The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 11-26-2003J2 NOVEMBER 26, 2003 Dummy Planning Commission December 3 meeting agenda................................................................... Notice of a Special Council Meeting on Thursday, December 4, at 3:00 PM in the Public Safety Training Room, to review plans on City Hall Entrance Concept ..................................... Human Rights Commission December 4 meeting agenda.......................................................... Official Meeting Calendars for November, December 2003, and January 2004 ........................ Tentative list of agenda items for future City Council meetings ................................................. FOR INFORMATi&1 .' NEWSARTICLES, RELEASES, PUBLICATIONS, ETC. Fire Department news release about the availability of ski helmets for purchase by Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 7 Page 13 residents.......................................................................................................................................... Page 14 Metropolitan Mosquito Control District summary of work done in Plymouth during the 2003 mosquito control season.................................................................................................. Page 17 STAFF REPORTS Fire Department report on an incident of interest.......................................................................... Page 20 MINUTES Youth Advisory Council November 10 meeting............................................................................. Page 21 Highway 55 Corridor Coalition September 19 meeting................................................................. Page 23 Highway 55 Corridor Coalition October 24 meeting minutes, Amended andapproved.................................................................................................................................. Page 25 Highway 55 Corridor Coalition Technical Advisory Committee November 3 meeting meetingnotes.................................................................................................................................. Page 27 CORRESPONDENCE CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO November 26, 2003 Page 2 Letter to Public Works Director Dan Faulkner from Mr. & Mrs. Bob Galloway regarding work done by Senior Engineering Technician Darrell Johnson ..................................... Page 30 Letter presented to the Council at the November 25 Council Forum by Trygve Svard ................. Page 31 COUNCIL ITEMS Final Report on "the Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota", prepared for the Family Housing Fund, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund........................................................................................... under separate cover PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2003 WHERE: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda* are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. CONSENT AGENDA* A. Steven Mohn. Approve variance for a storage shed for property located at 10525-45`h Avenue North. (2003122) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. David Lee Funeral Home. Site plan, conditional use permit, and variances for a mausoleum and memorial garden for property located at 15100 County Road 6. (2003115) B. Russell Gallagher. Conditional use permit to exceed 1,000 square feet of total attached garage area for property located at 16115-24`h Avenue North. (2003123) 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation by Jay Michels from NEMO (Nonpoint Source Pollution Education for Municipal Officials) B. Approve Draft 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. 9. ADJOURNMENT Notice of Meeting I hereby call a special meeting of the Plymouth City Council for Thursday, December 4, at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Training Room. The purpose of the meeting is to review plans on the City Hall Entrance Concept. Judy A. Johnson, Mayor 4 PLYMOUTH Q Beau tifuf Ptace to Live 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000 �' www.d.p!ymouth.mn.us AGENDA Plymouth Human Rights Commission December 4, 2003 Student Sub Group Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Medicine Lake Room 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes 3. Approve Agenda 4. Committee Reports A. Student Workshop B. Community Awareness C. Community Education 5. Old Business A. New Neighbors' Handbook B. Hate and Bigotry Conference C. Fairness and Housing Dialogue 6. New Business 7. Announcements and Articles (for your information) A. National Fair Housing Advocate, September/October 2003 B. Golden Valley HRC Agenda and Minutes C. Hopkins HRC Agenda and Minutes D. New Hope HRC Agenda and Minutes 8. Adjourn Next Meeting: January 8, 2004 (Chief Gerdes Presentation) Call Sue Gulbrand at 763-509-5053 if you are unable to attend the meeting. OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS December 2003 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7:00 PM TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING, Council Chambers 6 00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. CITV MANAGER SEARCH. Plymou"Creek Center 6:30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: INTERVIEW BOARD & COMMISSION CANDIDATES, Plymouth Creek Center 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - Medicine Lake Room 3.00 PM REVIEW PLANS ON CITY HALL ENTRANCE CONCEPT, Public Safety Training Room 700 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -Medicine Lake Room 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 S W PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, Meelcinel ike Room 16WPM,TRUTHEARINGRECONVENED, HEARNG RECONVENED, Cwrci CMmDere 4.00 PM MEDICINE LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, Bass Lake Room 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Plymouth Creek Center 7:00 PM CHARTER COMMISS ION ANNUAL MEETING, Public Safety Training Room 6.30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING'. CITY MANAGER SEARCH,CmPY,—t' Creek 6:30 PM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING: CITY MANAGER SEARCH: Plymouth Creek Center 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 6.0.5 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL. C._1 Cn .-, 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 5:30 PM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING: CITY MANAGER SEARCH, Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Medicine Lake Room Channukah begins at Sunset 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY City Offices Closed 28 29 30 31 Nov 2003 Jan 2004 S D4 T W T F S S b1 T W T F S 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 modified on 11/26/2003 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS January 2004 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Feb 2004 1 2 3 Dec 2003 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Offices closed 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEW YEAR'S 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DAY 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 29 is 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7:00 PM 7:00 PM HUMAN PLANNING COMMISSION, CounCil Chambers RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM PARK 8 ' REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 7.30AM MLC REGIONAL LEGISLATIVE MEETING, Plymouth Radisson, 3131 Camvus Drive 7 00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Plymouth Creek Center 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Medicine Lake Room 5'.00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING'. SURFACEWATER FEE, Counoil Chambers 7'.00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MARTIN 7:00 PM LUTHER KING PLANNING JR. BIRTHDAY COMMISSION, (Observed) - Council Chambers City Offices Closed 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 11.45 AM PLYMOUTH-MTKA BUSINESS COUNCIL, BORN Conference Room, 301 Carlson Parkway, 4th floor 4:00 PM MEDICINE LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, Bass Lake Room 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers modified on 11/26/2003 9 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS February 2004 