV tddmL°ygGd oG'UO9m
i.
Kf .
c - .'t CJdNi m 7OC- iLr'g000.C.• p•- Kd _'
E c v oL E >,y o m G oL er - oa p
Ca
d a; L.+ °• O R L 'O O .... '." d N m' d -c moo ... 0^ y E .... Q. U
i/ _
4 > c q E T. ti i9 e'o p K d u m u y c o L =. E si pci.• : c C
W0
C.
y 0 9 _RUm wt. oo ° ^
m = >.eo.geo=d Gc_g 1
d o ' - G'L p+ y s g G oo G•ov q ov ^ogpLKT c-. O mLyL d V 0 0 y d UNL.+ R d dY p! K UL U d d {.O d o9oTB SY .S° o p,'.0 ° u3yk. .MC7 `L° »o` N y d.E9 E = o °rioo ... K• u•GC GT: o .'c aw°e'': sea .
A `p *
aR.
o
mr-
U V L d O• w i i
1!5 I
A ;115,000; house in the sub -
urb- is not high income," said Jim
Gelf,mann, deputy state auditor.
Tite state's tax system has tradi-
tionally been so preferential to
low- valued homes that those
homes have lower tax rates than
ent gets made that
homes of similar
values inn
Salo -
other states, according
inone, executive
director of the
Minnesota Taxpayers Association. The system gives a tax break tosomepeoplewhohavegoodin- comes but who live in modest
houses:
is
The argum
by holding
down taxes a lot
valued homes, are
whgiving
aren't in-
of relief to those
give reliefcomepoorinordertoi
to tho i
are?,,
11inze said. .
Legs ators say the shift in taxburdentolower-value houses is
offset by a beefed -up cirD lt-r.
breaker tax refund wro ram-t *:
hose propgL:
gives help
topeople
r 1tytaxesarehighrelativetoh?;
incomes- ='
gut critics say relatively
little
money is devoted to the progFaOi'
FWD
t
e
L( MUNICIP.4I,
LEC31SLATIVE
COMMISSION
erview of Affo
e
Related Issues
e Housing
1800 Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
612) 672 -3600
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
bject Page
veSummary ............................................. ............................... 1 -6
ion......................................................... ............................... 7 -8
onthe Issues .................................... ............................... 9 -13
and Housing Composition ................ ............................... 14 -18
Trends........................................... ............................... 19 -23
24 -26
Review............................................... ............................... 27 -43
Survey................................................. ............................... 44 -60
61 -63
1: RTB Reverse Commute Bus Routes ................... ............................... 64 -66
2: Age of Housing and % of Households with No Car ......................... 67
3: Municipal Legislative Commission Survey ........ ............................... 68 -78
4: Number of Households with 0 to 30 % of MFI .. ............................... 79
1
1
1
Thomas Research
October 19, 1994
The Honorable Joy Tierney
Chair
Municipal Legislative Commission
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor Tierney:
Please find attached "An Overview of Affordable Housing and Related Issues," prepared
for the Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) by Thomas Research.
This report presents an overview of the public policy issues surrounding affordable
housing, including issues such as land economics, employment, public transportation and
housing costs. In addition, the report presents the findings of an extensive survey MLC's
13 member cities.
This report found several examples of questionable data being used in the public policy
debate on affordable housing. These examples include employment data developed
initially by the Metropolitan Council, the free and reduced school lunch program data
developed initially by the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Council's
exclusion of owner- occupied manufactured housing and multi - family housing in their
count of owner- occupied housing units.
To successfully develop public policy initiatives, we must ensure that the problems
surrounding affordable housing have been properly captured and that the underlying data
supporting the initiatives are bias free.
Please let me know if you have any questions on the report.
Sincerely, /
a Thomas
1 1127 Oakcrest Avenue / P.O. Box 131205 / St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 / (612) 490 -0753
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Affordable housin g is intertwined with other public policy issues. Often, these related
issues drive the needs for subsidized housing.
This report presents an overview of the public policy issues surrounding affordable
housing, including issues such as land economics, employment, public transportation and
housing costs. Some of the major findings of this report are summarized in the following
nine points.
First, the affordable housing debate in Minnesota has been primarily focused on
zoning practices by select cities, and the conclusions in these studies have been
reached without using scientific methodology. These studies have assumed that local
zoning practices have limited the supply of land for housing and, thereby, excluded
affordable housing options in suburban cities. These studies have not used established
techniques such as regression analysis to reach their conclusions.
The Urban Land Institute has shown that the cost of land has a dramatic impact on
housing costs. In 1980, for example, the developed lot accounted for 20 to 30 percent of
the cost of a typical Federal Housing Administration (FHA) financed single - family home
in the U.S., compared to 15 percent in 1960. A 1993 study prepared for the Metropolitan
Council found that land prices may range from 25 to 50 percent of total development
costs for a home in areas within the Twin Cities.
Government can increase the price of land by restricting the supply. Local governments,
however, have little or no influence over rates of household formation or regional
population shifts. These two forces increase the price of land by escalating demand.
Professional articles in national journals on land economics present a more detailed view
of land costs than the Minnesota studies. These articles indicate that local zoning
practices, which restrict the supply of land, can artificially inflate the price of land only if
there is monopolistic practices among the local zoning authorities.
In a 1989 journal article, Professor Louis Rose presented the findings of his regression
analysis on land costs. His regression analysis was designed to identify and measure the
monopolistic practices among zoning authorities. Rose examined the land costs and
zoning practices of the 45 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, including the
Minneapolis urban area.
Rose's study found that with the exception of Houston, with no zoning, the Minneapolis
urban area had the lowest concentration of zoning power among the 45 largest
metropolitan areas in the country. Rose stated that there was essentially no concentration
1
1 z.
of zoning power in the Minneapolis urban area. Therefore, zoning practices of suburban
cities within the Minneapolis urban area were not causing an increase in land costs.
Beyond zoning, increases in land costs can be caused by natural factors such as lakes and
wetlands. Additionally, the Urban Land Institute has indicated that land prices are
generally highest and increase most rapidly in areas where the demand for new housing is
greatest.
Since 1989, nine MLC communities reported spending $33,212,357 in locally
generated financial resources to expand affordable housing within their cities.
When unconstrained by allocation formulas, suburban cities created subsidized
Second, the pu blic policy debate in Minnesota has generally taken a simplistic view
of lower income households. This debate has grouped various income levels together.
However, professional articles on affordable housing indicate that the scope of social and
financial support needs may vary by household income. The social support needs for a
family with a household income at 0 to 30 percent of the Twin Cities median income is
likely to be different from the needs of a family with a household income from 50 to 80
percent. These differences can include educational attainment, language skills,
automobile ownership, job training needs and the ability to purchase a home.
Third, when given the opportunity suburban cities within the Seven County Area
have actively established multi - family housing containing affordable rental units for
low and moderate income households- -
There are 24,529 subsidized rental units for non-elderly households in the Seven
County Area. Roughly 10 percent of the occupied housing units in Minneapolis and
St. Paul are subsidized units. Roughly 3 percent of the occupied housing units in the
13 member cities of the Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) are subsidized
units. In the remaining areas of the Seven County Area, roughly 3.5 percent of the1occupiedunitshousingunitsaresubsidizedunits.
Since 1989, nine MLC communities reported spending $33,212,357 in locally
generated financial resources to expand affordable housing within their cities.
When unconstrained by allocation formulas, suburban cities created subsidized
housing in record numbers between 1980 and 1987. During this period roughly 6,000
rental units for low and moderate income households were created using tax exempt
bonds in the Seven County Area -- three - quarters of these units were located in the
suburbs. The financial advantages for using these bonds were eliminated in 1986.
The public policy discussion on siting affordable housing is lacking discussion on how
public dollars are allocated among the cities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Fourth, the discussion of affordable housing and access to job opportunities has not
made a distinction between the types of manufacturing jobs being created and lost.
Specifically, public policy needs to recognize that manufacturing jobs are not necessarily
identical, and that they may require different educational skills.
Manufacturing jobs are increasing in the developing communities of the Twin Cities.
This growth has negated the manufacturing jobs lost in Bloomington, Minneapolis,
Roseville and St. Paul. Between 1987 and 1992, Roseville and Bloomington jointly lost
more manufacturing jobs than the combined loss of manufacturing jobs in Minneapolis
and St. Paul.
Manufacturing jobs created in the developing communities are coming, for example,
from the electronic, electric equipment, and printing and publishing sectors. The
manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Minneapolis and St. Paul have been largely in
the industrial machinery and equipment sector.
Between 1987 and 1992, net manufacturing jobs increased by i percent in the MLC
member cities. During this same period, manufacturing jobs increased by half a
percent in the Seven County Area. Manufacturing jobs across Minnesota increased
by five percent. Ninety-three percent of Minnesota's net manufacturing job growth
occurred outside of the Seven County Area between 1987 and 1992.
In 1992, 42 percent of the service jobs (147,501) in the Seven County Area were
located in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 27 percent of the service
jobs in the Seven County Area. Thirty-two percent of the service jobs were located in
the remaining cities within the Seven County Area.
Forty-three percent of the net service jobs created in the Seven County Area between
1987 and 1992 were in MLC cities. The remaining cities in the Seven County
Area created 57 percent of the service jobs during this period. Forty-one percent
of Minnesota's net service job growth occurred outside of the Seven County Area
between 1987 and 1992.
This report found the following distribution of jobs within the Seven County Area:
In 1992, 32 percent of the manufacturing jobs (78,234) in the Seven County Area
were located in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 28 percent of the
manufacturing jobs in the Seven County Area during 1992. Forty percent of the
manufacturing jobs were located in the remaining cities within the Seven County
Area.
Between 1987 and 1992, net manufacturing jobs increased by i percent in the MLC
member cities. During this same period, manufacturing jobs increased by half a
percent in the Seven County Area. Manufacturing jobs across Minnesota increased
by five percent. Ninety-three percent of Minnesota's net manufacturing job growth
occurred outside of the Seven County Area between 1987 and 1992.
In 1992, 42 percent of the service jobs (147,501) in the Seven County Area were
located in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 27 percent of the service
jobs in the Seven County Area. Thirty-two percent of the service jobs were located in
the remaining cities within the Seven County Area.
Forty-three percent of the net service jobs created in the Seven County Area between
1987 and 1992 were in MLC cities. The remaining cities in the Seven County
Area created 57 percent of the service jobs during this period. Forty-one percent
of Minnesota's net service job growth occurred outside of the Seven County Area
between 1987 and 1992.
4-
In 1992, 36 percent of all jobs (461,900) in the Seven County Area were located in
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Twenty -seven percent of all Seven County jobs were
located in MLC cities. Thirty-seven percent of all jobs were located in the remaining
cities within the Seven County Area.
Fifty-three percent of the net jobs created in Minnesota between 1987 and 1992 were
created outside the Seven County Area.
Fifth, very little public policy consideration has been given to the structural and
financial commitment necessary to greatly expand public transit throughout the
Seven County Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Council has established a general
policy that public transportation should be within six blocks of households needing the
service, and that workers should not have to ride public transportation for more than 30
minutes to reach their job site. The Regional Transit Board has established an aggressive
proposal for expanded public transit in the suburbs, but the proposal can not be
implemented without a large infusion of public dollars.
1 Sixth, the discussion on affordable housing has inaccurately suggested that most
homes in the suburbs are beyond the reach of many households.
Nine of the 13 MLC cities were able to Provide detailed information on the assessed
value of homesteaded properties in their communities:
Forty-eight percent of all homesteaded properties are assessed at $110,000 or less and
could qualify for the FHA first -time home buyer program.
A family of four at 80 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities could qualify
for a home valued at $105,000 under the first -time home buyer program. Almost 48
percent of all homesteads in these cities would be within their reach.
A family of two at 80 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities can qualify for
a home valued at $80,500 under the first -time home buyer program. The nine
communities have 23,934 homesteaded properties assessed at $80,000 or less.
Twenty percent of all homesteaded properties in these cities are within their reach.
A family of three at 50 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities could qualify
for a home valued at $60,000 under the first -time home buyer program. The nine
communities have 7,777 homesteaded properties assessed at $60,000 or less. Over
six percent of all homesteaded properties are within their reach. In addition, 1,470
single - family non - homesteaded properties would be within their reach.
5-
Seventh, there is evidence in the land economic literature to suggest that the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area line, established by the Metropolitan Council,
may be increasing the cost of land in the Twin Cities and causing urban sprawl as
families seek less costly land beyond the Seven County Area. As a result, this policy
may be increasing the cost of establishing affordable housing in the developing cities.
Eighth, the cost of housing and the cost of its maintenance is linked to the age of the
housing units - -newer homes cost more to purchase and older homes cost more to
maintain. Roughly half of the housing stock in Minneapolis and St. Paul was built
before 1940. By contract, at least a third of the housing units in 9 of the 13 MLC cities
was built between 1980 and 1990. In four of the MLC cities, half of their housing stock
has been built since 1980.
The struggle to rehabilitate aging housing stock is beginning to reach the older suburbs as
much of their housing stock surpassed 30 years. Increasingly, additional investment in
these suburbs will needed to keep these homes habitable.
Finally, this study found several examples of questionable data being used in the
public policy debate on affordable housing.
1980 and 1990 census data on employment, developed initially by the Metropolitan
Council, is recorded according to where employees live rather than where they work.
In another employment database, developed for the Metropolitan Council, is
unreliable before 1987. Prior to this time period, numerous corporations (especially
in Minneapolis and St. Paul) reported the geographic location of all corporate
employment at their corporate headquarters- -even if some or most of the employment
occurred in other cities.
The Minnesota Department of Education presents statistics for the free and reduced
school lunch program in two formats: participation in the programs versus eligible
for the programs. Recently, there has been a national effort to get children eligible for
the free or reduced lunch programs to participate. Therefore, changes over time in the
participation rate in the free or reduced school lunch program may reflect the school
district's success with getting eligible children to participate in the programs.
At an October 5, 1994 meeting on affordable housing, a colored map titled "Percent
of Elementary Students on Free and Reduced Lunches (1993 -94)" was distributed.
The map presented participation rate of children in the free and reduced lunch
program. The problem with this statistic can be highlighted in the following
example.
This map showed that less than 8 percent of the children participated in the free and
reduced lunch programs in Eden Prairie. However, the Eden Prairie school district
r In
has 15 percent of its children eligible for the free and reduced lunch programs. In
addition, the eligibility rate increased from 4 percent of the school district's students
to 15 percent over a five year period. Eligible students increased by 447 percent
over the five year period.
In its Community Profiles, the Metropolitan Council has excluded owner- occupied
manufactured housing and multi - family housing in their count of housing units
available for purchase. This arbitrary policy excluded at least a quarter (13,494 units)
of the housing units assessed at $110,000 or less in 9 MLC cities.
As highlighted in these nine points, to successfully develop public policy initiatives we
must ensure that the problems surrounding affordable housing have been properly
captured and that the underlying data supporting the initiatives is bias free.
J
fl
This growth trend is similar to growth in other areas of the country. More people, and an
expanding economy, will require land for development. Renovation, redevelopment, and
infill can make more space available in already developed areas. Most of the expected
growth of households and associated development must be accommodated on land not
now developed. The density of future land development is obviously a key determinant
of future land development and is a key determinant of future rates of land consumption.
Schnidman, 1983)
Nationally, the issue of affordable housing is commonly considered a state -wide issue
which requires housing goals that apply in every community.
The discussion of affordable housing in the Seven County Area has generally focused on
7-
INTRODUCTION
Affordable housing is intertwined with other public policy issues. Often these related
issues drive the need for subsidized housing.
The discussion of affordable housing in Minnesota has generally centered on the Seven
County Metropolitan Area, an area under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council.
iThe seven counties are Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and
Washington.
and county government, and in the private sector.
The Twin Cities Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) has expanded beyond
the Metropolitan Council's jurisdiction by four Minnesota counties: Chisago; Isanti;
Sherburne; Wright. Additionally, two Wisconsin counties have been added to the Twin
Cities SMSA: Pierce; and St. Croix.
This growth trend is similar to growth in other areas of the country. More people, and an
expanding economy, will require land for development. Renovation, redevelopment, and
infill can make more space available in already developed areas. Most of the expected
growth of households and associated development must be accommodated on land not
now developed. The density of future land development is obviously a key determinant
of future land development and is a key determinant of future rates of land consumption.
Schnidman, 1983)
Nationally, the issue of affordable housing is commonly considered a state -wide issue
which requires housing goals that apply in every community.
L_ J
The discussion of affordable housing in the Seven County Area has generally focused on
the cost and the availability of rental units for households with incomes at or below
80 percent of the median income in the metropolitan area.
This report presents an overview of the public policy issues surrounding affordable
housing, including issues such as land economics, employment, public transportation and
housing costs.
Much of the information in this report is derived from an extensive search of databases
with land economics applications. Several experts involved in varies aspects of
affordable housing issues were interviewed. These individuals were with state, regional
and county government, and in the private sector.
L_ J
1 e
1 In addition to these sources, information was gathered from an 11 page questionnaire
This report was limited by two factors. First, data on government dollars used to create
affordable housing in Minnesota are very limited. Second, the survey results from the
member cities is dependent upon accuracy of reporting information.
t
1
survey was completed by the 13 member cities of the Municipal Legislative Commission:
Apple BloomingtonValley
Burnsville Eagan
Eden Prairie Edina
Lakeville Maplewood
Minnetonka Plymouth
Roseville Shoreview
Woodbury
This report was limited by two factors. First, data on government dollars used to create
affordable housing in Minnesota are very limited. Second, the survey results from the
member cities is dependent upon accuracy of reporting information.
t
1
t
r
la
BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUES
In 1937, the first federal public housing program was established in the United States.