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 5 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 6 7 2:00 PM -7:00 PM FIRE & ICE FESTIVAL, Parkers Lake 8 9 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 10 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 11 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Plymouth Creek center 12 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 13 14 15 16 PRESIDENTS DAY - Cit City Offices Closed 17 18 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 19 too PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT Medicine Lake Room 20 21 22 23 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 24 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 25 4 00 PM MEDICINE LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, Bass Lake Room 7.00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - Med,vne Lake Room 26 27 28 Ash Wednesday (First Day o/ Lent) 29 11ar 2004 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jan 2004 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 modified on 11/26/2003 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items December 1, Special, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Truth in Taxation hearing December 2, Special, 6:00 p.m., Plymouth Creek Center • City Manager Search December 2, Special, 6:30 p.m., Plymouth Creek Center • Board and Commission candidate interviews December 8, Special, 5:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • City Manager Search December 8, Special, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Truth in Taxation hearing (reconvened) December 8, Special, 6:30 p.m., Plymouth Creek Center • City Manager Search December 9, Special, 6:30 p.m., Plymouth Creek Center • City Manager Search December 16, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • City Manager Search December 16 Regular, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers • Adopt 2004 Budget and Tax Levy • Consider HRA proposal to purchase City -owned property at Northwest Blvd. and Schmidt Lake Road • Adopt Policy on Responsible Bidder Criteria January 13, Special, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers • Review Surface Water Fee Regular, 7:00 p.m. • Adopt comments on Bassett Creek Water Management Commission 2"d Generation Plan January 27 Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. 0 For Immediate Release Sara Lynn Cwaym November 20, 2003 763-509-5198 Snowboarders and Skiers Buy New Giro Ski Helmets for 40% off of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price. PL MOUT$ The Plymouth Fire Department, NW Metro Minneapolis SAFE KIDS Coalition, and North Memorial Medical Center have teamed up to provide families with the opportunity to purchase new, Giro ski helmets at substantially reduced prices. "We are happy to partner with SAFE KIDS and North Memorial to offer this program. As snowboarding and skiing get underway, what could be a better gift FIRE -RESCUE than one that helps to keep your family safe?" said Sara Cwayna, Public Safety Education Specialist, Plymouth Fire Department. Bell Sports is a program sponsor of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and they have made it possible for local coalition members to purchase and sell Giro Ski Helmets at significantly discounted prices. The sale -,vill be held on Monday, December 15th, at Plymouth Fire Station III, 3300 Dunkirk Lane North, from 4-8 p.m. This will be the only sale that Plymouth Fire Department will host this season. You must attend the sale in order to purchase a ski helmet, so families are encouraged to mark their calendars. Families interested in this opportunity must call the NW Metro Minneapolis SAFE KIDS Coalition at 763-520-4287 to reserve a viewing and fitting time. Appointments will be scheduled in 20 -minute blocks of time and are required in order to purchase a helmet. Nine models of Giro helmets are available in a variety of colors. To view the helmets that are available through this program, visit ww-sv.gko.com and look up following models. Audio Series • Nine 9 nix audio $99.00 Freestyle Freeride • Fuse $90.00 • Nine 9 mx $72.00 • Nine 9 $66.00 • S4 $42.00 Race Freecarve • Ravine sc $72.00 • Camber $42.00 Youth Kids • Sonic $36.00 • Ricochet $33.00 Full payment by check or cash is required at the time of the order. Orders will be placed with Bell Sports on December 16'''. The pick-up date for helmets is December 29`'', 8-4:30 p.m. at Fire Station III, 3300 Dunkirk Lane North. Before families attend the sale, they are asked to complete the following steps: 1. Visit Nvw�v.giro.com to view models of each ski helmet that is available. Make a tentative decision on which helmet you'd like to purchase. 2. Call NW Metro Minneapolis SAFE KIDS at 763-520-4287 to reserve a viewing and fitting time between 4-8 p.m. on December 15th. 3. Measure in centimeters the circumference of each head to be fit and bring this information with you on December 15h. Also bring the hat that will be worn underneath the ski helmet with you to the fitting. For directions to Plymouth Fire Station III, 3300 Dunkirk Lane North, please call the Fire Department at 763-509-5198. Step back in time, join us for an... (04Ar Sunday, December 7, 2003 2 - 5 p.m. Plymouth Creek_ Park, 3625 Fernbrook Ln. _f4 1 '` 4r/o!7 a a-0 5:. . 2 - 5 p.m. - Hayrides Visit with Santa & Mrs. Claus 2:15 & 4 p.m. - Storyteller Musical Entertainment Armstrong Chamber Singers Messiah Recorder Ensemble Admission is fi-ee. Co -Sponsored by Plymouth Historical Society and City of Plymouth Park & Recreation Department. For more information, call 763-509-5200. 1G ANOKA I. l" r RA"SE1' V, a P ; DgKOTA SCOTT JOSEPH F. SANZONE, BCE Director November 26, 2003 METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT METRO COUNTIES GOVERNMENT CENTER 2099 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST ■ ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104-3431 651-645-9149 ■ FAX 651-645-3246 TTY use Minnesota Relay Service Dwight Johnson Plymouth City Manager 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Johnson: W.J. CAESAR Business Admin. Enclosed is a summary of work done by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (MMCD) within your community during the 2003 mosquito control season. New in 2003, MMCD treated approximately 50,000 catch basins within the metropolitan area. Throughout the country catch basins have proven to be an ideal habitat for mosquitoes that transmit West Nile Virus. This is a very time consuming and labor intensive operation, and we hope to explore ways we might work together to accomplish this important work. MMCD will be contacting your director of public works to identify a contact regarding catch basin work. MMCD is primarily a region -wide larval control program that targets immature mosquitoes and biting gnats while they develop in water. In early spring, and after each significant summer rain, MMCD treats the worst mosquito production areas within the District with a natural soil bacterium (Bti). The same soil bacterium is used to control immature biting gnats in the rivers and streams of the metro area. These treatments prevent billions of immature mosquitoes and biting gnats from hatching into adults. The result is significantly fewer mosquitoes and gnats within the District compared to areas that do not receive control. Control of adult mosquitoes is conducted when there is a risk of mosquito -borne disease, and when adult mosquito populations interfere with outdoor activities. MMCD treats parks and recreational areas along with neighborhoods where infestations of mosquitoes have been identified. MMCD uses resmethrin and permethrin to control adult mosquitoes. LaCrosse encephalitis (LAC) is a viral disease transmitted by a species of mosquito that develops in old tires, artificial containers and areas in trees that hold water. MMCD monitors both larval and adult populations of this mosquito, and provides control when risk is high, or cases are reported. The District also conducts an aggressive public information program designed to enlist citizens' help in reducing the risk of this disease. it AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ® Printed on recycled paper containing at least 15% post -consumer paper fibers MMCD also works to prevent Lyme disease in the metro area. The District monitors the distribution of deer ticks, the carrier of this bacterial infection, throughout the metropolitan area. In addition, MMCD works closely with the Minnesota Department of Health in providing information designed to reduce risk. Please review the enclosed summary. If you have any questions, or would like to meet to discuss our agency's activities within your community, please contact me. Sincerely, Jim Stark (651)643-8363 jimstark@visi.com iJ PLYMOUTH Total Larval Mosquito Treatment Acres 8382.36 Total Adult Mosquito Treatment Acres 2743.52 Events Receiving MMCD Services Music in the Park National Night Out Parks Receiving Adult Mosquito Treatments Community Center Park West Medicine Lake Park Citizen Request for Service: Number of Calls: 275 Type of Citizen Request: Breeding site - 47 Annoyance - 86 Mosquito - 124 General response - 9 Immediate response - 3 Tire pick-up - 0 Public treatment request - 5 Other - 1 Catch Basins: Wet — 1373 Dry - 3959 0 FIRE -RESCUE DATE: 11/22/03 _ PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 763-509-5120 FIRE -RESCUE INCIDENT OF INTEREST C, vv�_ TIME: 1:49 p.m. ADDRESS: 12100 26th Avenue DETAILS: While working on a motorcycle inside a basement, gasoline fumes were ignited by the home furnace. Upon arrival, Plymouth Lieutenant 11 (Weldon) reported smoke showing from the first floor and roof eaves of the dwelling. First arriving, Engine 11 (D. Carlson, Sheldon, Perbix) secured a water supply and advanced an attack line into the dwelling. Further investigation revealed a working basement fire with heavy smoke throughout the dwelling. The basement windows were vented and the fire extinguished. Crews from Tower 11 (Gavin, Dore, K. Carlson, Rasmus) and Aerial 21 (Altman, Baker, Ganje, Sjaarda) advanced back-up lines and checked for fire extension. The fire was placed under control 10 minutes following fire department arrival. Twenty-nine Plymouth fire personnel responded to this incident (on -scene and stand-by). There were no civilian or firefighter injuries. RESPONSE TIME: 8 minutes. FIRE ORIGIN/CAUSE: Gasoline fumes ignited by furnace. ESTIMATED FIRE LOSS: $3,000 P.F.D. RESPONDING UNITS: Engine Companies: E-11, E-31 Ladder Companies: TW -11, A-21, L-31 Support Units: Rescue Companies: R-11 Chief Officers: C-1 Mutual Aid: Golden Valley ASSISTING AGENCIES: EMS: Yes Red Cross: No Salvation Army: No Public Works: No State FM: No SECTOR OFFICERS: Chief Kline (Command), Lieutenant Weldon (Interior). '20 YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2003 Council Members Present Absent Peter Beste ✓ Heather Gaudette ✓ Adam Hahn ✓ Paul Jungels ✓ Akash Kumar ✓ Mark Lenhardt ✓ Michael Letich ✓ Janet Li ✓ Aneesh Sohoni ✓ Ally Taylor ✓ Whitney Waters ✓ Deputy City Clerk Kurt Hoffman and Recreation Supervisor Regina Michaud were also present. Visitors Ruth Gunderson and Liz Johnson were present. Paul called the meeting to order at 6:55 PM. Paul made a motion seconded by Janet, to approve the agenda. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. Paul made a motion seconded by Aneesh, to approve the minutes of the October 27 meeting. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. Committee Updates Sleep—out Committee Aneesh reported that the committee recommends the Youth Advisory Council support the Mayor's Housing Challenge effort, rather than attempting any activities on its own this year. Council members agreed to show up on November 21 at the Mayor's sleep—out site, some time between 8 and 10 PM. Marketing Committee Adam reported that the committee suggests Council members bring flyers to school to promote the Mayor's sleep—out challenge. Intergenerational Committee Heather reported the next intergenerational roundtable event is scheduled for April 17, with a topic set to discuss the image and role of police in the community. Regina added that this event would coincide with the Park & Recreation Department's Primavera spring arts event. Youth Advisory Council November 10, 2003 meeting Page 2 Youth Center Committee Regina reported that the timeline for finishing the lower level of the Plymouth Creek Center is aimed at commencing in early February, with a completion date by June 1. Mike reported that the Communities in Collaboration Council (CICC) is planning future meetings to continue studying the potential youth center site at the former Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility building. Youth Service Awards Paul reported the committee is now focusing on possible speakers and presenters at the May 11 awards program. He said the committee is also looking for possible prizes and cash awards. Youth Town Forum Janet asked the Youth Advisory Council to consider an agenda for the forum, to allow both speakers and a job fair format. She said she has found a possible keynote speaker who could serve as a motivational speaker for the event. Pool Hall Committee Heather reported that the committee has acknowledged the goals for developing a youth focused pool hall will have to be more long range. She said one possible promotional event could be a dance event for students over 16, and suggested June 1 as a possible date. Regina added that the City has no funds for a dedicated pool hall at this time. Heather suggested that the Pool Hall Committee consider a shift in focus, to work on developing youth activities. The Council members agreed to expand the scope of the Pool Hall Committee, to change the name to reflect the shift in focus, and to work toward developing programs for the lower level of the Plymouth Creek Center. Future Agenda Items Regina noted that representatives from the Police Department are interested in attending the November 24 Youth Advisory Council to discuss security procedures for members of the Youth Advisory Council to work with adult members of the community on programs and committees. She asked for the Council members to bring ideas to the next meeting. Adjournment Paul made a motion, seconded by Janet, to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 PM. The motion passed without opposition. !!!C HIGHWAY 55 ORRIDOR COALITION Protecting the 5 Corridor from I-494 to Annandale, Alinnesota BRAFT � � Yr-.t_d Highway 55 Corridor Coalition Meeting Minutes Full Membership Meeting Friday, September 19, 2003 9:30 a.m. — Noon Hennepin County Public Works Facility, Medina, MN 1. Call to Order— Chair Penny Steele called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.; a quorum was present. 2. Introductions — Penny Steele, Hennepin County; Wayne Fingalson, Wright County; Dale Grove, Bonestroo & Associates; John Griffith, MNDOT Metro; Margaret Donahoe, Transportation Alliance; Loren Harff, Greenfield; Ann Hurburt, Plymouth; John Dearing, Corinna Township; Karla Heeter, Wright County; Dick Mattson, Wright County; Jack Russek, Wright County; Gary Erickson, Hennepin County; Jim Lane, City of Medina; Chad Hausmann, MNDOT Dist. 3. 3. Minutes — The minutes of the August 15, 2003 Full Membership Meeting were reviewed. Fingalson had a number of additions and corrections (see amended minutes for changes). Motion by Hurlburt, seconded by Fingalson to approve the minutes with changes, motion carried, all voting in favor. 