From 1937 to 1973, federal housing programs focused almost entirely on housing
construction. When Congress authorized a new unit of public housing, it included all the
funds that would be used to pay off a 40 -year mortgage. This amount was credited to the
year in which the unit was authorized. Such authorizations tended to create the
impression that large sums were to be spent on housing immediately, when in fact that
may not have been the case.
Under Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Congress
created housing certificates which obligated the government to subsidize the rental of
private apartments for 15 years. This system awarded construction and rehabilitation
certificates to landlords and developers rather than tenants. The housing certificate was
designed to cover the difference between a tenant's rent and 25 percent of his monthly
income for 15 years, creating a shift from the 40 -year mortgage subsidy to a 15 -year
housing certificate.
In 1984, Congress enacted a five-year voucher for tenants which remained in force if they
moved, triggering a shift from provider -oriented programs to a recipient -oriented
program. One of the most notable results of the transition to vouchers is that federal
I -10-
HOME is a formula -based allocation strategy intended to support a wide variety of state
and local affordable housing programs. Funds can be used for acquisition, construction,
reconstruction and rehabilitation activities which promote affordable rental and
ownership housing. Funds are targeted to households with incomes of 50 percent or less
of the median income.
In recent years, the debate on affordable housing has focused on the relationship between
affordable housing and the cost of constructing housing units.
As with most economic issues, the price of housing is directly related to consumer
demand, the availability of supply and the age of the housing.
The Urban Land Institute has shown that the cost of land has a dramatic impact on
housing costs. In 1980, for example, the developed lot accounted for 20 to 30 percent of
the cost of a typical FHA financed single - family house in the U.S., compared to 15
percent in 1960. (Schnidman, 1983, p. 97) A 1993 study prepared for the Metropolitan
Council found that land prices may range from 25 to 50 percent of total development
costs for a home in areas within the Twin Cities.
Land prices result from the interaction of supply and demand forces in local land markets.
On the supply side, constraints on the supply of developable land, increasing site
development requirements and long delays in the approval process have all contributed to
land price inflation, according to the Urban Land Institute. On the demand side, strong
housing demand spurred by regional population shifts and the entrance of the baby boom
generation into the housing market created inflationary pressures in the land market.
Another factor impacting land prices is the expectation of future supply and demand in
the land market. In areas with a track record of increasing housing demand and rising
land prices, investment in land becomes attractive for speculation purposes, further
perpetuating the inflationary spiral. Growth boundaries and other restrictions in future
supply have similar effects. (Schnidman, 1983) A possible result of the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA) line, or growth boundary, it that land values inside the line
grow and prices of land outside the MUSA line fall. One additional possible effect of the
MUSA boundary is that developers will move to communities beyond the growth line.
This area beyond the growth boundary is referred to as the exurban area.
The Metropolitan Council has used the MUSA line, to restrict development to areas
inside the designated boundary. This growth control practice is used by a number of
communities across the United States (e.g., Salem, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; and
Ramapo, New York)
jLand values outside the urban areas will rise, but because of their remoteness, they will
not be as high as the land beyond the MUSA line and under the Metropolitan Council's
growth controls had growth controls not been implemented. (Fischel, 1990)
1 -11-
Across the country, one of the more common methods of growth control is preserving
farmland. Another growth control measure is creating a moratorium on new public utility
systems for sewage and water supply.
Besides their impact on housing costs, growth controls can cause metropolitan areas to be
too spread out. Growth controls can cause housing development to go to alternative sites
not covered by the controls. These sites are often in exurban and rural communities.
Fischel, 1990)
The Urban Land Institute indicates that land prices are generally highest and increase
most rapidly in areas where the demand for new housing is greatest.
Despite the major effect of housing demand on land prices, government intervention in
the land market is limited to the supply side. Local governments have little or no
influence over rates of household formation or regional population shifts. (Schnidman,
1993, p. 101)
The higher price of housing can be a measure of its benefits. The real problem is to
identify what causes higher prices. The higher prices of housing can occur either as a
result of supply restrictions or demand stimulation. Supply restrictions can result from
monopoly, which is one efficiency objection to growth controls. (Fischel, 1990)
National journal articles on land economics indicate that local zoning practices, which
restrict the supply of land, can artificially inflate the price of land only if there is
monopolistic practices among the local zoning authorities. Concentrated government
structures tend to have higher housing prices.
The most noted study in this area was by Professor Louis Rose in 1989. His regression
analysis study was designed to identify and measure the monopolistic practices among
zoning authorities. Rather than using housing prices, Rose studied developable land
prices drawn from the Urban Land Institute survey and from Federal Housing
Administration data from 1980.
This study examined zoning practices and land costs in the 45 largest metropolitan areas
of the United States, including the Minneapolis urban area.
Rose published his study on the supply of urban land in the Journal of Urban Economics
in 1989. This study examined two types of restrictions on the availability of land. First,
naturally occurring restrictive barriers such as lakes and wetland which reduce the
amount of developable land. Second, governmental units which create artificial
restrictions through zoning ordinances and related land -use regulations.
Rose ' s study found that between 30 and percent of inter-urbanan pn c variations may be
due to natural restrictions on the supply of land (e.g., wetlands and lakes).
12 -
The resulting artificial scarcity of land for additional homes raises the prices of existing
ones. This scheme works best if a single zoning authority has jurisdiction over the entire
urban area housing market. It can also work if separate jurisdictions act as a monopoly
by colluding to restrict land's availability for housing. However, because the probability
of effective collusion is inversely related to jurisdictional fragmentation, if there is a large
number of small local governments, the strategy is not likely to work. Thus, the extent to
which the zoning strategy raises home prices is positively related to the monopoly power
possessed by the zoning jurisdictions.
His 1989 study was designed to test this theory. His data tested the effects of monopoly
zoning on the price of home sites rather than homes. This approach affords a more direct
test of the hypothesis, since zoning and other land -use controls have their primary impact
in land markets.
His study found that with the exception of Houston, with no zoning, the Minneapolis
urban area had the lowest concentration of zoning power among the 45 largest
metropolitan areas in the country. Rose stated that there was essentially no concentration
of zoning power in the Minneapolis urban area.
One of the primary reasons for the cost of housing in the suburbs is the cost of
developable acreage.
Besides monopoly zoning, higher priced land can result from an attractive, well-planned
community. (Fischel, 1990)
Consumer purchases vary in the length of their useful life. Food is usually consumed
within days or weeks of purchase. Clothing may last 5 to 10 years. An average car and a
major appliance are expected to last for about a decade. Unlike these consumer purchases,
a new home is designed to last for at least 75 years.
As a result, most people live in used housing. Nationally, the average buyer of a new
home has an income of $60,000, compared with $40,000 for used -home buyers and only
15.000 for renters_ (Tacker_ 19911
13-
authors of this study found that the housing chain ended quicker for African- Americans
because they often moved out of already overcrowded quarters and did not leave vacant
units behind. (Lansing, 1969)
Following World War II, young families moved into newly constructed suburban housing
at a rate of 4,000 per day across America. (Hughes, 1990)
The growth in housing demand during the 1970s and 1980s was driven by two major
components - -a decrease in the number of persons per household; and the baby boomers
born between 1946 and 1964) entering their home buying years. For example, between
1960 and 1970, the nation's population grew by 24.3 million people, while the growth in
households totaled 10.6 million. But, between 1970 and 1980, the nation's population
increase fell to 22.7 million persons while household growth soared to 17.4 million.
Hughes, 1990)
There are several public policy issues intertwined in affordable housing. These issues
include economic development, educational attainment, transportation, family structure
and part-time employment. This report examines the economic development and
transportation issues in more detail.
1 -14-
POPULATION AND HOUSING COMPOSITION
Between 1980 and 1990, the population of Minnesota grew from 4,075,970 to
4,375,099 - -an increase of 7 percent or 299,129 people. During this same period, the
population in the Seven County Metropolitan Area grew from 2,005,873 to 2,288,721 - -an
increase of 14 percent or 282,848 people.
Anoka County represented 17 percent of the net population growth in the Seven County
Area. Dakota and Hennepin Counties accounted for 61 percent of the population growth
in the Seven County Area.
The population in the remaining six counties in the Twin Cities SMSA grew from
212,317 to 250,113 - -an increase of 18 percent or 37,796 people.
Between 1980 and 1990, the population in the 13 member cities of the Municipal
Legislative Commission (MLC) grew from 397,854 to 538,225 - -an increase of 35 percent
or 140,371 people. Twenty -four percent of the Seven County Area's population lived in
the 13 MLC cities during 1990.
Roseville experienced an actual population reduction greater than Minneapolis between
1980 and 1990.
Over this same period, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul had virtually no population
change. Jointly, they lost 263 in population. In 1990, 28 percent of the Seven County
Area's population lived in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
By comparison, Brooklyn Park's population increased by 13,049 during this period - -an
increase of 30 percent. Brooklyn Park's actual population growth was roughly equal to
or outpaced 10 of the member cities.
Between 1980 and 1990, the number of housing units in Minnesota went from 1,530,293
to 1,848,445 - -an increase of 21 percent or 318,152 units. During this same period,
1 housing units in the Seven County Area went from 748,417 to 922,224 - -an increase of
23 percent or 173,807 units. The Seven County Area comprised 58 percent of the
housing unit growth in Minnesota between 1980 and 1990.
The housing units in the remaining six counties in the Twin Cities SMSA increased fromTgg
70,645 to 93,011 - -an increase of just over 32 percent or 22,366 units.
Occupied housing increased by 202,631 units in Minnesota between 1980 and 1990.
Occupied rental units increased by 54,631 in Minnesota between 1980 and 1990 - -a
13 percent increase. Owner occupied units increased by 148,000 in Minnesota between
1 -15-
1983, page 24)
1980 and 1990 - -an increase of 14 percent. Owner occupied housing represented
73 percent of Minnesota's growth in occupied housing during this period.
i
rental units increased from 12,885 to 17,542 - -an increase of 36 percent or 4,657 units.
Occupied housing increased by 154,060 units in the Seven County Area between 1980
and 1990. In the Seven County Area, owner occupied housing increased from 478,780 to
594,035 units between 1980 and 1990 - -an increase of 24 percent or 115,255 units.
During this same period, occupied rental units increased from 242,664 to 281,469 - -an
increase of 16 percent or 38,805 units. Owner occupied units represented 75 percent of
the occupied housing growth in the Seven County Area between 1980 and 1990.
1983, page 24)
Occupied housing in the remaining six counties of the Twin Cities SMSA grew by
17,435 units between 1980 and 1990. Owner occupied units in these six counties
increased from 54,346 to 67,124 - -an increase of 24 percent or 12,778 units. Occupied
rental units increased from 12,885 to 17,542 - -an increase of 36 percent or 4,657 units.
Owner occupied units represented 73 percent of the occupied housing growth in these six
counties between 1980 and 1990.
subsidization."
Several factors have led to the demand for additional housing and a growth in the median
price of a new home -- neither trend is unique to the Twin Cities region.
First, the size of a new home has been increasing. Nationally, the median priced new
home increased from 1,495 square feet in 1965 to 1,645 square feet in 1979 - -an increase
of 10 percent. So, although the price of the median new home increased 215 percent over
the period, the price per square foot increased by only 186 percent. (Schnidman, 1983)
In addition new houses were more likely to have central air conditioning, dishwashers a
fireplace, more bathrooms and other amenities. And, the new home is more energy
efficient. The typical house built in 1978, for example, used 34 percent less energy per
square foot for heating and cooling than houses built in 1973. All of this means that the
median priced new house was different from that of the earlier periods. "In that light, the
increase in median price is less significant." (Schnidman 1983, page 24)
The Urban Land Institute recognized the future problems of female- headed families in
1983. The Institute has suggested that "this is one of the weakest income sectors within
the overall demographic fabric of America, as well as one of the fastest growing."
Schnidman, 1983, page 38) The Institute went on to state, "unless very basic organic
changes are made in family patterns, it is this group which will need increased public
subsidization."
One of the more significant trends leading to an increased demand for housing is theggg
decrease in the number of persons per household. This is being driven by the baby boom
generation delaying marriage longer than there counterparts of past decades, and by an
increase in the divorce rate. "Fully 59 percent of childless, divorced women in their mid
to late 20s returned to live with relatives in 1960. By mid 1975, the percentage of this
16-
same age group moving back with relatives fell to only 23 percent." (Schnidman, 1983,
page 46)
In the early 1980s, most analysts declared that the baby boom generation considered
housing to be a prime investment vehicle and would not be denied access to it. "The
experts predicted that this 'pent -up demand' would make itself felt in the 1980s in
stunning intensity." (Schnidman, 1983, page 68)
A housing affordability problem exists when a household earning 100 percent or less of
area median income cannot afford to rent or buy safe and sanitary housing in the market
without spending more than 30 percent of its income. For renters, it is at 50 percent of
the area median income. (HUD, 1991, p. 3)
Congress has specified that renters with severe affordability problems - -those paying more
than 50 percent of income for housing -- should receive priority for admission to HUD's
major rental assistance programs. (HUD, 1991, p. 5 -1)
Most rental assistance is directed at renters with very low incomes, which are defined as
incomes below 50 percent of the median family income in an area. (HUD, 1991, 5 -2)
One of the economic measures being used in the affordable housing debate in Minnesota
is the "percent of children on free and reduced lunches." This statistic was used in
Appendix 10 of the Metropolitan Council's report Keeping the Twin Cities Vital.
Appendix 10 is titled "Poverty Data."
The income eligibility guidelines are based on the household size and the annual income
of this household. The following tables highlights eligibility for the 1994 -95 school year:
FREE LUNCH
Household Size Annual Income
2 $12,792
3 $16,016
4 $19,240
5 $22,464
fl
17-
REDUCED PRICE LUNCH
Household Size Annual Income
2 $18,204
3 $22,792
4 $27,380
5 $31,968
The Minnesota Department of Education presents statistics for the free and reduced
school lunch program in two formats: participation in the programs versus eligible for
the programs. Recently, there has been a national effort to get children eligible for the
free or reduced lunch programs to participate.
Therefore, changes over time in the participation rate in the free or reduced school lunch
program may reflect the school district's success with getting eligible children to
participate in the programs.
The Metropolitan Council's Appendix 10, "Poverty Data," used the participation rate
statistic. On October 5, 1994, colored maps were handed out to attendants at a hearing on
affordable housing in the Twin Cities. The second map was titled "Percent of
Elementary Students on Free and Reduced Lunches (1993 -94) ". The map presented
participation rate of children in the free and reduced lunch program. The problem with
this statistic can be highlighted in the following example.
For example, this map showed that less than 8 percent of the children participated in the
free and reduced school lunch programs in Eden Prairie. However, the Eden Prairie
school district has 15 percent of their children eligible for the free and reduced school
lunch programs. In addition, the eligibility rate increased from 4 percent of the school
district's students to 15 percent between the 1988 -89 school year and the 1993 -94 school
year. Other suburban school districts have also experienced noticeable increases in the
number of students eligible for the free and reduced school lunch programs over this five
year period: Burnsville experienced a 66 percent increase (16 percent of the students);
Farmington experienced a 92 percent increase (22 percent of the students);
Bloomington experienced an 85 percent increase (18 percent of the students); Wayzata
experienced a 73 percent increase (10 percent of the students); and Moundsview
experienced an 86 percent increase (12 percent of the students).
BUT
Another problem with this map, is how they arrived at their four statistical categories of
children participating in the programs:
less than 8 %
8% to 14%
14% to 25%
more than 25 %
To say the least, there does not seem to be any statistical methodology for selecting these
four categories.
The following table highlights, by categories, the number of Minnesota school districts
i.e., total of 392 districts) with 20 percent or more of school children eligible for the free
and reduced school lunch programs during the 1993 -94 school year. For example, there
were 116 school districts during the 1993 -94 school year with 20 to 30 percent of their
children eligible for the free and reduced lunch programs.
Children Eligible Number of School Districts As % of All Districts
20 % -30% 116 30%
31%-40% 109 28%
41%-50% 59 15%
51%-60% 27 7%
61 % and Over 4 4%
This table shows that 84 percent of Minnesota's school districts had 20 percent or more of
their children eligible for the free and reduced school lunch programs. Twenty -six
percent of Minnesota's school districts had 41 percent or more of their children eligible
for the free and reduced lunch program.
1 -19-
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
According to Mary Hummel, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, employment
data for cities and counties provided by the Metropolitan Council, and the Research
Office of the Department of Economic Security is unreliable before 1987. She indicated
that prior to this time period, numerous corporations (especially in Minneapolis and St.
1
Paul) reported the geographic location of all corporate employment at their corporate
headquarters- -even if some or most of the employment occurred in other cities.
L
Employment data before 1987 was extensively used by the Metropolitan Council in
Appendix Nine of Keeping the Twin Cities Vital: Job Location.
Therefore, the employment analysis for this section begins in 1987 and ends in 1992, the
most recent year available.
1
In addition, Hummel indicated that 1980 and 1990 census data on employment is
recorded according to where employees live rather than where they work. The
Metropolitan Council appears to have used employment data from the census for a some
of their publications.
The most recent data on Minnesota wages is from 1991. Statewide, the average wage
1 was $23,978 in 1991. (Department of Jobs and Training, Summer/Fall, 1993) As
common sense would suggest, wage levels have a great deal to do with the type of
available housing.