4. Membership — McDougall reported that after the golf tournament, and she will compose a letter for review that would state the benefits of membership in the coalition. Current members will be billed, and new potential members will be visited. She will need some volunteers to help visit local units and business along the corridor, and in the region. Some points in the letter may be: ■ Other projects have not been successful due to expenses in attaining right-of-way, and this project eases the way, rather than delays, projects by reducing the acquisition problems. • The coalition is responsible for our own expenses, which is why we need membership fees. ■ Chair Steele commented that this group will save millions in tax dollars in the future, and the money spent now is not a large investment to help keep the coalition going. ■ Active involvement by the coalition helps in the funding competition (we are a "squeaky wheel'). McDougall also requested that the group approve the adjustment of membership fees, discussed at the August 15, 2003 Full Membership Meeting. McDougall restated that the reason to change the fees was to keep and increase involvement by the local units of government, thus showing support to our state and federal legislators. Motion by Russek, seconded by Hurlburt, to approve the changes to the membership fees, as recorded, at the last meeting. Motion carried, all voting in favor. Golf Tournament — We are going to be by a par 3 hole, with a,�,0-foot circle around the hole. For $5, the person would get a chance to get a ball into the circle and get into the drawing for prizes. Potential prizes will be, a car for a year for a hole in one, a night in the Americlnn hotel in Annandale, and various other back-up prizes. Handouts will include an updated color brochure, along with a membership form. Erickson will help with signs. McDougall will schedule shifts for the volunteers. After some discussion, it was decided that the golfers could either pay $5. or sign up for a membership and receive a chance. Financial Report — none. !0 ISO UMN HIGHWAY 55 CORRIDOR COALITION Protecting the JJ Corridor from 1-494 to Annandale, Alinnesota Highway 55 Corridor Coalition Meeting Minutes - Friday, September 19, 2003 — Page 2 Technical Advisory Committee — The minutes from the September 17, 2003 meeting were distributed and reviewed. Coalition Management - Fingalson proposed the need for a consultant to manage the coalition. There is a need for management to remain successful, to keep track of deadlines, help with the public, and work on membership. The consultant would help in areas of membership, agendas, minutes, notices, public information, mailings, and provide a central base person to keep track of items for the coalition. Currently, joint powers members have assumed those tasks individually, and there is a need to have one person or group following through and coordinating this work. Steekeasked if there would be a local match for the fee for a manager, Griffith replied it may require an 80/20 match, Fingalson stated MNDOT work does take care of the portion of the local match, except for the public involvement portion. There was general discussion on how money can best be used and the need for project management. At our next meeting, we will have information on if we do need additional funds for a match and members can decide about a hiring a consultant. Project Update - The Wright County Attorney is working on a letter and reviewing the ordinance for adopting the official maps, hopefully we will have it by next month. Hausmann reported that District 3 maps are done, and they are ready for a public meeting — when a hearing is held, it will be done as one hearing for all of Wright County. After the hearing, the local units would just have to pass a resolution to adopt the official maps. The maps are with the Wright County Surveyor for final review and signature. Griffith said the Hennepin County maps are under staff review, in October they plan to meet with the local units prior to a public meeting in November. Early next year the public hearings would be held, there would be one hearing for each local unit of government. The coalition needs to report to the legislature in January 2004, it is our understanding that the report will be presented at a committee meeting, not in writing. Legislative Report — Donahoe informed us that authorization of e funds should be done by the end of February, and the hope is that it will be a 6 -year bill, although it could be for a 1-2 year period. Earmarks have not been set and will be set in committee. Projects need -to be in the authorization bill, then can be put on the appropriations bill, which would distribute the funds as needed. We need to keep working with the legislators to get us in the February bill Erickson feels Hennepin County would be willing to write a letter supporting our project, and we could get it amended into this session's bill. Fingalson will contact Senator Ourada. 7. Next Meeting - The next Full Membership Meeting will be held on October 24, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in the Hennepin County Public Works Facility in Medina. 8. Other Business — Erickson handed out the two pages of the Joint Powers Agreement that had been updated. 9. Adjournment — The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 a.m. . Respectfully, Karen McDougall SecretaryiTreasurer Z i�HIGHWAY 55 CORRIDOR COALITION Protecting the SS Corridor from I-494 to Annandale, Alinnesota Highway 55 Corridor Coalition Meeting Minutes Full Membership Meeting Friday, October 24, 2003 9:30 a.m. — Noon Hennepin County Public Works Facility, Medina MN 1. Call to Order — Chair Penny Steele called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. There was not a quorum present. 2. Introductions — Gary Erickson, Hennepin County; Noel Labine, Wright County EDP; Dick Mattson, Wright County; Jack Russek, Wright County; Curt Kreklau, S. E. H.; Karla Heeter, Wright County; Senator Mark Ourada; Brent Morningstar, Wright Hennepin Electric; Dale Grove, Bonestroo; John Griffith, MNDOT Metro; Margaret Donahoe, Transportation Alliance; Penny Steele, Hennepin County; Wayne Fingalson, Wright County; Karen McDougall, Rockford Township; Chad Hausmann, MNDOT Dist. 3. 3. Minutes — The minutes could not be approved because there was no quorum. 4. Membership Report — The success of the golf tournament booth was discussed. McDougall reported that we received $2%for chances, and four memberships from the event. McDougall will set up a Membership Committee Meeting in November, and she will be preparing invoices for the joint powers members to go out soon. The Financial Report was* distributed to attendees for review. There was no Technical Advisory Committee Report. Official Mapping Status — Fingalson reported that Wright County has made progress, and that some changes were suggested from their Surveyor, and he is working with MNDOT on them. Fingalson will report to the Wright County Commissioners at the County Transportation Committee Meeting; there will also be a meeting on November 13 for all Wright County cities and townships to explain the official mapping process, Griffith reported that in Hennepin County, generally, the corridor preference would be on the north side because of physical limitations, like the railroad line and the lakes properties are not considered. The official mapping process uses MNDOT as a technical advisor, and they predict where it will be, to protect the majority of the area. This of be the true final alignment. There is a need to educate the public and local units of government on the mapping and realize that exact right-of-way will be determined later. There may be adjustment for environmental factors and other physical obstacles. Erickson stated that we are in the first stages and in general, they do not do retail purchasing and the actual protecting until later. He also thought the two counties should keep notes of problems that come up to provide feedback to MNDOT to inform them of any changes that may be necessary in the future. Access management is the main goal at this time. Senator Ourada want to propose some protective legislation that would help preserve areas on the list, even though project dollars are not there,,.Wen the mapping is done the property would be on the list. This legislation would enable (authorize) local governments to limit development. 6. MNDOT Update - Erickson asked if some of the project dollars might be used for traffic studies and to analyze traffic potential for a better long-range plan. Griffith thought they could and agreed that analysis would be helpful to make it fit with the other road systems.rFingalson asked about the progress of the Cultural Resource and Contaminated Property Studies; Hausmann replied the information has been sent to the consultants, and that MNDOT would cover those costs at this time. Zs 0213 HIGHWAY 55 CORRIDOR COALITION Protecting the 5S Corridor from I-494 to Annandale, A[innesota Highway 55 Corridor Coalition Meeting Minutes - Friday, October 24, 2003 — Page 2 7. Federal Update — Donahoe furnished a detailed handout on the status of the FY2004 Transportation Appropriations Bill, which lists earmarks for Minnesota. She also updated us on the status of the reauthorization of TEA 21. Chair Steele suggested we talk to Congressman Kennedy to request more money for highways in Minnesota. 8. Next Meeting Date - The next full membership meeting date will be Friday, November 21, 2003, at the Hennepin County Public Works Facility in Medina at 9:30 a.m. 9. Other Business — Fingalson informed the group that our corridor is getting national attention, and have been sited as a model by a county in California. He also asked Senator Ourada about a R&Wund for greater Minnesota, the Senator responded that he is starting to plan for needs to be included in the next session, and he would consider it. The Senator was also asked about what information he felt would be needed in the report to the legislature due in January 2004. He recommended a process/progress report and what has been learned, the next steps, and action. He also suggested asking for solutions for problem properties, such as the need for the revolving loan program to purchase those properties. Chair Steele had talked to Lieutenant Governor Carol Molnau and she is willing to meet with our coalition, and a suggestion as to when. Griffith thought that when the official maps are done and adopted would be a good time to come, then we could tell her what we have done and she will tell us her message. Hennepin County would be finished by spring with the official mapping process, so Griffith thought that would be a better time. Senator Ourada thought it would be good to meet with her and tell her our needs. 10. Adjourn — The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Respectfully, Karen McDougall Secretary/Treasurer Highway SS Corridor Coalition Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 3, 2003 Wright County Public Works Building Members Present: Wayne Fingalson, Wright County; Brent Morningstar, Wright -Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association; Jim Grube, Hennepin County; Terry Humbert and Chad Hausmann, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) District 3; John Griffith, Mn/DOT Metro District. Status of Cultural Resources and Contaminated Properties Contracts Chad H. reported that Nancy Radle of Mn/DOT is working on a number of contaminated property files for many projects (1-2 contracts per week). She hopes to retain a consultant by mid-November to conduct the property study since TH 55 is next on the list. Similarly, Joe Hudak of Mn/DOT will soon retain a cultural resources consultant to research the corridor. The scope is being worked on now. Traffic study/Modeling Terry H. indicated Mn/DOT District 3 is developing a model for the TH 55 Corridor, which includes land use. This is a spin-off of the URS Corporation (URS) model for the I-94 Inter -regional Corridor project. Due to financial restraints, limited analysis was done on TH 55. - Initial modeling indicates TH 55 widening will draw traffic from 1-94, but not TH 12. Widening to 4 lanes in Hennepin County may yield 45,000 vehicle per day (VPD) counts west of Plymouth Boulevard. Widening to 4 lanes to TH 25 in Buffalo may yield a 54,000 VPD count west of Plymouth Boulevard. The model also indicates the traffic volume at Fernbrook Lane approaches 68,000 VPD regardless of actions taken to the west. All volumes are for year 2025. The typical threshold in traffic volumes for going from 4 to 6 lanes is 40,000. - Terry H. indicated that Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is concerned that the widening to TH 25 in Buffalo could cause the modification of the I-494/TH 55 interchange as a related action due to increased demand. The goal of the traffic study would be to show that the widening is not linked to the I-494 interchange. - Terry H. noted that either SRF Consulting Group (SRF) or Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (PB) could be retained to conduct the traffic modeling, as URS may not possess the expertise to do so. Terry hopes to retain the consultant under a "T" (technical services) contract rather than conducting a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The outcome of the modeling should help determine whether an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed. If an EIS is needed, traffic modeling would be needed anyway. An EIS would require other alignments to be considered. - Jim G. will cooperate with John G. to get the Metropolitan Council actively involved in the functional classification change for the Hennepin County segment from Minor Arterial to Principal Arterial. All agreed that this is an important element. - Terry H. and John G. agreed Mn/DOT will pay the 20 percent local cost share to match the 80 percent federal cost share of the modeling cost. - Terry H. said Brian Isaacson of Ivan/DOT's Metro District has led that area planning effort thus far. John G. will check to see if Brian I. will continue his role. - All agreed that if money were available, District 3 would improve TH 55 within 5 years. In the Metro District, it would be 10 years plus because of competing projects, functional class, etc. It is not within the Metro's Top 10 List at present. - An outline of proposed study, as developed by Brian I., is attached. This Committee will meet again when the scope is defined. P. /I 4. Project Management Options Wayne F. noted that project management takes time and asked if a consultant could be retained. John G. indicated Mn/ DOT management has not previously provided state funds to a management consultant and is unwilling to do so here, at least in part because TH 55 is not a Metro District priority. The advocacy piece is also a problem. Further discussion of the issue is necessary. Public Meeting Status A meeting of the District 3 partners will occur on November 13. Hennepin County is in the process of setting a Metro District partner meeting. Full Membership Meeting The full membership will meet in Hennepin County on November 21. Other Business Terry H. indicated that two main goals for this project are the EA's and getting long-term funding. Wayne F. distributed the following traffic awareness handouts produced by the Safe Communities of Wright County partnership: - Highway 55 Survival Guide - Driver Distraction - Rear -End Crash Awareness - Passing Awareness Respectfully submitted, An Grube & Wayne Fingalson Attachment Proposed Traffic Study/Modeling Traffic Forecasting Expectation that consultant.will be operating from the current models available and refining those as needed. Extent of the analysis area: • From Annandale to I-494 • Still include all of Wright County? • Take out TH 12? More refined forecasts: • Including county highways as an emphasis • More detailed segmentation of TH 55 Series of forecast iterations to assess various alternatives: • Probably 8 iterations? • Impacts to county and local system Operations Analysis Use Metro's existing model as a base • Extending the syncro model from Arrowhead to the west — To CR 19? No extension? • Test impacts in Metro area of constructing four lanes to the west �c M November 23, 2003 Dear Mr Faulkner: I am writing to tell you what a fine man you have on your team in Darrell Johnson. You may recall that I contacted you earlier about our concerns in an area called The Villages on I Ph Avenue North. The concern had to do with the drainage from the property to our North as it came down across our lawns . Darrell has been extremely helpful and patient with us in diagnosing the problem and recommending solutions. It does not appear that the city will be involved with corrective actions . However, we may have new ideas one of these days./ f The message is that you and the residents of Plymouth are fortunate to have an expert like Darrell looking after us . Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Galloway fy // 18765 11th Ave N Plymouth, MIS' 55447-2508 Best regards , `, 24 NOV /42, AW „},II,,,II,fill :i,I J Minneapolis 25 November 2003 City of Plymouth Attn.: Judy Johnson — Mayor City Council Members 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Subject: Public Helistop in Plymouth City Center Reference. New Ordinance regarding Helistop Dear Mayor and City Council Members, You have most likely read your information regarding the new Zoning Ordinance amendment to address Helicopter landings and take -offs in the City of Plymouth. This Ordinance will allow helicopter landing in certain areas of the City, but require the Conditional Use Permit process for even one short landing except at existing helistops. As time is changing, and our freeways struggle to keep up with the ever growing traffic congestion, more and more of us are moving to other forms of transportation. I am one of the many people in the Twin Cities who have upgraded to helicopter use. I can estimate that we are possibly 20 persons owning our own helicopters, plus several corporate ownerships. Several cities around the country are adding helistops to their land to accommodate increasing helicopter traffic. A typical example, which the author of this letter has used several times, is in Shaumburg in Illinois. A small area of land was used next to a busy city center road and in conjunction to most city businesses. 1207548 th Avenue No., Minneapolis, MN 55442 U.S.A. Phone: (763) 383-1118, fax (763) 383-1119, e-mail: TrygveS@AOL.com �1 Page 2 of 3 I would like to propose that City of Plymouth take under consideration the idea to create a public HELISTOP in the City Center area — east of the current Fitness Center/Ice Arena near the march land. Such a helistop would conform to all new City Ordinances. It would further be able to connect helicopter traffic with the many businesses located in the heart of Plymouth, as it would be centrally located. The proposed use would include: • use for industrial/commercial access and transportation to Plymouth • use for medical transportation pick-up or exchange • use for State Trooper helicopter access to City Hall etc. • facilitates recreational landings for restaurant/movie visits • easy shuttle to the airport from the City of Plymouth • and more.... A public helistop would have to comply with regulations by the State and by FAA. Such regulations are quite specific in nature, and it is my belief that the proposed area in Plymouth would pass as a helistop with no problem. Only minor work would be required to actually implement a formal heliport as lighting and parking etc. is already available. A cement landing pad would have to be created after some minor landscaping, and would recommend a paved connection between the pad and the parking lot (snow removal equipment and ambulance access). 1207548 th Avenue No., Minneapolis, MN 55442 U.S.A. Phone: (763) 383-1118, fax (763) 383-1119, e-mail: TrygveS@AOL.com Page 3 of 3 In addition to flood lights from an existing light post, a fire extinguisher and a wind -sock and some sinage, the entire project would be done for very moderate costs. If you look at the picture from the Schaumburg Heliport you will see a 2 helicopter landing pad, a parking area for 2 cars on each side in front of the helistop, and some plantations to cordon off the safety zone required by regulations. A light post, and a wind sock completes the public helistop, and there are no fencing. We as pilots have to make our judgments as to the safety of a landing each time we do it — we are required to circle the area and assure safe landing as well as wind directions. _ I would hope that the City Council would be open to such a proposal, and I would like to recommend that you reserve time at a future City Council meeting or Council Study Session to schedule a presentation of this proposal by myself. I would like to offer my help and experience in helping the city with all aspects of establishing a public heliport in the City of Plymouth, which meets all City Ordinances, and all State and FAA requirements. Please feel free to contact me anytime for any questions, which could come up as a result of reading this proposal. I would even like to offer a helicopter ride to anyone interested in learning more about why several of us like to fly instead of driving. It is fun! Respectfully submitted by Trygve Svard 1207548 th Avenue No., Minneapolis, MN 55442 U.S.A. Phone: (763) 383-1118, fax (763) 383-1119, e-mail: TrygveS@AOL.com ZJ Final Report The Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota Final Report November 17, 2003 The Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota Prepared for Family Housing Fund Midwest Plaza, Suite 1650 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 400 Sibley Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1998 and Greater Minnesota Housing Fund 332 Minnesota Street, Suite 1310 East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850 Denver, Colorado 80209-3827 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com RESP ARCH & CONSULTING Table of Contents 1. Introduction Purposeof the Study................................................................................................................... 1-1 Reportingof Results..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Howto Read This Document....................................................................................................... 1-2 Overviewof Model...................................................................................................................... 1-2 PolicyPrescriptions...................................................................................................................... 1-3 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... 1-4 II. Methodology KeyAssumptions..................................................................................................................:..... II -1 Definition of Low -Income Households........................................................................................ II -3 DataUsed....................................................................................................... ............................ II --4 Limitations.................................................................................................................................. 11-5 Presentationof Data................................................................................................................... 11-5 Detailed Description of Exhibits.................................................................................................. II -6 111. Summary of Findings KeyConclusions........................................................................................................................ III -1 StudyFindings........................................................................................................................... III -1 StudyLimitations..................................................................................................................... III -11 IV. Housing Need Exhibits Statewide Needs Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Needs Greater Minnesota Needs BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION 1. Introduction SECTION I. Introduction Purpose of the Study In January 2003, the Family Housing Fund (FHF), the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund (GMHF) and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) retained BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) to project housing needs in Minnesota in 2010. This project is known as The Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota. Using the best available data, the goal of this effort was to quantify the need for affordable housing in each county in Minnesota from 2000 to 2010, taking into account housing market activity already completed between 2000 and 2002. Within the bounds of this goal, the research effort had the following objectives: ■ Understand housing demand by income and by type of household in 2010; Understand the likely success or failure of the housing market (public, private and philanthropic) to meet that demand; and ■ Quantify the unmet need for affordable housing in 2010. The information provided in this report will be helpful for a variety of stakeholders and policy makers, including community leaders, state legislators, state agencies, and housing providers. It is important to note that this study is the first of its kind in Minnesota and follows a specific research path. The study is intended to serve as a benchmark for further discussion, analysis and research. The research team hopes that subsequent research efforts will build from this effort to further clarify the need for low-income housing throughout Minnesota. Reporting of Results The Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota conveys findings in a Main Report (this document) and seven regional reports. The Main Report provides a discussion of findings at the State, Greater Minnesota and Twin Cities Metropolitan Area' levels. The seven regional reports provide in-depth discussions about the nature and magnitude of low-income housing need specific to each region. The regional reports follow the county groupings outlined in the Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative (EVHI), a program adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 1995 that links affordable housing to economic development and redevelopment throughout the state. The county groupings used in the EVHI program are listed in Section II, page II -6. I In addition to the study funders, the Metropolitan Council was a key partner on this project. 