L
1
fl
11
20-
ustry Average Wage
igher- Paying Industries
Mining $33,307
Manufacturing:Durables/Paper /Chemicals $33,431
Non -local Transportation $30,887
Communications/Utilities $36,601
Wholesale Trade $31,626
Nondepository Finance and Insurance $36,196
Federal/State Government $32,392
Legal and Professional Services $34,848
Medium - Paying Industries
Manufacturing: Other Nondurables $26,001
Construction $29,537
Banking and Real Estate $21,898
Local Government $23,996
Private Health Care $24,950
ow- Paying Industries
Local Transportation 12,229
Business Services 18,322
Personal/Household/Repair Services 16,542
Recreation Services 12,138
Social and Educational Services 14,576
Eating and Drinking Places 7,560
Other Retail Trade 14,282
As highlighted in the table "County Employment ", between 1987 and 1992, total
employment in Minnesota grew from 1,900,751 full and part-time jobs to 2,116,161
jobs - -an increase of 11 percent or 215,410 jobs. Just over 47 percent of the net j ob
growth in the State of Minnesota occurred in the Seven County Area. (Department of
Economic Security, 1987 and 1992)
Jobs increased from 1,199,274 to 1,301,220 in the Seven County Area between 1987 and
1992 - -an increase of 8 percent or 101,946 jobs. Jobs in Hennepin and Dakota Counties
accounted for 63 percent of the job growth in the Seven County Area.
For the additional four counties in the Twin Cities SMSA, jobs grew from 37,710 to
44,880 - -an increase of 19 percent or 7,170 jobs.
Manufacturing
Counties
County Employment
Growth Growth Rate
Total Employment
22,244 4,711
Counties 1987 1992 Growth Growth Rate
Anoka 68,523 82,236 13,713 20%
Carver 12,436 20,211 7,775 62
Chisago 7,601 8,697 1,096 14
Dakota 83,485 110,073 26,588 32
Hennepin 695,336 733,032 37,696 5
Isanti 6,303 6,909 606 10
Ramsey 286,155 291,870 5,715 2
Scott 16,548 21,074 4,526 27
Sherburne 8,100 10,761 2,661 33
Washington 36,791 42,724 5,933 16
Wright 15,706 18,513 2,807 18
Eleven Counties 1,236,984 1,346,100 109,116 9
Seven Counties 1,199,274 1,301,220 101,946 8
Minnesota 1,900,751 2,116,161 215,410 11
Manufacturing
Counties 1987 1992 Growth Growth Rate
Anoka 17,533 22,244 4,711 26%
Carver 4,419 8,874 4,455 101
Chisago 1,690 1,842 152 9
Dakota 12,102 22,649 10,547 87
Hennepin 121,945 115,506 6,439) 5
Isanti 1,027 1,062 35 3
Ramsey 78,408 65,701 12,707) 16
Scott 3,263 3,799 536 16
Sherburne 1,039 1,404 365 35
Washington 7,984 8,220 236 3
Wright 2,076 2,498 422 20
Eleven Counties 251,486 253,799 2,313 1
Seven Counties 245,654 246,993 1,339 0.5
Minnesota 375,932 396,263 20,331 5
ource: minnesota uepartment of tconomic secun
Average Covered Employment and Wages."
Total Employment
Cities 1987 1992 Growth Growth Rate
Apple Valley 4,649 7,404 2,755 59%
Bloomington 70,307 71,360 1,053 2
Burnsville 19,740 24,669 4,929 25
Eagan 13,087 26,090 13,003 99
Eden Prairie 25,382 34,810 9,428 37
Edina 45,566 49,254 3,688 8
Lakeville 4,620 6,339 1,719 37
Maplewood 11,513 13,919 2,406 21
Minnetonka 30,712 37,787 7,075 23
Plymouth 29,688 38,233 8,545 29
Roseville 34,159 29,507 4,652) 14
Shoreview 5,553 7,283 1,730 31
Woodbury 4,579 5,877 1,298 28
Totals 299,555 352,532 52,977 18
Brooklyn Center 13,688 16,028 2,340 17
Brooklyn Park 12,882 17,808 4,926 38
Minneapolis 276,546 276,623 77 0.03
Richfield 11,822 10,582 1,240) 10
St. Louis Park 38,157 36,388 1,769) 5
St. Paul 187,561 185,277 2,284) 1
St. Paul 8,316 8,395 79 1
Manufacturing
Cities 1987 1992 Growth Growth Rate
Apple Valley 236
Bloomington 16,423 11,947 4,476) 27%
Burnsville 1,103 3,268 2,165 196
Eagan 2,657 8,064 5,407 204
Eden Prairie 9,094 9,295 201 2
Edina 3,759 7,008 3,249 86
Lakeville 1,761 2,427 666 38
Maplewood 631 668 37 6
Minnetonka 6,835 5,273 1,562) 23
Plymouth 7,481 11,579 4,098 55
Roseville 12,329 4,370 7,959) 65
Shoreview 2,948 3,346 398 14
Woodbury 937
Totals 65,021 68,418 2,224 3
Brooklyn Center 2,253 2,169 84) 4
Brooklyn Park 1,879 3,979 2,100 112
Minneapolis 39,626 35,895 3,731) 9
Richfield 645 221 424) 66
St. Louis Park 7,884 5,425 2,459) 31
St. Paul 50,305 42,339 7,966) 16
St. Paul 826 747 79) 10
Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security.
Twin Cities Area Average Covered Employment."
21-
As highlighted in the table "City Employment ", between 1987 and 1992 total
employment in the 13 MLC cities grew from 299,555 to 352,532 - -an increase of 52,977
jobs. Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park jointly experienced a job growth of 7,266 jobs.
In 1992, 36 percent of all jobs (461,900) in the Seven County Area were located in
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Twenty -seven percent of all Seven County jobs were located
in MLC cities. Thirty-seven percent of all jobs were located in the remaining cities
within the Seven County Area.
Fifth -three P ercent of the net jobs created in Minnesota between 1987 and 1992 were
created outside the Seven County Area.
1 ' growth does not accurately reflect the employmentAnisolatedexaminationoftotsfobgy
patterns occurring in Minnesota or the Twin Cities Area.
Manufacturing
As highlighted in the table "County Manufacturing Employment ", between 1987 and
1992, total manufacturing employment in Minnesota grew from 375,932 full and part-
time jobs to 396,263 jobs - -an increase of 5 percent or 20,331 jobs. The Seven County
Area was responsible for just under 7 percent of net manufacturing job growth in the
State of Minnesota.
Manufacturing jobs increased from 245,654 to 246,993 in the Seven County Area
between 1987 and 1992 - -an increase of 0.5 percent or 1,339 jobs. The manufacturing
jobs in Hennepin and Ramsey counties were reduced by 19,146 during this period. This
loss was off -set by a net gain of manufacturing jobs in Anoka, Carver and Dakota
Counties. These three counties experienced a net manufacturing job growth of 19,713.
For the additional four counties in the Twin Cities SMSA, manufacturing jobs grew from
5,832 to 6,806 - -an increase of 17 percent or 974 jobs.
The manufacturing employment changes in the Twin Cities Area were not simply
locational job shifts.
Anoka County gained 83 percent of its manufacturing jobs in the electronic, electric
equipment and transportation equipment sectors. Dakota County gained 41 percent of its
manufacturing jobs in the printing and publishing sector. Dakota County gained an
additional 23 percent (i.e., 2,431 jobs) of their manufacturing jobs in the industrial
machinery and equipment sector.
As highlighted in the table "City Manufacturing Employment ", between 1987 and 1992
manufacturing employment for the 13 MLC cities from roughly 65,021 to 68,418 jobs.
It is not possible to determine the exact amount of increase because manufacturing
22-
employment data for Woodbury and Apple Valley in 1987 could not be released without
disclosing the specific employer and their employees in each city.
Counties accounted for 75 percent of the net increase in the Seven County Area during
Roseville lost 7,959 manufacturing job during this period - -a reduction of 65 percent.
Roseville lost virtually the same number of manufacturing jobs as the City of St. Paul
during this period.
Bloomington lost 4,476 manufacturing jobs during this period - -a reduction of 27 percent.
1
Bloomington lost 745 more manufacturing jobs than the City of Minneapolis.
Manufacturing jobs grew in Eagan, Edina and Plymouth by 12,754 during this period.
This growth represented just over 26 percent of the total net employment growth for the
MLC cities between 1987 and 1992.
While Brooklyn Center's manufacturing employment remained virtually unchanged
between 1987 and 1992, Brooklyn Park experienced a manufacturing employment
growth of 2,100 jobs - -an increase of 112 percent.
In 1992, 32 percent of the manufacturing jobs (78,234) in the Seven County Area were
located in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 28 percent of the
manufacturing jobs in the Seven County Area during 1992. Forty percent of the
manufacturing jobs were located in the remaining cities within the Seven County Area.
Services
As highlighted in the table "County Service Employment", between 1987 and 1992, total
service employment in Minnesota grew from 442,874 jobs to 549,330 jobs - -an increase
of 24 percent or 106,456 jobs.
Service employment increased from 291,675 to 354,093 jobs in the Seven County Area
between 1987 and 1992 - -an increase of 21 percent or 62,418 jobs. Hennepin and Ramsey
Counties accounted for 75 percent of the net increase in the Seven County Area during
this period.
For the additional four counties in the Twin Cities SMSA, service jobs grew from 8,056
to 10,073 - -an increase of 125 percent or 2,017 jobs.
As highlighted in the table "City Service Employment ", between 1987 and 1992 service
1 employment for the 13 MLC cities grew from 67,446 to 94,412 - -an increase of 40 percent
or 26,966 jobs.
Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park jointly experienced a growth in the service sector of
2,710 jobs between 1987 and 1992.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
County Employment
Services
Counties 1987 1992 Growth Growth Rate
Anoka 12,246 16,770 4,524 37%
Carver 1,788 3,698 1,910 107
Chisago 1,929 2,447 518 27
Dakota 16,227 21,464 5,237 32
Hennepin 185,441 217,771 32,330 17
Isanti 1,562 1,942 380 24
Ramsey 65,864 80,135 14,271 22
Scott 4,210 6,215 2,005 48
Sherburne 1,277 1,994 717 56
Washington 5,899 8,040 2,141 36
Wright 3,288 3,690 402 12
Eleven Counties 299,731 364,166 64,435 22
Seven Counties 291,675 354,093 62,418 21
Minnesota 442,874 549,330 106,456 24
1
c
0
E
Cities
Apple Valley
Bloomington
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Roseville
Shoreview
Woodbury
Totals
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Minneapolis
Richfield
St. Louis Park
St. Paul
W. St. Paul
ty Employmen
Services
1,944
1987 1992
1,284 2,166
20,642 23,869
4,261 5,596
1,597 4,051
3,132 7,211
15,633 20,583
737 733
2,934 4,317
5,982 9,177
5,096 7,666
4,582 6,868
662 1,065
904 1,110
67,446 94,412
2,914 4,040
1,944 3,528
82,925 92,249
3,124 2,810
12,109 13,442
48,476 55,252
2,170 2,222
Growth Growth Rate
882 69%
3,227 16
1,335 31
2,454 154
4,079 130
4,950 32
4) 0.5
1,383 47
3,195 53
2,570 50
2,286 50
403 61
206 23
26,966 40
1,126 39
1,584 82
9,324 11
314) 10
1,333 11
6,776 14
52 2
1
1
s
1
ll
23-
In 1992, 42 percent of the service jobs (147,501) in the Seven County Area were located
in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The 13 MLC cities had 27 percent of the service jobs in the
Seven County Area. Thirty-two percent of the service jobs were located in the remaining
cities within the Seven County Area.
Forty-one percent of Minnesota's net job growth in the service sector occurred outside the
Seven County Area between 1987 and 1992.
1 -24-
TRANSPORTATION
As stated in the Metropolitan Council's "Housing Development Guide ", public transit is a
necessity for access to employment, shopping, health care and recreation for people who
do not own or drive automobiles, especially lower- income persons and the elderly. It is
important that housing for young persons, elderly, physically disabled persons, and
people with lower incomes be located in areas where transit service currently exists or
will be extended. (Metropolitan Council, December 1985)
According to the Metropolitan Council, the maximum desirable travel time to
employment is 30 minutes, whether by automobile or public transportation. No transit -
dependent persons should be located more than six blocks (1/2 mile) or more than
3 blocks for elderly or handicapped residents. (Metropolitan Council, December 1985)
According to the RTB's "Vision 97," most of the region's jobs are now located outside the
two central cities. Approximately 60 percent of employment is located in the suburban
areas. "Coupled with suburban population growth, this has resulted in the suburb -to-
suburb commute becoming the predominant work trip in the region. The existing transit
system, structured primarily to serve the downtowns and central cities, is unable to meet
this new travel pattern." (RTB, p. 4)
In 1991, the Regional Transit Board (RTB) prepared a brief analysis of reverse commute.
Brown, 199 1) This analysis was based on conversations with job placement specialists
r and a literature search.
The RTB currently has about 20 bus lines serving as a reverse commute line. A listing of
these lines is contained in Appendix I.
P
The RTB found that two factors must exist to make reverse commute successful. First,
there must be a sufficient number of unemployed central city residents willing to work.
Second, there must be a "dire" labor shortage in suburban work locations with entry level
jobs. The RTB found
area does not have a dire labor shortageT)he Twin Cities metropolitan g
anywhere. While there are sufficient numbers of unemployed people
living in the central city and there has been a higher unemployment rate,
the suburbs of the metropolitan area have not exhibited a dire labor
shortage in any level of employment. Suburban work locations have
indeed experienced a shortage of entry level employees, however, this
shortage has not been classified as 'dire'.
According to the RTB's survey of job placement representatives, there is a significant
need for public transportation within a suburb, or suburb -to- suburb for work purposes.
The RTB currently has about 20 bus lines serving as a reverse commute line. A listing of
these lines is contained in Appendix I.
P
z>
The issue of reverse commute has not been studied in any more detail in Minnesota
according to Richard Stehr, Director of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's
Office of Planning, Development & Traffic. The Metropolitan Council has not studied
the issue of reverse commute, according to Natilo Ditz, Manager of Transportation for the
Metropolitan Council.
The issue of reverse commute with public transit is important for households without a
car. According to the 1990 census, almost 23 percent of the households in Minneapolis
do not have a car. Eighteen percent of the households in St. Paul do not have a car.
This concept has allowed for a reverse commute program to be established by the
Southwestern Metro Transit - -a joint powers agreement between the cities of Eden Prairie,
Chanhassen and Chaska. This program began in November of 1992.
This reverse commute program, using public transit, brings individuals living in
Minneapolis to businesses in the Eden Prairie area for work. This service has grown from
250 passengers during the month of January in 1993 to 1,240 passengers in April of
1994 - -an increase of 396 percent.
Regional Transit Board has been in the process of developing a more flexible mass transit
system based on a hub concept. This concept is contained in their "Vision for Transit."
Public transit's traditional, regular route bus service will be joined by community
circulators and dial -a -rides. These two alternatives are designed to meet the public transit
needs of lower - density areas in the Twin Cities.
Public transit from suburb -to- suburb is important for a number of households in the
13 member cities. For example, 9 percent of the households in Burnsville, 6 percent of
the households in Edina and Maplewood, 5 percent of the households in Roseville and
4 percent of the households in Bloomington do not have a car. (See Appendix II)
The RTB has been encouraging dial -a -ride and circulators. According to the RTB, there
are several dial -a -ride programs in the Seven County Area:
Plymouth dial -a -ride
Shakopee dial -a -ride
Columbia Heights
Northeast Suburban Transit serving Maplewood, North St. Paul and Oakdale
White Bear Area Transit serving White Bear Lake, White Bear Township,
Birchwood, and Mahtomedi
Hastings TRAC
Hop -A -Ride in Hopkins
Southwest Metro Dial -a -Ride
1 -27-
LITERATURE REVIEW
There have been a number of recent studies on ublic policy issues and statistical trendsPPY
regarding affordable housing in Minnesota. The following summary highlights these
studies.
In April of 1989, the Metropolitan Council released a report titled "The Effects of the
1986 Tax Reform Act on Affordable Multifamily Housing in the Twin Cities Area.
However, the scope of this report was broader than an examination of the 1986 federal
law change.
This report's findings included- -
The federal 1986 Tax Reform Act reduced incentives for investment in multifamily
housing. Specifically, the use of tax exempt bonds to fund affordable housing was
ignited by the 1981 federal Economic Recovery Tax Act. Between 1981 and 1984
the use of bonds increased from two issues to 30. In 1985, issues of tax exempt bonds
rose to 117 (as investors beat the closure of the tax benefits). In the combined years
of 1986 and 1987, a total of 10 issues were made.
Between 1980 and 1987, 6,000 rental units for low and moderate income households
were created in the Seven County Metropolitan Area -- three - quarters of these units
were located in the suburbs.
Between January 1986 and August 1988, 12 tax- exempt multifamily bond issues were
made in the Seven County Metropolitan Area. Two of these issues were in the central
cities, creating 20 units for low- income households. The remaining 10 issues were
for multifamily housing in the suburbs, creating 300 units for low or moderate income
households.
Comment
This report indicates a willingness within the suburbs to establish multifamily housing
containing a mix of affordable units for low -and moderate - income households. The
financial advantages of this tool were lost in 1986.
1
I
r
1
1
n
r
1
1
28-
In August of 1989, the Metropolitan Council released its study Mismatches Between
Supply and Demand. This study compared rental costs to household incomes between
1980 and 1985. The study's findings included
The number of units under $400 a month fell by 6 percent during the period, or by
7600 units, but the number of households which could afford to pay no more than
400 a month rose by 2,300. Households which could afford less than $400 a month
in rent were below 50 percent of the median income.
The total number of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent
fell by 5 percent, or by 7,900 households.
Single - parent families live in poverty at a greater rate than the population as a whole.
Twenty -nine percent of single - parent families lived in poverty in 1985, compared to
7 percent of the total population.
Median renter incomes did not rise as fast as median rents in three counties -- Anoka,
Dakota and Ramsey. However, the study pointed out that newer rental units tend to
be more expensive than older ones, tying the rise in higher cost housing to the growth
in new rental housing.
Mass -transit is concentrated in Minneapolis and St. Paul, impacting low- income
individuals' access to job opportunities in the suburbs.
In December of 1991, the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of
Minnesota issued a revised draft report, Residential Land Regulation Inventory of 17
Twin Cities Area Communities. This project has been funded by the Legislative
Commission on Minnesota Resources.
This report reflects numerous engineering standards used by various cities in the Twin
Cities area for public infrastructure.
Comment
In general, this study found an affordable housing problem for households with less than
50 percent of the median income.
30-
This study examined some local zoning practices and the availability of affordable
housing for ten communities. The ten communities were "selected by the Legal Aid
Society of Minneapolis in consultation with the authors"
Burnsville *Coon Rapids
Eden Prairie *Edina
Lakeville Maple Grove
Minnetonka *Plymouth
Shakopee *Woodbury
The authors of this study indicated that these ten communities were selected because they
encompass some of the most affluent cities and have the greatest job growth.
Zoning practice examined for this study were:
diversity of housing styles;
availability of subsidized housing;
rental rates affordable to families at 30 % and 50 % of median income;
minimum single family lot size and width, minimum floor area required for a
j, single family home and the number of garage spaces required;
minimum lot size for a two - bedroom unit, maximum units per acre allowed for
two - bedroom unit, number of garage spaces required for a two - bedroom unit,
and whether Planned Unit Developments are used for multi - family construction.
Six of the communities examined had a significantly higher rate of their housing units in
structures with 50 or more units than the Seven County Average. The communities of
Coon Rapids, Lakeville, Maple Grove and Woodbury were below the Seven County
average.
Availability of manufactured housing is often seen as an indicator of a local community's
effort to create and maintain affordable housing.
The study found that low and moderate income households are not excluded from these
communities, but the supply of affordable rental housing is extremely limited for
households with incomes at 30 percent of the median family income for the metropolitan
area as a whole.
G'
t
1
31-
In its conclusions, the study recognized eleven barriers to affordable housing in the
suburbs, including:
high property taxes and tight municipal budgets -- creating a need for municipalities to
accommodate housing units which can "pay their own way;
market demand for "trade up" housing, fueling the demand for new housing;
rapid escalating prices for undeveloped land with sewer and water services;
a weak market and the over - building of apartments in the late 1980s;
lack of federal government subsidies for low- income housing.
Comment
The public policy analysis of this study are weakened by two major points.
First, the authors did not randomly or scientifically select the communities included in
this study.
Second, the study did not examine the 11 external barriers to affordable housing
identified in its conclusions.
In May of 1994, the Citizens League issued its report on affordable housing, The Case for
a Regional Housing Policy in the Twin Cities Metropolitan_ Region. The following
summary highlights some of the main findings of this report--
The opportunity to live in integrated, middle -class neighborhoods appears to boost
employment among adults and school performance among children.
Housing policies, should be made in part, on a regional level, so that local
governments can't act like monopolists.
Target public housing subsidies directly to people who are financially needy.
Government should refrain from artificially raising and lowering the price of housing
and should price public services so that consumers of the service pay a proportionate
share of the costs of the service.
Reduce the concentration of poverty.
1 -33-
I
This 1992 study made the following observations- -
The fully developed area occupies one -tenth of the entire seven - county Metropolitan
Area, but has two - thirds of all jobs in the same area.
51 percent of the region's children living in poverty live in the core.
45 percent of core -area children live in poverty- -ten years earlier the number was 27
percent.
r• The number of renter households with incomes of less than $10,000 per year grew by
nearly 20,000 between 1980 and 1990. During this same period, rental units
affordable to people with this income actually decreased by more than 500 units over
the decade.
Housing Policy for the 1990s
In February of 1994, the Metropolitan Council released its study Housing Policy for the
1990s. Highlights the major findings of this study include --
It is important for communities to provide housing choices.
Subsidized housing continues to be concentrated in the region's core - -at 58 percent.
A high proportion of central cities' residents face barriers to economic opportunity:
they lack a high school diploma; are a racial minority; are single parents; have a
disability, are not proficient in English or have no car.
t
More than half of the housing units in Minneapolis and St. Paul are over 50 years old.
By the year 2000, housing units built before 1939 will be at least 61 years old and
many will be approaching 100. By then, outlying suburbs will also be dealing with
rehabilitation concerns in much the same way the central cities did in the 1980s.
Aging of the region's housing, plus higher vacancies triggering low cash flow to
building owners for maintenance, may make rental property more difficult to
maintain.
Central cities have a lower percentage of people over the age of 65 than the fully
developed suburbs.
The total property tax base of the developing suburbs more than doubled in the 1980s.
Minneapolis also increased its tax base substantially, with St. Paul making modest
gains. The amount of property tax base per household rose faster in the central cities
than in the developing suburbs.
Housing Policy for the 1990s
In February of 1994, the Metropolitan Council released its study Housing Policy for the
1990s. Highlights the major findings of this study include --
It is important for communities to provide housing choices.
Subsidized housing continues to be concentrated in the region's core - -at 58 percent.
A high proportion of central cities' residents face barriers to economic opportunity:
they lack a high school diploma; are a racial minority; are single parents; have a
disability, are not proficient in English or have no car.
t
35-
Comment
During 1994, the Metropolitan Council completed "Community Profiles" for each city
and county in the Seven County Area. The profiles were based data on the U.S. Census
Bureau. However, the housing and rental profiles contain some unusual assumptions and
methodologies--
The profiles specifically exclude owner- occupied manufactured homes and owner-
occupied units in multi - family buildings - -two more common methods of providing
affordable units for ownership.
The categories for gross monthly rent by unit size do not correspond to HUD
guidelines for affordable housing. This makes it impossible to determine how many
rental units are available for households, for example, at 30 percent of the median
income.
The categories for owner - occupied units, by value, do not correspond to FHA's first -
time home buyer's program.
Keeping the Twin Cities Vital
On February 15, 1994, the Metropolitan Council released Keeping the Twin Cities Vital:
Regional Strategies for Change in the Fully Developed Area This reported was
developed at the request of the 1991 Minnesota Legislature. Major findings of this study
reports --
There is a deepening mismatch between employer needs and the skills of people
living in the fully developed area, especially the core -- skills such as technical skills,
work habits and language proficiency.
Consideration should be given to replicate successful programs to assist interested
low - income families to relocate from areas of concentrated poverty in the center cities
to suburban locations near jobs.
Between 1983 and 1992, 47 percent of the commercial/industrial building permit
values were constructed in the central cities and the fully developed area suburbs,
with 39 percent going to the developing suburbs.
Almost half the children in the core are living in poverty.
Poverty and a number of other negative social conditions are strongly interrelated:
high incidence of unemployment; crime; substance abuse; births to single mothers;
and one - parent families.
36-
Nineteen percent of the region's unemployed people in 1990 were living in poverty- -
they numbered 11,000.
The overall poverty rate for working people in the region was 4.2 in 1990 - -they
numbered 52,817.
Of the 249,000 people not in the labor force in 1990, 68,000 were in school.
Twenty -two percent of those without a high school degree were in poverty in 1990.
For those with high school or some college the number was 7 to 8 percent.
Appendix One from Keeping the Twin Cities Vital compared the Twin Cities area to
other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. Appendix One was published in February of
1994. Information included in Appendix One --
Poverty rates are low and median income is high for the Twin Cities metro area.
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is the 16th largest in the U.S.
Housing indicators show about average affordability, less so for renters than owners.
Central cities comparisons between Minneapolis -St. Paul and the central cities of the
other largest 25 metro areas are seldom as favorable as are the comparisons between
the Twin Cities metro area and other metro areas. One reason appears to be
Minneapolis -St. Paul, like many older central cities in the northern and eastern parts
of the country, are land - locked and have been fully developed for decades. Newer
metropolitan areas and those with the ability to annex new land fare better because
they contain some of their own newer suburbs.
14 of the central cities in the 25 largest metropolitan areas lost population in the
1980s. Minneapolis and St. Paul had the smallest loss, just 0.2 percent.
A declining population may reflect social and economic problems, but it also reflects
demographic transition. Minneapolis was over - filled by 1950 with returning veterans
and their children (the leading edge of the baby- boom). Housing was in short supply,
resulting in some doubling up of these growing families. As a result, the city's
population burgeoned. In subsequent decades little land was available for new
residential development, although the household numbers have continued to grow
modestly. Children grew up and left home, leaving two people where four or more
once live. More couples divorced and more singles lived by themselves. Eventually
many two- person households became one - person households with the death of a
spouse. In the past decade, the housing occupied by these one - person households has
started turning over to younger people, increasing the persons per household and
beginning a turn- around in population trends. Such demographic transition has also
1 -37-
begun in a number of Fully Developed Area communities in the metro area during the
past two decades.
One - person households show large differences between the metro area's and central
cities' rank. The metro area ranked 19th in one - person households at 25 percent,
while the two central cities ranked 7th, at 37 percent.
The unemployment rate is second lowest for the metro area and fourth lowest for the
central cities.
Appendix Eight from Keeping the Twin Cities Vital, made the following major findings- -
Lower average education levels of central city residents are an apparent key factor in
their lower average earnings level. The poverty rate drops substantially as
educational attainment rises. Twenty -two percent of people between the ages of 16
and 64 who did not finish high school were below poverty. For people with a high
school education or with some college, rates were 7 to 8 percent. Less than four
percent of people with college degrees were below poverty.
A higher proportion of part-time workers living in the central cities also contributes to
lower earnings - -in Minneapolis and St. Paul, 27 percent of residents who worked,
worked part-time. The developing suburbs were lowest at 21 percent; and fully
developed suburbs and rural areas were both 23 percent. Part of the statistical
difference can be attributed to a higher proportion of working -age residents in the
central cities are in school.
The occupational distribution of workers living in the central cities, fully developed
suburbs, and the rest of the region are quite similar.
Students account for about a third of people 16 to 64 not in the labor force in the core.
In 1990, there were 241,000 people between the ages of 16 and 64 who were not in
the labor force.
On August 19, 1994, the Metropolitan Council completed its revised draft of the Regional
Blueprint. This report outlined a plan of action to sustain and improve the livability of
the region. The findings in the report include the following points --
A study by the Federal Reserve of Philadelphia found that, with few exceptions, the
better a central city does, the better its suburbs do. Central city decline was found to
likely be a slow, long -term drain on the economic and social vitality of the region.
Voith, 1992)
38-
I• Home ownership needs to be encouraged and supported.
Local vitality is directly linked to community character, a sense of identity, and
attractive amenities should be encouraged.
Public dollars should be focused on the region's distressed areas, giving them top
priority for dollars spent on regional services like transit.
Stabilize neighborhoods that are at risk or in decline.
Increase people's skills to match job needs; improve transit and transportation to
better link workers living in older areas to job opportunities in growing communities;
provide wider opportunity for housing choice across the region.
Attract economic development to distressed areas of the region, as well as older,
underutilized areas, by reducing the cost difference between suburban development
and urban redevelopment.
Encourage efforts to base support services in neighborhood or community -based
locations, such as in schools or community centers convenient to transit, rather than in
downtown locations.
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities established an "Urban Strategies Task
Force" in September of 1993. The task force was asked to define problems facing the
Twin Cities region and to develop both long -term and short-term answers to these
problems. The task force is in the process of concluding its work.
The members expect to conclude their work and issue a report during the fall of 1994.
Multi- Housing Association
On September 1, 1994, the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association released the results of a
questionnaire survey sent to 45 Minnesota municipalities. Thirty-nine municipalities
returned the completed survey.
This 28 page survey covered questions seeking information on rental codes, licensing and
fees. The study's findings include --
Minneapolis has the highest yearly licensing fee for a 24 unit building at $373 and
Duluth has the lowest at $52 a year.
1 -39-
Twenty -eight of the respondents indicated that they inspect rental units and five of
these annually inspect all rental units.
Eagan was the only respondent charging multi - family units for traffic signals- -they
charge each unit in the structure $5 per year.
St. Paul had the highest sewer charge for an average 24 unit apartment building at
4,346 a year. The average sewer cost for all of the respondents was $2,957 a year.
Combining all of the licensing, sewer, water, storm water, street lights, fire protection
and police protection fees, St. Paul had the highest total at $8,124 a year for a average
l24 unit apartment building. The average for all of the respondents was $5,794.
In 1993, Professor Craig Swan completed a study examining rental housing in Minnesota.
The following highlights some of the major findings of his study --
28.2 percent of Minnesota households were renters in 1990. This was almost
unchanged from 1980 and significantly below the national average of 35.8 percent.
The areas with the highest growth rates for renter households were generally along a
line from Rochester to St. Cloud, excluding the fully developed portions of the
metropolitan area.
40 percent of the rental housing stock in Duluth Minneapolis, and St. Paul was builtPg P
A„ before 1940.
Over 93 percent of the rental housing stock in the inner suburbs of the Twin Cities
was built after 1950.
Over 43 percent of renter households in 1990 had incomes that were less than 50
percent of the median household income for the county in which they live.
Property taxes on apartments in Minnesota consistently rank among the highest in the
nation. For example, low rise apartment buildings with over 24 units in Minnesota
paid $1.38 per square foot in real estate taxes in Duluth in 1991. This was the highest
in the country. Similar apartments in Minneapolis /St. Paul paid $1.24 per square foot
in property taxes in 1991. This was the second highest in the country.
1 -40-
IGovernor's Task Force
On March 15, 1993, the Governor's Task Force on Metropolitan Housing Policy issued
its policy recommendation in a four page report covering four policy areas. This report
was based on a 1993 draft report complied by Minnesota Planning, the Metropolitan
Council and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
Some of the major findings of the draft report state- -
i and St. Paul have the most housing affordable to very-low- andWhileMinneapolisgry
low- income people, the new jobs are in suburban areas not easily reached by public
transit.
There are 36,012 rental units affordable to very- low - income households but 31
percent of the units are occupied by households with higher incomes.
The number of affordable rental units for low - income households exceeds the number
of low- income households by 44,425 units.
While 31 percent of all housing units in the Seven County Area are located in
Minneapolis and St. Paul, 58 percent of the subsidized units are located in these two
cities.
While the central cities have 28 percent of the region's population, they have 40
percent of the people, age 16 and older, who do not have high school diplomas.
From this draft report, the Governor's Task Force on Metropolitan Housing Policy
developed a set of recommendations.
First, the Task Force reached a consensus on the following housing initiatives:
create a technical assistance program to help local governments develop innovative
approaches for the creation of affordable housing;
establish regional affordable housing goals and reward local communities which meet
the goals;
reduce the cost of housing development;
promote home ownership through loans and financial counseling;
develop attractive, low -cost housing prototypes;
provide funding to preserve and renovate existing affordable housing in Minneapolis
and St. Paul.
1 -41-
I
Second, the Task Force reached a transportation consensus that a greater effort needs to
be made to get people to jobs through reverse commute programs.
Third, the Task Force stated that government needed to play a greater role in the area of
education/training /job readiness for unemployed, underemployed and hard -to- employ
persons in the fully developed area of the Twin Cities. In addition, the Task Force stated
that various governmental agencies should examine their low- income housing programs,
policies and laws to determine whether they are causing low - income residents to remain
in distressed areas with little opportunity for meaningful employment.
In 1994, the Minnesota Association of Realtors produced a draft study, The Effects of
Land Use Regulations on Housing Costs.
E
Finally, the Task Force came to a consensus on four fiscal issues surrounding affordable
housing:
examine the allocation formula for revenue bonds, housing tax credits and HOME
funds to ensure that funds are available to suburban communities for the development
of affordable housing;
reduce the property tax on rental property through the use of leasehold cooperatives
thereby making additional rental property taxed at rates similar to owner occupied
housing for low- income tenants;
increase the payment period from 12 to 15 years for Tax Increment Financing bonds
used for by local government to construct affordable housing;
allow local governments to use park dedication fees to write down land costs in areas
where there is ample park land already available.
Comment
This study provides detailed information on affordable housing. However, it depends
extensively on Census data for analyzing job growth and the distribution of occupations.
According to the Research Division of the Minnesota Department of Economic Security,
census jobs and occupations are reported according to where individuals live, not where
they work. It appears that the report falsely assumes that the employment data is based
on location of employment.
In 1994, the Minnesota Association of Realtors produced a draft study, The Effects of
Land Use Regulations on Housing Costs.
E
42-
This draft study examined some of the national literature on zoning, subdivision
regulations, building codes, fees, environmental regulations and growth controls. It then
conducted a survey of a few suburban communities.
This survey examined various development activities and within the selected
communities.
Comment
Three points should be mentioned about this study.
First, like other studies mentioned earlier, this study did not randomly select their
communities. And, Minneapolis and St. Paul were not included in the analysis.
Second, this study did not develop any comparison between land use regulations and
housing costs, as its title implied.
Third, like other studies mentioned earlier, this study did not recognize the local zoning
practices and monopolistic practices among the local zoning authorities.
Laws of MN, 1994, Chapter 557
With the 1994 enactment of Chapter 557, Minnesota Planning and the Metropolitan
Council were directed to conduct a costibenefit analysis of public, nonprofit and private
sector spending on housing redevelopment and rehabilitation in the metropolitan area.
This study is in its initial stage and it is not expected to be completed for at least six
months.
MICAH
The Ministry for Outreach and Social Responsibility ( MICAH) is very active in the issue
of affordable housing. According to their staff, MICAH uses research developed by the
Metropolitan Council and the Citizens League. They have not developed any
independent research on affordable housing.
1 -43-
IUnited Way of Minneapolis
According to some sources, the United Way of Minneapolis began a initiative on
affordable housing a couple of years ago.
However, the author of this report could not locate anyone at the United Way of
Minneapolis with any written documentation on this effort.
These nine communities have a total of 120,752 homesteaded properties and 37,247 non-
homestead properties - -a total of 157,999 housing units. Non - homestead properties
comprise 24 percent of all units. Roseville has the highest amount of its housing stock in
non - homestead properties -40 percent. Woodbury has the least amount of its housing
stock in non - homestead properties - -7 percent.
Fifteen percent of the all homestead units are at densities higher than a single - family unit.
Eleven percent of the non - homestead units are single - family units. Eighty -five percent of
the non - homestead units are multi - family units.
Among all 13 member cities, there are a total of 170,376 homestead units and 42,978
non - homestead units - -a total of 213,354. Non - homestead properties comprises 20
percent of all housing units for the 13 MLC cities.
44-
MEMBER SURVEY
In August of 1994, an eleven page survey was given to the thirteen city members of the
Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC). A copy of the survey is contained in
Appendix III. All members returned the survey. However, data was not always
available for all of the questions by some members.
The survey was designed to measure seven housing areas:
housing composition
house ownership and rental costs
availability of subsidized rental units
zoning practices
development costs
building codes and programs
developable land
Housing Composition
As shown in the Tables Homestead Units and Non - Homestead Units", 9 of the 13
members were able to provide detailed information on the homestead and non - homestead
housing units in their city.
These nine communities have a total of 120,752 homesteaded properties and 37,247 non-
homestead properties - -a total of 157,999 housing units. Non - homestead properties
comprise 24 percent of all units. Roseville has the highest amount of its housing stock in
non - homestead properties -40 percent. Woodbury has the least amount of its housing
stock in non - homestead properties - -7 percent.
Fifteen percent of the all homestead units are at densities higher than a single - family unit.
Eleven percent of the non - homestead units are single - family units. Eighty -five percent of
the non - homestead units are multi - family units.
Among all 13 member cities, there are a total of 170,376 homestead units and 42,978
non - homestead units - -a total of 213,354. Non - homestead properties comprises 20
percent of all housing units for the 13 MLC cities.
Cities
Apple Valley
Bloomington
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Lakeville
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Roseville
Shoreview
Woodbury
Cities
Apple Valley
Bloomington
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Roseville
I oodbury
Totals
lomestead Units
18
Total Single- Duplex- Multi- Overall
Units Family Triplex Family Total
1,566
2,129
11,468
25,660 20,665 213 4,626
13,804
15,678
12,446 9,503
16,314 11,886
7,393 7,023
15,711 14,838
16,468 14,889
9,656 8,201
8,649 8,275
8,455 6,805
120,752 102,085
514 2,429
293 4,135
370 0
179 0
18 1,561
32 1,171
98 276
412 1,566
2,129 15,764
on- Homestead Un
8,674 11
Total Single- Duplex- Multi- Overall
Units Family Triplex Family Totals
1,061
10,478 492 146 9,820
1,662
1,998
500 221 102 176
4,822 290 147 4,385
1,792 645 640 507
4,934 505
5,919 475
6,547 190
1,604 649
651 540
37,247 4,007
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
61 4,368
15 5,429
38 5,740
33 922
35 383
1,217 31,730
1,010 11
731
45-
A detailed listing of the assessed value for homestead and non - homestead single- family
units in the nine cities is attached in the four tables. FHA has a first time home
ownership program for qualified buyers. This program allows first -time home buyers to
purchase a home for $110,000 in the Twin Cities Area. Among these nine communities,
an FHA first -time home buyer could qualify to purchase 58,625 housing units:
43,897 single - family homesteads are $110,000 or less
1,234 duplex and triplex homesteads are $110,000 or less
13,494 multi - family homestead units are $110,000 or less
This represents just over 48 percent of all homesteaded properties in these nine cities.
According to the Economic Analysis division of HUD, the median income in the Twin
Cities is currently $51,000, for a family of four. Eighty percent of the median income is
40,800. According to James Vonasek, Minneapolis Office of Housing and Urban
Development, a household at 80 percent of the Twin Cities median income could qualify
for a home valued at $105,000. This loan would be a 30 -year fixed rate at 8.5 percent.
The down payment and closing costs would be $6,000.
The MLC survey provided the needed information on housing stock within suburban
cities:
Forty-eight percent of all homesteaded properties are assessed at $100,000 or less and
could qualify for the Federal Home Administration (FHA) first -time home buyer
program.
I
According to several housing studies, homes, like most other consumer purchases, cost
the most when they are new.
Of the 13 MLC cities, 4 cities had over 50 percent of their housing structures built
between 1980 and 1990: Eagan (62 percent); Eden Prairie (66 percent); Lakeville
51 percent) ; and Woodbury (57 percent). Five other member cities had over a third of
their housing structures built between 1980 and 1990: Apple Valley (45 percent);
Burnsville (38 percent); Minnetonka (38 percent); Plymouth (47 percent); and Shoreview
34 percent). (See Appendix II)
For comparison, Minneapolis had 53 percent of its housing structures built before 1939.
St. Paul had 47 percent built before 1939. Minneapolis had 6 percent of its housing
structures build between 1980 and 1990. St. Paul had 7 percent of its housing structures
built between 1980 and 1990.
A detailed listing of the assessed value for homestead and non - homestead single- family
units in the nine cities is attached in the four tables. FHA has a first time home
ownership program for qualified buyers. This program allows first -time home buyers to
purchase a home for $110,000 in the Twin Cities Area. Among these nine communities,
an FHA first -time home buyer could qualify to purchase 58,625 housing units:
43,897 single - family homesteads are $110,000 or less
1,234 duplex and triplex homesteads are $110,000 or less
13,494 multi - family homestead units are $110,000 or less
This represents just over 48 percent of all homesteaded properties in these nine cities.
According to the Economic Analysis division of HUD, the median income in the Twin
Cities is currently $51,000, for a family of four. Eighty percent of the median income is
40,800. According to James Vonasek, Minneapolis Office of Housing and Urban
Development, a household at 80 percent of the Twin Cities median income could qualify
for a home valued at $105,000. This loan would be a 30 -year fixed rate at 8.5 percent.
The down payment and closing costs would be $6,000.
The MLC survey provided the needed information on housing stock within suburban
cities:
Forty-eight percent of all homesteaded properties are assessed at $100,000 or less and
could qualify for the Federal Home Administration (FHA) first -time home buyer
program.
I
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Ingle- Family Homestead
60,000 60,001- 70,001- 80,000- 90,001 -
Cities Under 70,000 80,000 90,000 110,000
Apple Valley
Bloomington 249 805 1,790 3,629 6,103
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie 10 21 53 149 1,599
Edina 19 46 122 325 1,095
Lakeville 498 509 1,123 1,384 1,645
Maplewood
Minnetonka 851 332 691 1,200 2,915
Plymouth 464 312 621 984 2,407
Roseville 61 240 1,412 1,546 2,281
Shoreview" 759 681 984 785 865
Woodbury 62 108 301 424 1,437
TOTALS 2,973 3,054 7,097 10,426 20,347
110,001- 130,001- 150,001- 200,001- Over
Cities 130,000 150,000 200,000 300,000 300,000
Apple Valley
Bloomington 2,974 1,974 1,729 1,119 293
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie 2,275 1,411 2,146 1,283 556
Edina 1,700 1,637 3,109 2,275 1,558
Lakeville 883 426 359 182 14
Maplewood
Minnetonka 2,860 1,856 2,161 1,258 714
Plymouth 2,497 2,109 3,325 1,835 335
Roseville 1,263 608 541 193 38
Shoreview"
Woodbury 1,420 831 1,120 649 127
TOTALS 15,872 10,852 14,490 8,794 3,635
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
1
1
1
1
Duplex & Triplex HOmesteaa
60,000 60,001- 70,001- 80,000- 90,001 -
Cities Under 70,000 80,000 90,000 110,000
Apple Valley
Bloomington 10 29 34 22 40
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie 4 25 196 162 52
Edina 0 2 0 10 12
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka 7 14 67 32 16
Plymouth 0 1 0 1 5
Roseville 3 14 9 16 10
Shoreview 2 6 24 8 22
Woodbury 4 98 125 120 32
Totals 30 189 455 371 189
110,001- 130,001- 150,001- 200,001- Over
Cities 130,000 150,000 200,000 300,000 300,000
Apple Valley
Bloomington 38 19 20 1 0
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie 29 32 12 2 0
Edina 34 55 89 88 3
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka 5 14 23 1 0
Plymouth 3 5 1 2 0
Roseville 35 10 6 0 0
Shoreview
oodbury 13 2 12 4 0
Tntalc 157 137 163 98 3
L
a
Ir-I
R
Ir
i
i
i
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Multi - Family Homestead
60,000 60,001- 70,001- 80,000- 90,001 -
Cities Under 70,000 80,000 90,000 110,000
Apple Valley
Bloomington 926 789 793 398 758
Burnsville 207 4 8 0 0
Eagan
Eden Prairie 288 467 537 412 384
Edina 1,150 656 662 437 341
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka 0 0 0 0 0
Plymouth 724 379 276 89 91
Roseville 892 125 83 50 125
Shoreview
oodbury 587 318 265 176 97
Totals 4,774 2,738 2,624 1,562 1,796
110,001- 130,001- 150,001- 200,001- Over
Cities 130,000 150,000 200,000 300,000 300,000
pple Valley
Bloomington 355 213 143 65 0
Burnsville 3 0 0 0 0
Eagan
Eden Prairie 104 33 126 75 3
Edina 251 221 225 150 42
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka 0 0 0 0 0
Plymouth 2 0 0 0 0
Roseville 69 1 17 24 0
Shoreview
oodbury 52 14 38 9 10
Totals 836 482 549 323 55
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
46-
A family of four at 80 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities can qualify for
a home valued at $105,000 under the first -time home buyer program. Almost 48
percent of all homesteads in these cities would be within their reach.
A family of two at 80 percent of the Twin Cities median income can qualify for a
home valued at $80,500 under the first -time home buyer program. The nine
communities have 23,934 homesteaded properties assessed at $80,000 or less.
Twenty percent of all homesteaded properties in these cities are within their reach.
A family of three at 50 percent of the median income in the Twin Cities can qualify
for a home valued at $60,000 under the first -time home buyer program. The nine
communities have 7,777 homesteaded properties assessed at $60,000 or less. Over
six percent of all homesteaded properties are within their reach. In addition, 1,470
single - family non - homesteaded properties would be within their reach.
The attached table, "Home Sales," highlights the median cost of all single - family home
sold in 1993, all homes sold between 1989 and 1993, and a new home sold in 1993 in
MLC cities.
Only four of the member cities were able to report current, detailed information on the
size and cost of rental units within their communities. Therefore, June 1994 data was
purchased from Apartment Search. It should be noted that the one shortcoming of this
data is that it is typically drawn from the larger apartment complexes. More non-
traditional rental units (e.g., small complexes, units in a home, or a previously owner-
occupied unit) usually are not included in their data.
Statewide, one to four unit dwellings provide almost 40 percent of all occupied rental
housing units. (Swan, 1993)
However, this may more fairly compare rental unit size and cost between Minneapolis
and St. Paul, and the suburbs since many of the suburbs may not have been established
long enough for non - traditional rental units to have evolved in their communities.
The attached table, "Apartment Rentals ", contains June 1994 data compiled by Apartment
Search on the cost of studio, one - bedroom, two- bedroom and three- bedroom apartments
in the 13 member cities and in 7 other cities within the Seven County Area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Home Sales
Median Cost of Median Cost of Median Cost of New
Single- Family Home Single - Family Home Single - Family Homes
Cities 1993 1989 -93 1993
Apple Valley 115,500 105,900 NA
Bloomington 126,604 118,086 126,600
Burnsville NA NA NA
Eagan 126,500 120,240 150,000
Eden Prairie NA NA 177,971
Edina 169,950 161,500 375,000
Lakeville 120,221 NA 113,595
Maplewood NA NA NA
Minnetonka 129,500 128,500 350,000
Plymouth 157,500 145,000 190,000
Roseville NA NA NA
Shoreview 109,700 NA NA
Woodbury 154,200 143,400 180,900
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Source: Apartment Search. "Profiles." (Edina: Apartment Search, Second Quarter 1994).
Data is from June 1994.
Averages have been weighted to maintain accuracy.
Apple Valley is combined with Rosemount. Lakeville is combined with
Farmington. Shoreview is combined with Arden Hills.
Total Units Vac Avg
21313 Vac Rate Rent
371 2 0.5% 556
3,382 81 2.4 640
2,815 109 3.9 599
2,580 55 2.1 628
2,063 118 5.7 714
1,433 55 3.8 704
224 2 0.9 577
933 42 4.5 573
1,901 43 2.3 763
2,814 106 3.8 678
1,203 16 1.3 607
420 15 3.6 692
1,046 35 3.3 643
21,185 679 3.2 655
1,306 101 7.7 549
1,980 126 6.4 549
4,797 173 3.6 634
1,065 26 2.4 570
1,950 65 3.3 622
3,746 176 4.5 601
1,413 55 3.9 612
Total Units Vac Avg
313D Vac Rate Rent
124 4 3.2% 695
287 10 3.5 781
378 21 5.6 766
522 1 0.2 762
213 13 6.1 858
183 7 3.8 941
76 1 1.3 718
72 0 0 725
162 3 1.9 989
247 10 4 909
73 0 0 776
4 0 0 730
46 0 0 845
2,387 70 2.9 814
22 0 0 579
82 17 20.7 720
337 11 3.3 728
55 2 3.6 681
92 1 1.1 770
211 12 5.7 943
39 4 10.3 726
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
47-
This table highlights the number of units, units vacant, vacancy rate and the average rent
paid in the 13 member communities and in the 7 other cities. The following points
should be highlighted:
Burnsville and Eagan each have more three- bedroom apartments than Minneapolis --
and at roughly the same rent.
8,126 two bedroom units are provided by 5 member cities at a lower rent than in
Minneapolis, which only has 4,797 units. An additional 4,428 two - bedroom units
have monthly rents within $8 a month of Minneapolis.
Eleven member cities have three - bedroom units renting for less than in St. Paul.
Seventy -six percent of the rental units in Minneapolis and 62 percent of the rental
units in St. Paul are studio or one - bedroom units. Only 46 percent of the rental units
in the 13 member cities are studio or one - bedroom units.
Apartment Search indicated that rental units are being added in 1994:
Apple Valley issued permits for 118 units in 7 buildings;
Eagan issued permits for 48 units in 5 buildings;
Eden Prairie issued permits for 38 units in 3 buildings;
Maplewood issued a permit for 100 units in 1 building;
Plymouth issued permits for 26 units in 4 buildings;
Minneapolis issued permits for 61 downtown units in 2 buildings.
The following table highlights the household size, annual income and rental costs
affordable to households at 50 percent and 80 percent of the median family income in the
Twin Cities Area in 1994:
50 % of Median 80% of Median
Annual Monthly Annual Monthly
Household Size Income Rent Income Rent
One Person 17,850 446 27,950 699
Two People 20,400 510 31,900 798
Three People 22,950 574 35,900 898
1 -48-
1
A single - person household at 50 percent of the median income could afford ($446), on
average, roughly 1,313 studio apartment in 10 of the 13 member cities. This individual
would have to pay, on average, about $40 a month more than the affordable rate in
2 other member cities.
On average, most of the one - bedroom apartments in the 13 member cities are not
affordable to a single person at 50 percent of median income -- average rent is $534.
However, four member cities were able to provide an exact number of rental units
available to this household:
Apple Valle has 148 unitsY
Bloomington has 433 units
Eagan has 261 units
Plymouth has 127 units
In addition, most of the one - bedroom apartments in Minneapolis and St. Paul are also not
affordable -- average rent is $460 and $475 respectively.
A single - person household at 80 percent of the median income could afford ($699), on
average, virtually all of the studio and one - bedroom apartments in the 13 member cities- -
or a total of 19,933 units.
A two- person household (parent and child) at 50 percent of the median income could
afford ($510 per month) few of the two bedroom apartments, without a subsidy, in the 13
member cities. These cities have an average monthly rent of $655. However, three
member cities were able to provide an exact number of rental units available to this
household:
Apple Valley has 33 units
Bloomington has 92 units
Eagan has 120 units
A couple, however, could afford most of the studio and one - bedroom apartments. In
addition, most of the two- bedroom apartments in Minneapolis and St. Paul are also not
affordable -- average rent is $634 and $601 respectively.
A two- person household (parent and child) at 80 percent of the median income could
afford ($798), on average, most of the 21,185 two- bedroom available in the 13 member
cities. These cities have an average two- bedroom rent of $655.
A three- person household (parent with son and daughter) at 50 percent of the median
income could afford ($574) few of the three- bedroom apartments in the 13 member cities.
Bloomington has 3 rental units; and Eagan has 18 units.
49-
This household could afford, on average, one of the 22 three - bedroom units in Brooklyn
Center which rents for $579 a month. However, this household could not afford most of
the three - bedroom units in Minneapolis, St. Paul or the other four cities examined for this
report.
However, a three- person household with a parent and two sons or two daughters could
afford 1,528 two - bedroom units (7 percent) in the 13 member cities. On average, this
household could not afford many of the two - bedroom units in Minneapolis or St. Paul- -
renting for an average of $634 and $601 respectively.
A three- person household (parent with son and daughter) at 80 percent of the median
income could afford ($898) the average three- bedroom apartment in 10 of the 13 member
cities, or most of their 1,795 three- bedroom apartments. This family, however, could not
afford most of the three- bedroom apartments in St. Paul which rent for an average of
943.
Subsidized Units
The Minnesota debate on affordable housing has tended to interchange various
demographic terms. In most literature, very low- income households is defined by HUD
as having an annual income of 30 percent or less of the Twin Cities median income.
Children in these families can generally qualify for free school lunches.
Households with 31 to 50 percent of the median income are considered by HUD to be
low - income, and children in these households can qualify for the reduced lunch program
at school.
In the 1990 U.S. population census, Minnesota had 181,970 households with incomes at
or below 30 percent of the median family income. Thirty-nine percent of these
households owned their home. (HUD, 1993) (See Appendix IV)
The 13 MLC cities had 9,716 households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the
median family income in 1990. Sixty -one percent of these households owned their own
home. Of the 9,716 households, 78 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for
housing. By comparison, 72 percent of the Minneapolis households and 73 percent of the
St. Paul households in this same income group pay more than 30 percent of their income
for housing.
In 1990 Edina had 1 357 households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the medianP
family income in 1990 -- Brooklyn Center had 952 households. Seventy -two percent of
these Edina households and 79 percent of the Brooklyn Center households paid more than
30 percent of their incomes for housing in 1990.
1 -50-
In 1990, Bloomington had 1,847 households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the
median family income -- Brooklyn Park had 1,826 households. Seventy -nine percent of
these Bloomington households and 88 percent of the Brooklyn Park households paid
more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing in 1990.
Nineteen percent of the households in Minneapolis and 18 percent of the households in
St. Paul had incomes at or below 30 percent of the median family income. By
comparison, 5 percent of the households in the 13 member cities had incomes at or below
30 percent of the median family income. Eight percent of the households in Brooklyn
Center and 9 percent of the households in Brooklyn Park had incomes at or below
30 percent of the median income in 1990.
In 1990, there were 48,443 Minnesota home owners with incomes at or below 30 percent
of the median family income paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing - -or
68 percent of all homeowners at this income level. Fifty -five percent of these
homeowners paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing (26,666
households) were elderly households.
In 1990, there were 80,610 Minnesota rental households with incomes at or below 30
percent of the median family income paying more than 30 percent of their income for
rent - -or 73 percent of all rental households at this income level.
There are a number of financial methods for creating subsidized rental units. In the
survey for this study a subsidized rental unit is defined as a unit created by using federal,
state or local government grants, loans, bonds or vouchers to reduce rental costs. For
comparison purposes, Section 8 subsidized housing was reported separately.
Three of the member cities were not able to provide any data on subsidized rental units in
their community. An additional four member cities were not able to provide any detailed
information on subsidized rental units in their community. The two attached tables
Subsidized Rental Units" and "Section 8-- Subsidized Rental Units" summarized the
survey answers by the member cities. Ten member cities reported that they have a total
of 6,680 subsidized and Section 8 rental units in their communities. Of these, 2,835 units
have two or three bedrooms - -or 42 percent of the total amount.
In addition, member cities reported that they have 111 other types of units. These other
types of units include four and five bedroom units, and some group home units.
Besides the information provided by the two tables from the survey responses, subsidized
rental data from the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
was analyzed by city and county are summarized in the attached table "Subsidized Rental
Units in 1994."
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subsidized
Renta
Rental nits in 1994
Survey Results
Survey Results
Total One Two Three
Total One Two Three
Cities Units Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Other
iple Valley 39 0 17 22
11
omington 663 412 88 139 32
irnsville 143 39 39 64 1
igan 286
308 36 180 86 6
len Prairie 931 291 346 280 14
lina 308 302 6 0 0
keville 69
Rplewood 580
nnetonka 374
mouth 97 59 38 0 0
seville
roodbury
tals 3,490 1,103 534 505 47
Cities
pie Valley
omington
rnsville
en Prairie
ina
seville
Minnetonka
Shoreview
Woodbury
Totals
on 8--Subsidized Renta
Units in 1994
Survey Results
Total One Two Three
Units Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Other
0
495 158 286 51 20
462 108 251 96 7
370 68 186 105 11
427 103 177 133 14
256 141 56 55 4
97
400 264 92 42 2
375
308 36 180 86 6
190 878 1,228 568 64
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source: Metropolitan Council for September 1994
Other units are from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency covering
the years 1987 through 1993. These units are not necessarily new units,
especially in the cases of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The units come
from several program areas including apartment renovation, low- income
housing tax credits and HUD $1 Home.
Subsidized Rental Units in 1994
Total Public Public Private Private Section 8 Section 8
Cities Units Mixed Elderly Mixed Elderly Mixed Elderly Other*
Apple Valley 309 45 0 56 0 119 89 75
Bloomington 1,008 0 0 384 103 380 141 227
Burnsville 855 56 0 229 60 431 79 178
Eagan 756 22 0 341 337 56 358
Eden Prairie 434 0 0 297 93 33 11 151
Edina 561 0 0 154 393 5 9 0
Lakeville 121 20 0 0 24 57 20 0
Maplewood 567 0 0 188 193 121 65 140
Minnetonka 398 0 0 173 197 23 5 7
Plymouth 308 0 0 153 0 124 31 24
Roseville 461 0 0 92 230 87 52 145
Shoreview 64 0 0 44 0 10 10 8
Woodbury 37 0 0 0 0 37 37
MLC Totals 5,879 143 0 2,111 1,293 1,764 605 1,313
Other Cities
Brooklyn Center 600 246 77 191 86 437 163 87
Brooklyn Park 859 0 0 187 159 397 116 402
Minneapolis 14,995 1,609 5,156 2,685 2,762 2,226 557 5,185
Richfield 535 0 0 5 150 240 140 1
St. Louis Park 812 34 113 147 196 287 35 158
St. Paul 11,761 1,642 2,607 2,768 1,741 2,132 871 2,437
St. Paul 601 8 79 0 60 220 234 174
Counties
Anoka 2,254 0 101 517 681 687 268 NA
Carver 690 11 20 232 325 69 33 NA
Dakota 4,610 205 377 988 401 1,890 749 NA
Hennepin 22,697 1,653 5,395 4,739 5,086 4,395 1,429 NA
Ramsey 14,051 1,642 2,607 3,380 2,551 2,716 1,155 NA
Scott 732 30 40 271 226 123 42 NA
Washington 1,527 0 42 689 479 292 25 NA
County Totals 46,561 3,541 8,582 10,816 9,749 10,172 3,701 NA
Source: Metropolitan Council for September 1994
Other units are from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency covering
the years 1987 through 1993. These units are not necessarily new units,
especially in the cases of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The units come
from several program areas including apartment renovation, low- income
housing tax credits and HUD $1 Home.
Local Assistance for Affordable Housing
Nine member cities indicated that they have used locally generated financial resources
i.e., city tax revenue; city HRA; city port authority; city general obligation bonds; or city
11
51-
In the Seven County Area, there are currently 46,561 subsidized rental units (i.e., public,
private, and Section 8 certificates and vouchers). Thirteen percent (5,879) of these units
are located in the member cities. The 13 member cities have 4,018 subsidized units open
to various age categories (i.e., mixed). These mixed units represent 16 percent of all the
available mixed subsidized rental units reported by the Metropolitan Council. By
comparison, Minneapolis and St. Paul currently have 53 percent of the mixed units.
In addition to these subsidized rental units, the final column in the table "Subsidized
Rental Units in 1994" contains "other" types of subsidized rental units available to
lower - income individuals. As mentioned in the footnote for the table, these are
necessarily new units constructed, nor are they all reserved for low- income households.
Therefore, units listed in the "Other" column were not added into the Total Number of
Subsidized Units available in a city.
Community Development Block Grant
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars can be used to carry out a wide
range of community development activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization,
economic development, and the provision of improved community facilities and public
services. While communities develop their own programs and funding priorities, they are
limited to activities that address one or more of the CDBG program's three national
objectives: benefit to low and moderate income persons; aiding the prevention or
elimination of slums or blight; and meeting other urgent community- development needs.
The primary emphasis is on benefit to low- and moderate - income persons, defined as
persons with incomes at or below 80 percent of area median income.
The attached table, "Community Development Block Grants ", highlights the amount of
CDBG money received since 1989 in ten member cities and how their money was spent.
Since 1989, the 10 member cities received a total of $10,440,007 in CDBG funds.
Twenty -five percent of the money was spent for housing development during this period.
An additional 42 percent was spent to rehabilitate housing stock. A total of 1,117
housing units received CDBG assistance since 1989.
Local Assistance for Affordable Housing
Nine member cities indicated that they have used locally generated financial resources
i.e., city tax revenue; city HRA; city port authority; city general obligation bonds; or city
11
t
mmun
Cities
Apple Valley
Bloomington
Burnsville
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Lakeville
Maplewood
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Roseville
Shoreview
Woodbury
Totals
Development Block Grants
Since 1989
Amount Housing Rehabilitate Units
Received Development Housing Served
766,984 186,000 273,469 122
2,696,000 329,283 1,292,238 257
885,311
860,000
460,011
320,000
345,800
343,000 83
674,313 161,626 346,764 2001
950,399 0 239,425 27'
450,000 400,000 50,000 63
597,000 279,000 318,000 215
960,000 160,000 700,000 78
1,600,000 323,672 461,271 72
10,440,007 2,619
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
ILIJ7
1 -52-
foundation) to expand affordable housing in their community since 1989. Jointly, they
have provided $33,212,357 in locally generated financial resources for affordable housing
since 1989:
Apple Valley expended $78,525 for Cedar Knolls Storm Shelters and $90,525 for
Apple Valley Townhomes development.
Bloomington expended $3,329,465 from local resources on 7 projects:
Apartments, Fairfield Terrace, and Windsor. These projects created 450 affordable
housing units. Local funding was $3.235 million.
unit senior housing for $450,000
6 unit group home for $20,000
23 unit mentally ill for $78,000
20 unit family townhome development for $406,000
30 unit developmentally disabled for $1.85 million
51 unit senior/low-income for $275,000
15 single family rental units for $250,465
Eagan contributed about $1 million to provide housing for the elderly.
Eden Prairie contributed roughly $12,678,842 for affordable housing.
Edina used $4 million in tax increment financing to construct Centennial Lakes
Condos, creating approximately 90 second mortgage loans to moderate income
purchasers.
Lakeville has used tax increment financing and CDBG funds to assist in the
development of the Southfork Apartments, Johnson Apartments and Lakeville Court
Apartments, Fairfield Terrace, and Windsor. These projects created 450 affordable
housing units. Local funding was $3.235 million.
Maplewood used $300,000 in tax increment financing dollars to construct Carefree
Cottages of Maplewood.
Minnetonka used $1.5 million in tax increment financing dollars to build Presbyterian
Homes.
Plymouth used $5.7 million of essential function bonds and $1 million for
development costs and up to $300,000 for annual operating subsidies from the HRA
tax levy to create 97 units of low-income senior housing. In addition, Plymouth used
42,000 from Section 8 reserve funds to purchase a lot for a low-income single
53-
Zoning was first introduced in the U.S. in 1916. It represented the first major public
effort to regulate private land.
Zoning remains one of the most important functions of local government. Through
adoption of a local zoning ordinance, a community has the power to ensure that new
development and redevelopment take place in accordance with development goals and
objectives. (Hershey, p. 13) Zoning was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1926
case of Euclid v. Ambler. The case center on the right of local units of government to
exclude multifamily housing from areas where single-family housing dominated. (HUD,
1991, p. 2-6)
Certain zoning practices can intentionally or unintentionally exclude diversified housing
options.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Survey Results
Minimum Minimum Required Required
20 /Unit Units At Density Single - Family Single - Family Duplex/Triplex Multi - Family
Cities Density 20 /acre Defined Sq Footage Sq Footage Garages Garages
Apple Valley 12 -24 /acre 696 NA Building Code Building Code 1- 2/unit 2.5 /unit -1 enclosed
Bloomington 20 /acre 146 Gross 400 sq ft 400 sq ft 2/triplex unit -1 end 2/unit -1 enclosed
Burnsville 25 /acre NA Gross/Net Varies Varies 21unit enclosed 1.5- 2/unit -1 enclosed
Eagan 20 /acre 325 Gross/Net Building Code Building Code Not Required 2/unit -1 enclosed
Eden Prairie 20 1acre 196 Gross Building Code Building Code 1 covered /unit 2/unit -1 enclosed
Edina 20 /acre 5,075 Gross 500 -950sq ft. 500 -950sq ft. 1.5- 2/unit 75- 1.25 /unit enclosed
Lakeville 17.4 /acre NA Net Varies Varies Not Required 2.5 /unit*
Maplewood 20 /acre 409 Gross Building Code Building Code Not Required 21unit -1 enclosed
Minnetonka 20 /acre 2,184 Gross/Net Building Code Building Code 1 enclosed/unit 2/unit -1 enclosed`
Plymouth 20 /acre 0 Gross Building Code Building Code 3 garages /triplex 2.5 /unit -1 enclosed
Roseville 10 to 36 1acre NA Gross Building Code Building Code Not Required 21unit- 1 enclosed
Shoreview 8 to 20 /acre NA NA 20 by 30 ft 20 by 30 ft 21unit & 1 enclosed 2/unit -1 enclosed
Woodbury 10 /acre 0 Gross Building Code Building Code Not Required 2.5 spaces /unit
Also requires visitor parking
Manufactured Manufactured Park Other Smaller Lot Size Environmental
Cities Housing Units Hm Standard Dedication Dedication Allowed in PUD Standards
Apple Valley 566 State Standard 10% Ponding -5% 5000 to 9000 Tree preservation
Bloomington 176 Limited Area 10% LV" 8250 Noise & Impervious in R1
Burnsville 745 Limited Area Required Yes Tree and Soil Protection
Eagan Unknown State Standard Required Ponding Yes Tree preservation
Eden Prairie None NA 900 /unit 6000f /1500 units Tree preservation
Edina 0 NA 8% land No Water Setback, tree pres
Lakeville 975 Various 650 /unit Yes/284 units Tree preservation
Maplewood 751 None Yes No Water Setback, tree pres
Minnetonka 1 Same as S.F. Yes 4- 7,500/200 units None
Plymouth 63 State Standard 940 /unit 10,000 Water Setback
Roseville 108 NA 10% Yes
Shoreview 186 State Standard 571/lot Yes/ 300+ Tree, Water, Fertilization
Woodbury 0 NA Yes Yes Wetland Protection
Land a ue
e
s
i
i
i
i
i
i
Highest Acres at
Survey Results Continued
Growth Landscaping
Allow Public Private Sidewalk/
Controls Standards
Accessory Road Road Pathway Sidewalk/Pathway
Cities Apartments Width Width Width Required
Apple Valley Not Allowed 32 32 5 -8ft Both sides for collector & pathway plan
Bloomington Allowed 30 24 NA In limited areas (e.g., shopping center)
Burnsville Allowed NA 20 -24 NA Not required
Eagan Not Allowed 32 24 to 28 5-6ft Yes, if trail plan & possibly both sides
Eden Prairie Allowed 28 24 5-6ft Negotiated as needed
Edina Not Allowed 30 24 NA Not Required
Lakeville Not Allowed 32 Varies 5 -8ft 6 -8ft & both sides on collector /arterial
Maplewood Not Allowed 32 Varies 5 -8ft Required and on both sides of arterials
Minnetonka Allowed 26 24 6 -8ft Around multi - family
Plymouth Not Allowed 33 24 NA Not Required
Roseville Not Allowed 32 24 to 32 6 -1 Oft Yes, residence on collector & commercial
Shoreview Allowed 32 NA NA Yes, if part of master trail /comp plan
oodbury Not Allowed 32 24 6ft Around multi - family parking lots
Highest Acres at Density Growth Landscaping
Cities Density High Density Bonus Units Controls Standards
Apple Valley 24 /acre 56 Yes No 1 tree SF /2.5% for denser development
Bloomington 50 /acre 3.265 acres Yes No Varies
Burnsville 25 /acre 267.7 acres No No 1,000 escrow for SF/ Landscape plan for other
Eagan 24 /acre 400+ acres Yes No Varies
Eden Prairie 40 /acre 0 Yes No 685 per unit average
Edina 40 /acre 21 acres Yes No Multi -1 Over Story Tree /40 ft of perimeter
Lakeville 17.4 /acre 232 Yes Yes Landscaping plan for 4 or more units
Maplewood 16.31acre 10.3 acres Yes No Varies
Minnetonka Over 12 /acre NA No No 2% of value for first $1 million value
Plymouth 20 /acre 0 Yes No One tree per units above single - family density
Roseville 10-36 /acre 248.71 Yes No NA
Shoreview 20 /acre 90.9 Yes No NA
oodbu 10 /acre 65 NA No NA
1 -54-
Icontributions by the developer (e.g., underground parking), the city grants a density
In the survey, nine member cities indicated that they allow a higher density for single -
family homes in a PUD. The allowed density ranges from 4,000 to 10,000 square feet.
Eden Prairie has sited 1,500 single - family housing units in a PUD at 6,000 square feet.
r Minnetonka has sited 200 units in a PUD on lots ranging from 4,000 to 7,500 square feet.
1
Li
Manufactured homes are designed, engineered, and assembled in a factory and then
towed to site. They are designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation.
They come complete with plumbing, heating, air conditioning, electrical wiring, mayor
appliances, and often furniture. They must meet certain minimum federal quality
standards.
There are several reasons for the popularity of manufactured homes, including their
attractive price, improved design and safety standards, and more attractive financing
options. (Hershey, p. 21)
J
bonus, usually specified as a percent of the total density allowable under existing zoning
regulations.
Ten cities indicated that they allow density bonuses.
Cluster and Planned Unit Development
This technique is used to increase the flexibility of an ordinance to allow clustering of
units on lots smaller than those normally allowed in a specific zone, provided that the
saved land is set aside permanently for common use, usually as open space. In such a
cluster subdivision the overall site's density and use comply with the existing zoning
requirements. Savings come from concentrating development on the portion of a site
most conducive to building in its natural state, rather than disturbing natural drainage
systems and other natural features.
Concentrating development also reduces costs by cutting the length of streets, sidewalks,
and utility lines required to serve the units.
Planned unit development also clusters units on a site, but the concept is broader.
Generally, a PUD includes mixed uses and density increases greater than those allowed in
the zoning ordinance, in exchange for project amenities and modifications in public
improvement standards and in exchange for better project design.
PUD's are distinguished not by their size, but by their flexibility.
In the survey, nine member cities indicated that they allow a higher density for single -
family homes in a PUD. The allowed density ranges from 4,000 to 10,000 square feet.
Eden Prairie has sited 1,500 single - family housing units in a PUD at 6,000 square feet.
r Minnetonka has sited 200 units in a PUD on lots ranging from 4,000 to 7,500 square feet.
1
Li
Manufactured homes are designed, engineered, and assembled in a factory and then
towed to site. They are designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation.
They come complete with plumbing, heating, air conditioning, electrical wiring, mayor
appliances, and often furniture. They must meet certain minimum federal quality
standards.
There are several reasons for the popularity of manufactured homes, including their
attractive price, improved design and safety standards, and more attractive financing
options. (Hershey, p. 21)
J
n 55-
In November 1981, the typical price for a double -wide manufactured home of 1,152
square feet (including land, transportation from factory to site, and set -up) was $31,690.
The manufactured housing industry estimates a $17.80 per square foot construction cost,
excluding land, for the typical home - -a cost more than 40 percent below the National
Association of Home Builders estimated national average of about $30.00 per square foot
for conventional homes.
Several states, including Minnesota, California, Vermont, Indiana and Kansas have
enacted legislation which prohibits cities and counties from arbitrarily excluding
manufactured homes from their communities through local zoning ordinances. In
Nebraska, all communities must provide at least one zone where manufactured homes can
be located on individually -owned lots. (Hershey, 22)
Some communities have added incentives to their ordinances to encourage manufactured
housing development, particularly to meet the housing needs of special groups, such as
the elderly. Plymouth, MA, for example, developed regulations for a manufactured home
zone for the elderly. Others have adopted a concept currently used in Australia called
mother -in -law" units or "granny" flats. In areas where back yards are large enough, but
homes are too small to accommodate a separate apartment, small manufactured homes
may be placed on temporary foundations in the yard. (Hershey, p. 23)
Nine member cities have 3,571 manufactured homes in their communities. Three
communities have zoned areas for manufactured homes. Lakeville, for example, has
roughly 80 acres zoned for future manufactured home sites.
F9M
Generally, land prices increase when the demand for development is high and land supply
is limited. Developable land supply can be limited through regulatory constraints such as
large minimum lot sizes or by curtailing the expansion of water and sewer systems.
A November 1993 internal study prepared for the Metropolitan Council found that city
fees, review policies and development procedures vary from the Fully- Developed -Areas
and the Developing Areas, these costs generally represent less than 1 percent of total
project development costs. Connection charges, however, may exceed 10 to 15 percent
of total costs and land prices may range from 25 to 50 percent of total development costs.
For the 13 member cities, local sewer and water connection charges range from a
combined total of $30 to $3,000. In addition to these charges, each home must pay a one
time charge of $800 to connect with Metropolitan sewer system.
it Fees on Single-Family Home*
Prelim Plat Final Plat Improvement
Electrical Plumbing Planned Unit Home Comp Plan
300 +50 / lot
Admin/
Permit Permit" Development Occupation Amendment Rezoning Escrow
60 50 1,050 0 365 365 0
80 135 1000 0 1000 1000 0
60 70 750 0 150 550 500/ trees
65 88 250 0 500 250 0
55 Varies 5 per acre /500 min 0 500 305 1000
55 144 0 0 500 500 0
55 63 500 50 500 500 1000
76 76 494 72 429 342 0
80 131 500 75 500 500 0
55 90 135+ 100 390 440 0
75 100 750 0 750 300 0
75 90 200 +5 per lot 75 400 400 0
60 100 500 0 500 300 0
66 95 74 499 442
Subd/ Subd/ Public
Prelim Plat Final Plat Improvement T.I.F.
365 80 4,750
300 +50 / lot 250 +10 /lot 25% of improvement cost 1000+
200 +$10 /lot 50 +$5 /lot 0
1,500 -4,800 100 +3 per lot 0 500
300 400 unit/250 min 0
350 +10 per lot 0 6.5% of construction cost
250 per addition + 5/ lot 150 +5 per lot 0
520 113 0 5000
200 150 0
0 285 0
250 250 0
200 +5 per lot 0 0
300 305 205 5000
Fees are based on a single - family home with a permit value of $100,000
with three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The author of the report assumed 15 plumbing fixtures for
fees based on a per fixture dollar amount.
Note: A few cities gave a range for some fees. The range amounted to $200 or
300. in these cases, the author selected the midpoint of the range.
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Mechanical Local Sewer Local Water Site Plan
Permit Connection Connection Review
40-60 $250 $460 $80
53 800 0 75 or 250
70 182 729 200
36 448 725 0
Based on outlets 490 615 300
132 1500 1500 0
63 725 2100 0
76 35 /front foot 35 /front foot 213
131 364 0 50
55 395 749 0
75 15 15 0
50 247 664 100
70 335 495 300
1
1
1
u
I
56-
Developer's costs, and the cost of the home, are increased by local government filings,
plan review and required inspection fees. (Hershey, p. 4)
The attached table highlights sixteen fees often placed on the development of a single -
family home. The fees are based on a home with a permit value of $100,000 (excluding
the cost of land), three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
With the exception of the local sewer and water connection charges, most development
fees are fairly similar among the 13 member cities.
Three cities reported other development fees:
Eagan charges a $410 fee for road.
Lakeville charges a $0.105 per square foot fee of land for a one -time storm water
charge.
Maplewood charges a $10 fee for a driveway.
Once a home is constructed, there are on -going fees to support local infrastructure and
property taxes. The attached table, "On -Going Fees ", highlights what homeowners pay
for local services on a monthly basis.
In addition to these fees, some cities charge their local electric and gas companies a gross
earnings or franchise fee. This fee appears on the customers monthly utility bill. Utilities
collect this fee for the assessing cities. According to the returned surveys, none of the
13 member cities charge this fee.
The following lists the cities with this fee within the NPS territory and the amount the
utility fee collected during 1993:
Minneapolis -- $9,972,814 ($27.06 per capita)
St. Paul -- $14,071,480 ($51.60 per capita)
South St. Paul -- $408,025 ($20.10 per capita)
White Bear Lake -- $134,176 ($5.38 per capita)
West St. Paul -- $434,259 ($22.52 per capita)
Coon Rapids -- $308,548 ($5.46 per capita)
Moundsview -- $195,669 ($15.48 per capita)
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
1
On-Going Fees and Taxes
Sewer Solid Waste/ Storm Street Water Total
Cities Rate Recycling Water Light utility Property Tax
Apple Valley 3 0 0 1 5.35 +0.72 per 1,00 562
Bloomington 9.28 1.14 2.75 0 1.52 per 1,000 2898
Burnsville 15.8 0 0 0 0 2645
Eagan 18.05 16 1.67 1.67 17.4 for first 10,000 2645
Eden Prairie 1.9 0 1 0 0.9 per 1,000 NA
Edina 1.4 1.67 0 8.48 for first 1600 2984
Lakeville 0.83 +1.77/1000 0 1.25 1.4 2.75 +.84 per 1,000 2843
Maplewood 11.3 0.6 0 0 0 NA
Minnetonka 1.45/1000 1 0 0 95 per 1,000 3000
Plymouth 2.95 +1.75/1000 2 0 5 1.94 +.75/1000 380
Roseville 3.65 +1.23/1000 1.45 1.46 0 2.54 +1.4/1000 2280
Shoreview 35.89 5.2 5.2 0 6.67 3115
Woodbury 2.8 NA
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
1
1
1
1
P
J
fA
Another factor increasing the cost of development is the delay time involved in obtaining
development project approval. The attached table, "Process and Approval," highlights
the average time required by each member city to have residential development approved
with no zoning change required and with a zoning change required. Most communities
do not keep a record of the time required. Therefore, the reported data is their best
guess."
The approval time for no zoning changes ranges from 3 days to roughly 90 days. The
approval time for a zoning change ranges from 3 or 4 weeks to 90 days.
By restricting the pool of available contractors for development, cities can indirectly
drive -up construction cost. This occurs with competition is limited.
Apple Valley indicated that city engineering must be used for all improvements that will
be owned and maintained by the city.
The development of architecture standards for residential buildings can increase the cost
of development, making homes more expensive.
Apple Valley requires multiple residential buildings to have a vertical exterior finish
consisting of at least 50 percent non - combustible, non - degradable and maintenance free
construction material. These materials would include face brick or natural stone. The
material excludes construction materials such as sheet aluminum, iron or concrete block.
The balance of the buildings must be made with non - manufactured natural construction
material, such as plank cedar or redwood.
Eagan requires townhomes and multi - family units to have at least 50 percent of the
exterior building finished in non - combustible, non - degradable, maintenance free
materials or those comparable in grade and quality (e.g., brick, natural stone, glass or
aluminum siding).
Eden Prairie requires that high density developments be at least 75 percent or brick,
stone and glass.
Shoreview requires architecture standards if the project is approved as a Planned Unit
Development.
1 Concerns over building maintenance in a community increases as their housing stock
ages. For example, the City of Richfield has identified many sites within its community
for redevelopment. Their redevelopment programs include razing existing buildings and
rmaking the sites available for new construction.
As the attached table highlights, "Programs ", the survey examined six housing programs:
All member cities are part of some affordable housing program- -most likely through
the local HRA office;
Six member cities have housing preservation programs;
Four member cities have redevelopment programs;
Two member cities have a truth -in- housing inspection program;
Five member cities have an apartment inspection program, however some of these
programs appear to be for life - threatening situations;
Six member cities have adopted a housing maintenance code.
Growth Controls
Growth controls are often found in places which have experienced a dramatic population
influx within a very short time. These controls contribute to escalating land costs and
housing prices in preferred locations where development pressures are the greatest.
Brueckner, 1990)
58-
storiesWoodburyrequiresabrickexteriorformulti - family building, with three or more
or 10 units per acre.
Site Improvement Costs
Landscaping and land dedication requirements for parks can add to the cost of
constructing affordable housing. For most member communities, between 8 and
10 percent of the land value was required for park dedication. None of the communities
use this money for debt reduction. Shoreview's park dedication program appears to be
the least expensive at $571 a lot.
Two communities require some form of ponding dedication for water - quality standards.
Building Maintenance
1 Concerns over building maintenance in a community increases as their housing stock
ages. For example, the City of Richfield has identified many sites within its community
for redevelopment. Their redevelopment programs include razing existing buildings and
rmaking the sites available for new construction.
As the attached table highlights, "Programs ", the survey examined six housing programs:
All member cities are part of some affordable housing program- -most likely through
the local HRA office;
Six member cities have housing preservation programs;
Four member cities have redevelopment programs;
Two member cities have a truth -in- housing inspection program;
Five member cities have an apartment inspection program, however some of these
programs appear to be for life - threatening situations;
Six member cities have adopted a housing maintenance code.
Growth Controls
Growth controls are often found in places which have experienced a dramatic population
influx within a very short time. These controls contribute to escalating land costs and
housing prices in preferred locations where development pressures are the greatest.
Brueckner, 1990)
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Programs
Affordability Housing Redevelopment Truth -in- Housing Apartment Housing Maintenance
Cities Program Preservation Program Inspection Inspection Code
Apple Valley Yes Yes No No No No
Bloomington Yes Yes Yes Yes on 1/1/95 Yes Yes
Burnsville Yes No No No -But Considering No No
Eagan No No No No No No
Eden Prairie Yes No No No Yes Yes
Edina Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Lakeville Yes Yes No No No No
Maplewood No No No Yes Yes Yes
Minnetonka Yes Yes Yes No No No
Plymouth Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Roseville Yes No Yes NO Yes No
Shoreview No No No No No Yes
Woodbury NA No No NA NA No
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
0
n
1
fl
1
fl
59-
The following are some of the more common devices used to control growth:
down zoning to increase lot size and allow fewer housing units to be built;
zoning tracts of land for agricultural use, thus removing land from the residential
development inventory;
placing caps on building permits to allow only a fixed number of housing units to be
built within a given time;
curbs on development brought about by tying growth to the infrastructure needed to
support it (e.g., Met Council).
Lakeville was the only member city to indicate consideration of growth controls. The
1992 Lakeville Growth Control Management Plan established a preferred range of annual
growth for the City at 450 to 550 housing units. The city adopted a "pre- mature
subdivision" ordinance to reduce sprawl.
Requirements of developers by subdivision ordinances, jurisdictions are increasingly
extracting offsite improvements as the price of admission- -land dedications, recreational
facilities, schools, police or fire stations, and libraries. They benefit residents who live
outside the boundaries of the new subdivision, but they are paid for by new homeowners.
All 13 member cities utilize park dedication. At least 3 members require a specified
dollar amount per lot or unit. Four other cities require the dedication to be based on land
value. The require between 8 to 10 percent of the undeveloped land value to be
dedicated.
None of the member cities use park dedication funds for debt reduction.
In addition to park dedication, two member cities require a dedication for ponding/water
quality.
Developable Land
As seen in the attached table, member cities indicated that they have a total of 34,191.78
developable acres. Forty-three percent of these acres are guided residential. Ten percent
of the residential land is guided high - density.
t
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
Developable Land
Developable Acres Guided Residential Acres High - Density Acres Outside
Cities Acres Residential Guided High - Density Units /Acre MUSA Line
pple Valley
Bloomington 400.00 150.00 32.60 10+ 0
Burnsville 2,942.40 1,192.40 459.00 16 or 25 0
Eagan 3,500.00 1,000.00 300.00 6 -12+ 0
Eden Prairie 4,618.00 3,498.00 382.00 20+ 850
Edina 120.00 90.00 15.00 30 0
Lakeville 14,955.00 4,403.00 173.40 17.4 8,735
Maplewood 2,000.00 1,200.00 10.30 Up to 16.3 0
Minnetonka 40.00 30.00 0
Plymouth 1,800.00 1,440.00 30.00 11 -20 2,200
Roseville 456.08 269.18 9.09 10 -36 0
Shoreview 400.30 38.80 2.00 4 -8 0
Woodbury 2,960.00 1,260.00 65.00 10 8,960
Totals 34,191.78 14,571.38 1,478.39 20,745
Source: MLC Survey, 1994.
M
The 13 MLC cities have roughly 20,745 acres outside the MUSA line. Combined with
total developable acres, the acres outside the MUSA line represent roughly 38 percent of
the reported vacant land in the MLC cities.
1 -61-
t REFERENCES
Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. "Not In My Back
Yard: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing. (Washington, D.C.:
HUD, 1991).
Blin, Howard. "Memo to Cindy Thomas." (St. Paul: Metropolitan Council,
October 5, 1994).
Brown, Assata. "Reverse Commute: Areas Where the Services are Needed."
St. Paul: RTB, September 13, 1991).
Brueckner, Jan K. "Growth Controls and Land Values in an Open City." Laud
Economics. August 1990. Pages 237 -248.
Citizens League. A Case for a Regional Housing Policy in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. (Minneapolis: Citizens League, May 1994).
Dorfman, Aaron, Michael Schloff and Glenn Dorfman. The Effects of Land Use
Regulations on Housing Costs. Fall 1994.
I Downs, Anthony. "Creating More Affordable Housing." Journal of Housing.
July /August 1992. Pages 174 -183.
I Fischel, William. A. "Do Growth Controls Matter ?" (Hanover, NH: Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy, May 1990).
Hershey, Stuart S., and Carolyn Garmise. "Streamlining Local Regulations: A
Handbook for Reducing Housing and Development Costs." (Washington, D.C.:
International City Management Association, 1987).
Housing d Urban Development, and U.S. Census Bureau. Comprehensive Housingr ,
Affordability Strategy Database. (Washington, D.C.: HUD, 1993)
Hughes, James W. "Demographics and Future Housing Demand." (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University, August 4, 1990).
Jobs and Training, Minnesota Department of. "Minnesota Labor Market Trends."
St. Paul: Department of Jobs and Training, Summer/Fall 1993).
Landscape Architecture, Department of. Residential Land Regulation Inventory of
17 Twin Cities Area Communities. Revised Draft. (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, December 1991).
11
re9a
Lansing, John B., Charles Wade Clifton, and James N. Morgan. New Homes and Poor
People. (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1969).
League of Women Voters of Minnesota. "Adequate, Decent, Affordable Housing in
Minnesota. (St. Paul: League of Women Voters of Minnesota, September 1992).
Lukermann, Barbara, Douglas Snyder and Thomas Luce. Report on Commercial and
Industrial Development within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. June 1993.
Lukermann, Barbara and Michael P. Kane. "Land Use Practices: Exclusionary Zoning,
De Facto or De Jure." (Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs,
April 1994).
Metropolitan Council. "Modest Cost Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area."
St. Paul: Metropolitan Council, 1976).
Metropolitan Council. Housing Development Guide. (St. Paul: Metropolitan Council,
December 1985).
Metropolitan Council. Impact of Government Fees, Regulations and Processes on
Housing Costs. (St. Paul: Metropolitan Council, December 1991).
Metropolitan Council. "Trouble at the Core: The Twin Cities Under Stress."
St. Paul: Metropolitan Council, 1992).
Metropolitan Council. Housing Policy for the 1990s. (St. Paul: Metropolitan
Council, February 1994).
Metropolitan Council. Regional Blueprint. Revised Draft. (St. Paul: Metropolitan
Council, August 1994).
Munson, Michael. "Appendix One." Keeping the Twin Cities Vital. (St. Paul:
Metropolitan Council, February 1994).
National Association of Home Builders. Impact Fee Manual. January 1990.
Regional Transit Board. "Vision'97." (St. Paul: Regional Transit Board, undated).
Rose, Louis A. "Urban Land Supply: Natural and Contrived Restrictions." Journal
of Urban Economics. May 1989. Pages 325 -45.
Rubin, Jeffrey, I., Joseph J. Seneca, and Janet G. Stotsky. "Affordable Housing and
Municipal Choice." Land Economics. August 1990. Pages 324 -340.
63-
Schnidman, Frank, and Jane A. Silverman. Housing Supply & Affordability.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1983).
Slingerland, Dixon. "Affordable Housing in the United States." Youth Policy.
October/November 1992. Pages 11 -28.
Swan, Craig. "Rental Housing in Minnesota: 1990." (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, 1993).
Tucker, William. Zoning, Rent Control and Affordable Housing. (Washington, D.C.:
Cato Institute, 1991).
Voith, Richard. "City and Suburban Growth: Substitutes or Complements ?" Business
Review. (Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia,
September /October 1992).
1
APPENDIX I
i -64-
i
EXISTING 'REVERSE COMMUTE' PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES
1
Reverse Commute Services to Suburban imployment Sites
1
Minneapolis
Routes SepAce Qdginggion . Fm =ygnt SOP NBd
iG Downtown Minneapolis Honeywell Plant (St. Anthony)
3 North Minneapolis North Minneapolis Industrial Park
Highway 280 and 35Wi4\1 Downtown Minneapolis- OPUS b industdol Park
South Minneapolis Minnetonka)
6E Downtown Minneapolis EVrNCasoto Industrial Park
7CD Downtown Minneapolis Veteran Hospital
GSA BLW&n9
Akpart
9 Downtown Minneapolis Prudentkil (oft Highway 12)
Downtown Minneapolis Gombless, St. Louis Park
11 North Mirmeopotis Rosefile Industrial Park
12JG Express Downtown tWv tneapolrs OPUS V Industrial Pork
i 15B Soh h inneapogs --ft 'eldSouth Eckno tndustrinl Porte
151 Sotrth NGnneapob— Richfield .: Control Data Airport South Area
19FU Downtown Wnneopols- -North Honeywell. Golden valley
Wmeopolisi20DowntownMinneapolis - -South Ford Want_ St. Pout
22
Minneapolis
Downtown Minneapor"orth a+i Brown Office Park. Brooktym
i Minneopolis Center
25 Downtown Mu1meapolrs -New RISE, Inc., Spring Lake Park
Brighton
27 Downtown Minneapolis F M.G. Fridleyi23DowntownMmeapobs- South Who Industrial Pock
Minneapolis
35F Express Downtown Mir pofis Norwest Financial Center.
Bloomington
35P Express Downtown Minneapolis GSA S uWng
Airport
Control Data. Airport South
i 36 St_ Louis Park General Mines, Shelard Office
Pork
47 Downtown Knneopolis Masonic Home, Bloomington
i 51 Downtown Minneapolis Gambles. St. Louis Paris
General Mills. Golden Valley
Shelard Office Parts. St. Louis Pork
Carlson Companies, Minnetonka
i 51 C Cargill. Wayzata
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
65-
Minneapolis
RQO arvicetC7riaing!bn Emc4oyment Site Serv&,d
54 (SW Metro Southdale Eden Prairie Employers
Express City West Complex
Control Doto
Perkin Elmer
Wilson learning
Lee Data
Gelco
Rosemount Engineering
MTS
CPT
77G Express Downtown Minneapolis Eagan tndustrx5l Park
78 Richfield - Edina Edna Industrial Park
Control DatO - Airport South
St_ Pau,
rtcxrtes Ser 'ce Origination 1rmQfoyment Site Served
3 Downtown St. Paul— EasWde 3M Headquarters. Maptew-ood
3M Offices. Woodbury
4 St. POO Midway Area NCR Compton, Roseville
Rosevile Industrial Park
5 Downtown St. Paul. West St. Paul CENEK kww Grove Heights
9 Downtown St. Paul GSA Builda7g
Vets Hospitd
19 Express St. Pout Midway Arec Eagan tndustflot Park
Flue Cross. Sperry Dnsvac
49 Downtown St. Paul. Eastside 3M Headquarters. Maplewood
62 Downtown St. Paul Airport
i
1
1
i
Minneopotis
Routes
3C
1
5K
D
St. Pcud
Mutes
8
11
1
Reverse Commute Services to Training Institutions
gandce pdajoatian
North Minneapoi'a
Downtown Minneapolis
Downtown Minneapolis
Downtown Mhr*Qpof s
Downtown Minneapor s
Downtown Minneapolis -South
Minneapoiis,-Richfield
Southdole
SeM On i ion
Downtow++ St. Paut- -South St.
Paul -West St. PouHnver Grove
Heights
Downtown St. Paul -South St.
Paul. Inver Grove Heights
Downtown St. Poul-- Nodheost
St. Patti
St. Paul East Side
lnoi,rtinn Served
Access Ability, Inc.
Access Ability. Inc.
North Hennepin Community
College
Anoka vocational Technical
Institute
Anoka senior High School
Normandate Community
College. Mon ington
opportunity Wortcshop.
Minnetonka
Normndate CornmurutY
College. eloornington
Ir~ion Senned
Inver Hills Comrnuriity Coirege
Inver Hits Community College
Lakewood Community College
W Who Technical tnsti"e
Lakewood Community College
NE Metro Technical Institute
L
APPENDIX II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
67-
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
HOUSING T
Percent of Percent of Percent of
Households Structures Structures
Total Owner Total Rental With No Built Between Built Before
Location Households Households Vehicle -90 1980 & Mr 1990 1939
Minnesota 1,183,738 464,115 8.6% 18.5% 24.5%
noka 66,978 15,459 4.1 30.8 4.2
Carver 13,117 3,484 3.8 32.7 18.9
Chisago 8,964 1,587 4.7 25.9 23.4
Dakota 72,633 25,660 3.3 37.5 6.3
Hennepin 265,616 153,444 11.9 17.8 24
Isanti 7,321 1,489 5.3 20.5 22.8
Ramsey 118,517 71,983 12.3 13.3 29.8
Scott 20,302 15,857 3.6 34.1 13.1
Sherburne 10,977 2,666 3.3 34 11
Washington 41,317 7,929 3.5 30.1 12.1
Wright 26,353 18,866 3.9 24.2 19
Pierce, WI 7,784 3,227 3.9 20 31.2
St. Croix, WI 13,212 4,426 4.8 26.2 24.8
pple Valley 9,739 1,406 1.6 44.9 0.2
Bloomington 24,279 10,209 3.9 20 1.7
Burnsville 12,421 6,706 8.8 38.1 0.2
Eagan 11,996 5,431 1.5 62.1 0.3
Eden Prairie 10,479 3,968 1.3 66.1 0.5
Edina 15,170 4,690 6 13.6 7.5
Lakeville 6,958 893 1.4 50.6 2.7
Maplewood 8,721 2,775 6.1 27.2 6.9
Minnetonka 14,307 4,380 2.7 38.5 3.6
Plymouth 13,519 4,842 1.7 47.4 2.1
Roseville 9,282 4,280 5.3 8.9 3.6
Shoreview 7,756 1,235 0.9 34.5 1.9
Woodbury 5,528 1,399 1.8 57.4 2.2
Brooklyn Center 7,806 3,420 8.8 8.6 2.8
Brooklyn Park 13,749 6,637 5.3 28.6 1.1
Minneapolis 79,845 80,837 22.9 6.1 53.2
Richfield 10,406 5,145 7.7 5 4.3
St. Louis Park 12,469 7,456 7.8 15 8.8
St. Paul 59,471 50,778 18.2 7 46.9
St. Paul 8,767 3,576 9.6 12.3 13.4
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
1
1
1
APPENDIX III
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
68-
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SURVEY
FINAL VERSION
In completing this survey, please use the following definitions:
a single - family unit is one unit per parcel
a duplex and triplex are two or three units per parcel
a multi - family unit is four or more attached housing units
subsidized housing is a housing unit using federal, state or local government
grants, loans, bonds or vouchers to reduce rental costs. Section 8 housing
is defined separately.
1) What is your current housing composition for the City of
Include those units initiated but not yet competed):
Housing T—_v-W Homestead Non - homestead
A. Total number of housing units
B. Total number of single - family units
C. Total number of duplex and
triplex units
C. Total number of multi - family units
2) What is the current number of homestead properties in your city within the
following housing types and valuations:
60,000 and under
60,001 to $70,000
70,001 to $80,000
80,001 to $90,000
90,001 to $110,000
110,001 to $130,000
Single- Duplex & Multi -
Family Triplex Family
continued on next page)
M
Single- Duplex & Multi -
Family. Triplex Family
130,001 to $150,000
150,001 to $200,000
200,001 to $300,000
Over $300,000
3) What is the current number of non - homestead properties in your city within the
following housing types and valuations:
Single- Duplex & Multi -
Family Triplex Family
60,000 and under
60,001 to $70,000
70,001 to $80,000
80,001 to $90,000
90,001 to $110,000
110,001 to $130,000
130,001 to $150,000
150,001 to $200,000
200,001 to $300,000
Over $300,000
1
1
1
1
1
70_
4) How many subsidized rental units, in use, did your city have in 1993?
Of these units, how many units were
one bedroom units?
two bedroom units?
three bedroom units?
other?
5) How many Section 8 units did your city have in 1993?
Of these units, how many units were
one bedroom units?
two bedroom units?
three bedroom units?
other?
6) Has your city added any subsidized rental units, in use, during 1994?
Yes _ No
If Yes, how many units have been added?
Of these units, how many units were
one bedroom units?
two bedroom units?
three bedroom units?
other?
7) Has your city added any Section 8 rental units during 1994? Yes
Of these units, how many units were
one bedroom units?
two bedroom units?
three bedroom units?
other?
No
8) Has your city submitted a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy to the
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development? Yes _ No
71-
9) Does your city have zoning districts in which density of 20 or more residential units
per acre are allowed? Yes No
If Yes, how many units does the city have at this density or greater?
If No, what is the highest density allowed? And, how many units do you
have at this density?
10) How is density defined in your city? (e.g., net or gross) Please explain:
11) Has your city adopted any on -going residential growth management controls
e.g., quotas on the amount of new housing each year)? Yes No _
If Yes, what controls have you adopted?
12) Does your city require any fees from new developments for off -site public
improvements (e.g., park dedication)?
Yes No
If Yes, what fee(s) do you require?
13) Does your city use park dedication money for debt reduction? Yes _ No
14) Does your city require a minimum square footage for a single - family, duplex,
triplex or multi - family unit that is higher than the state building code?
Yes No
If Yes, what is the minimum square footage?
15) Does your city require garages for single - family homes? Yes
If Yes, what is the requirement?
No
72-
16) Does your city require garages for duplex and triplex units? Yes
If Yes, what is the requirement?
17) What is your city's parking requirements for multi- family units?
18) Has your city set standards for manufactured housing? Yes
If Yes, what standards have been adopted?
19) Does your city have manufactured homes? Yes No
No
If Yes, how many manufactured housing units do you have?
20) Does your city allow for an accessory apartment in a single - family home?
Yes _ No
Iwo,
If Yes, what if any conditions do you have for allowing an accessory unit?
21) What is the non - collector, residential street -width surface required in your city for
Public roads
Private roads
22) Does your city require sidewalks or non - motorized pathways in new developments?
Yes No
If Yes, what is the sidewalk or pathway width required?
If Yes, does your city require sidewalks or pathways on both sides of the street?
Yes No
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
73-
23) What is the required landscaping costs per new residential dwelling unit for a
single-family unit:
duplex or triplex unit:
multi - housing unit:
24) Has your city adopted any environmental standards stricter than required by state
law or regional governmental authorities? (e.g., tree preservation ordinances)?
Yes _ No
If Yes, please explain what your city has adopted.
25) Does your city require any architecture standards for residential building materials
such as brick? Yes _ No _ If Yes, please explain what your city has
adopted.
26) Does your city allow for smaller minimum lot sizes for single - family homes within
a PUD or clustered development? Yes No
If Yes, what is the minimum lot size? And, how many single - family
homes have been constructed with less than the minimum?
t
r
I
74-
27) What fees are required by your city and how much does each one cost for a single -
family home with a $100,000 permit value that has three bedrooms and two
bathrooms:
Development Fees Cost
Building Permit
Building Plan Check
Electrical Permit
Plumbing Permit
Planned Unit Development
Home Occupation
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Rezoning
Administrative/Escrow Fee
Site Plan Review
Subdivision/Preliminary Plat
Subdivision/Final Plat
Public Improvement Admin. Fee
T.I.F. Application
Mechanical Permit
Local Sewer Connection Charge
Local Water Connection Charge
Other (explain)
1
l
75-
On -GoingFees Cost
Sewer Rate for Residential Usage
SAC Charge
Local SAC Charge
Solid Waste Management/
Recycling Charge
Storm Water Utility Charge
Street Light Utility Charge
Water Utility Charge
Electrical Franchise Fee
Gas Franchise Fee
Property tax on a $150,000 single - family homestead
Other (explain)
28) What is the normal length of time required to process and approve new residential
developments. Please assume that all paperwork is in proper order by the applicant.
single - family housing with no zoning change:
single - family housing with a zoning change:
duplex or triplex with no zoning change: _
duplex or triplex with a zoning change:
multi - family housing with no zoning change:
multi - family housing with a zoning change: _
29) Please indicate the number of rental units your city currently has in the following
bedroom categories and monthly rental costs:
One bedroom renting at under $450 a month?
One bedroom renting at between $450 and $700 a month?
Two bedroom renting at under $510 a month?
Two bedroom renting at between $510 and $800 a month?
Three bedroom renting at under $575 a month?
Three bedroom renting at between $575 and $900?
37) How has your city used Community Development Block Grant funds from 1989
forward?
I*total amount received since 1989:
u
t
amount used for housing development:
amount used to rehabilitate housing:
total number of housing units served:
76-
30) What was the median rent for multi - family housing paid in your city during
1993?
3 1) What was the median cost of a single - family home, with lot, sold in your city during
1993?
32 What was the median cost of a single-family home, with lot, sold in your city fromgY
1989 though 1993?
33) What was the median cost of a new single - family home, with lot, built in your city
during 1993?
34) During 1993, what was the median assessed value of a single - family home, built
before 1970, in your city?
35) How many fourplex housing units in your city are currently assessed at under
175,000, for the complete building?
36) Has your city used locally generated financial resources (i.e., city tax revenue; city
HRA; city port authority; city general obligation bonds; or city foundation) from
1989 forward to subsidize affordable housing in your community?
Yes No
If Yes, please explain the project(s), what financial resources were used and the
dollar amount of locally generated resources provided by the city.
37) How has your city used Community Development Block Grant funds from 1989
forward?
I*total amount received since 1989:
u
t
amount used for housing development:
amount used to rehabilitate housing:
total number of housing units served:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
77-
38) Please provide the number of single - family housing built within the following time
periods in your city:
A. 1950 or earlier B. 1951 to 1960
C. 1961 to 1970 D. 1971 to 1980
E. 1981 to 1990 F. 1991 to 1993
G. 1994
39) Please provide the number of duplex and triplex units built within the following
time periods:
A. 1950 or earlier B. 1951 to 1960
C. 1961 to 1970 D. 1971 to 1980
E. 1981 to 1990 F. 1991 to 1993
G. 1994
40) Please provide the number of multi - family housing units built within the following
time periods?
A. 1950 or earlier B. 1951 to 1960
C. 1961 to 1970 D. 1971 to 1980
E. 1981 to 1990 F. 1991 to 1993
G. 1994
4 1) How many acres of developable land are undeveloped in your city?
Of this amount, how many acres are guided by your comprehensive plan as
residential?
And, of the residential amount, how many acres are guided high- density?
acres at units per acre.
42) What is the highest level of density allowed in your city code?
How many acres are zoned at this high density?
And, does your city give bonus units for certain actions taken in high- density
construction?
43) How many acres of developable land in your city are outside the WSA line?
78-
44) Has your city implemented any of the following programs:
An affordability program (e.g., help with first time home buyers):
Yes _ No _
Housing preservation program: Yes — No
Redevelopment program (e.g., Richfield): Yes _ No _
Truth -in- Housing inspection program: Yes _ No
Apartment inspection program: Yes No
If Yes to any of the four areas, please describe the program and when it was
initiated:
45) Has your city adopted a housing maintenance code? Yes No
46) Does your city require developers to use a city selected engineering firm?
Yes No
47) Does your city place certification restrictions on construction employees used at a
development? Yes _ No If Yes, please explain the restrictions:
t