2 The seven-counry region containing Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1 How to Read This Document This document consists of four distinct parts. ■ Section I presents an overall guide about the Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota project and acknowledgements for the many individuals who supported this effort. ■ Section II contains an in-depth discussion of the methodology used to develop the housing model, including the assumptions and data used to produce the estimates in this Main Report and each of the seven regional reports. ■ Section III presents a summary of findings. It offers data on the size and nature of the estimated need for affordable housing statewide, in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and in Greater Minnesota. ■ Section IV (the heart of the report) is comprised of a collection of exhibits presenting housing needs for the state, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Greater Minnesota. Each exhibit tells a slightly different story about the likely need for affordable housing in a particular place in 2010. While each of the exhibits has footnotes that provide a general understanding of the methodology, a review of the technical explanations in Section II is recommended for a comprehensive understanding. Overview of Model The housing model developed in this analysis uses current and projected demographic and housing data to evaluate the need for affordable housing throughout the state. Estimates were based on demographic and housing market information gathered using the best available data. These data sources included the 2000 Census, databases of subsidized units from affordable housing funders and demographic projections from three sources: commercial data providers (PCensus and Claritas), Minnesota Planning and the Metropolitan Council. To increase the quality of the findings, every effort was made to minimize assumptions. As a result, projections about housing market factors such as the share of affordable units provided by the private market are based on recent experience and reliable data sources. Testing of the assumptions used in the model indicates consistency with past housing market trends. The following paragraphs describe the model in general terms. A detailed description of the data, assumptions and calculations in each exhibit is provided in Section II of this report. The model first identifies households by income and type (family/non-family structure) in 2000 and 2010. These results can be found in Exhibit L. This exhibit also shows the changes between the two periods, which is critical to identifying the unmet need in 2010. The model next identifies, in Exhibit 2, the structure of the low-income housing market in 2000. This part of the model identifies the number of existing low-income households and how they are housed (in subsidized units or private -market units). This part of the model ultimately reveals the BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 2 number of cost -burdened households' that existed in 2000, a large component of housing need (however, a category of need that may be satisfied through housing assistance programs rather than new construction). The heart of the housing model for the Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota project is presented in Exhibit . This part of the model serves to reveal unmet need for new low-income housing (specifically, the need for new unit construction) in 2010 by following this approach: New Low -Income Households 2000-2010 minus Expected Provision of Low -Income Units by the Private Market by 2010 minus Expected Provision of Low -Income Units by the Public and Philanthropic Sectors by 2010 equals Unmet Need for New Low -Income Units in 2010 The model does not address the provision of housing by public and philanthropic entities in counties and regions in 2010 because there are no reliable projections at these smaller levels of geography. Instead, the model reports public and philanthropic provision at the larger state, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Greater Minnesota levels. This is explained in greater detail in Section II, the discussion of methodology. Exhibit 4 shows an analysis of the unmet need in 2010 for new construction and housing assistance, at the State, Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities levels. This data is important because it will help inform housing stakeholders about the needs for a variety of housing assistance programs (possible including new construction) at the broader area levels of the state. Policy Prescriptions It should be noted that the reader looking for policy prescriptions to address the need will not find them in this report. This report intentionally provides only an assessment of housing needs throughout the state during the remainder of the decade. It is expected that policymakers, housing providers and government officials will examine the report and consider its findings within the context of policymaking decisions. Solutions to the affordable housing needs demonstrated in this model could include housing production, housing rehabilitation, individual income support, tenant - based rental assistance, economic development to generate jobs with increased wages and others. The most prominent example of this focus on an assessment of housing needs is in the decision not to estimate housing need by tenure (owner versus renter) for 2010. Development of such an estimate would have required the research team to understand the policy stance of local, regional and state - level policymakers toward housing production and predict their decisions regarding acceptable levels of subsidy for owner and rental housing in the future. While the model does show different classes of households in need of affordable housing (i.e. seniors, families with children and all others), the type ' Cost -burdened households are those who spend 30% or more of their household income on selected monthly owner or renter costs. HUD defines household spending of more than 30% of income on housing as unaffordable. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 3 of unit that should be produced to house these households must be left to policymakers, who will consider local area demographic trends, the presence of specific housing alternatives and the availability of housing production funds. The research team did not want to suggest the owner/renter breakdown for new housing in any area of Minnesota, believing instead that a wide range of decision -makers at various levels should decide how to best allocate housing subsidies among income levels, household types and tenure situations. Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaborative effort among a number of key affordable housing professionals. Special thanks are due to Monte Aaker of the MHFA, Bill Byers of the Metropolitan Council, Warren Hanson and Stephanie Omersa Vergin of the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, Tom O'Neil of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and Angie Skildum of the Family Housing Fund. Each of these individuals carefully reviewed numerous iterations of the housing model found in Section IV and provided countless helpful revisions that have made this a better product. Additional thanks go to the many individuals interviewed for the project, a list of whom is provided on the following page in Figure 1. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 4 Figure 1 List of Interviewees Karen Skepper Anoka County Community Development Angela Schlender Bloomington Housing and Redevelopment Authority Karen Oleson City of Duluth Jim Barnes City of Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority Teresa Fogarty City of Rochester Gary Peltier City of St. Paul Jenny Wolfe City of St. Paul, Department of Planning and Economic Development Anne Mavity Corporation for Supportive Housing Sara Swenson Dakota County Community Development Agency Sean Allen First Homes Carolyn Olsen Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation Stephen Seidel Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Jim Ford Hennepin County Department of Transit and Community Works Kim Merrimen Housing Link Joy Sorenson -Navarre Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing Cynthia Lee Minneapolis Community Development Agency Leona Humphrey Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Jack Jackson Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Chip Halbach Minnesota Housing Partnership Judy Karon Ramsey County Community and Economic Development Mary Lou Egan Ramsey County Community and Economic Development Bonnie Jean Clark Senior Housing Inc. Steve Nelson St. Louis County Consortium Jenny Larson Three Rivers Community Action Agency Martina Johnz Washington County Office of Administration Source: BBC Research k Consulting. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION 1, PAGE 5 SECTION 11. Methodology SECTION 11. Methodology The exhibits included in Section III of this document present detailed data on housing needs in Minnesota through 2010. Each of these exhibits includes a series of footnotes allowing readers to identify the sources and primary assumptions used in their development. However, a more detailed understanding of the methodology used to develop the housing model is helpful in accurately interpreting the data. This section provides an in-depth description of the assumptions, data and calculations used in these exhibits. Key Assumptions The housing model presented in this report rests on the following key assumptions. These assumptions were used to inform the development of the model and should be considered in interpreting findings. Comparative statics. One of the underlying principles of this model is an assumption of "comparative statics." In other words, the model assumes that over the next decade, public, private and non-profit housing providers will continue to respond to demand in much the same way as they do now. The private market will provide housing to similar households as those it currently serves. The public and philanthropic sectors will have similar priorities for responding to housing needs and will continue to spend their resources in approximately the manner in which they are currently spent. One strong reason to use the comparative statics approach is to minimize the number of assumptions in the housing model. Every assumption increases the complexity of interactions within a model, and consequently increases the potential errors produced. It is preferable to use the fewest assumptions possible, while not hesitating to make sound assumptions where they are required. In addition to minimizing the number of assumptions, additional reasons to use the comparative statics approach are the historical consistency of private market provision of housing and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting changes in the provision of subsidized housing. Expected private market provision of housing; The relative share of low-income housing provided by the private market has stayed relatively constant over the past decade. This can be verified by considering the percent of total households in each county that were cost burdened in 1990 and 2000, as well as the relationships between median household incomes and median housing prices. These two measures are strong indicators of the degree to which the private housing market is providing affordable housing. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION 11, PAGE 1 The fact that the proportion of cost -burdened households has remained stable regardless of population increases or decreases in every Minnesota county indicates that the private market is providing affordable housing to a consistent share of the population. Stable shares of the population are (and are not) adequately served by the housing market over the decade. The ratio between median household income and median housing prices is another strong indicator of the degree to which private market is providing affordable housing. It portrays the degree to which housing prices have shifted in relationship to incomes, and potentially may have served only particular segments of the population. The fact that this ratio has been consistent over the decade indicates that the private housing market is serving low-income households to the same degree as it did in 1990. This ratio changed by less than 2 percent in every county over the decade, with most counties experiencing changes of far less than 1 percent. These patterns indicate consistent private market activity across a variety of economic environments. Given the consistency of private market provision of affordable housing, the model assumes that a stable percentage of low-income households will be affordably housed by the private market. To arrive at this percentage, the total number of low-income households in each county is first reduced by: The number of cost -burdened households who, by definition, are not affordably housed; and The number of households in subsidized units who are not served by the private market. The remainder are households served by the private market. The percent of all households in the county represented by this remainder is used in both 2000 and 2010 to estimate private market provision of affordable housing. Expected public and philanthropic provision of low-income housing. While the private market is assumed to serve the same proportion of low-income households over the decade, public and philanthropic funders were assumed to have a fixed capacity to fund subsidized units (referred to as the "pipeline" in this document). The ability of organizations to deliver subsidized units depends on the resources available to them; this depends on public policy and private charitable decisions. The pipeline of expected public and philanthropic units was determined by reviewing databases of funded units from 2000-2002 (a three-year period) provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund (GMHF), Habitat for Humanity and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). These databases were reviewed extensively to eliminate the double counting of units funded by multiple organizations. This process determined how many units could be expected to be funded going forward through available resources. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 2 To supplement this work, key person interviews were conducted with representatives of other jurisdictions that receive direct federal funding and with major subsidized housing providers. Adjustments were made to reflect projections of future funding (2003 and after). Due to the difficulty of allocating units to particular counties, the pipeline for subsidized housing was only calculated at the Statewide, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Greater Minnesota levels. Since funding allocation decisions at the county level are unpredictable, the most conservative approach was to quantify the recent pipeline at the three large -area levels, but not move to the county or regional level. The model assumed that future funding for low-income units by household type (families with children, seniors and all other households) at the State, Greater Minnesota and Twin Cities Metro Area levels would follow unmer need. To the extent that public policy or private donation decisions change markedly in the coming years, the pipeline will grow or shrink and the households in need of affordable housing forecast in this model will increase or decrease. Replacement of lost affordable housing. The methodology contained in this report does not explicitly measure the amount of housing needed to replace obsolete units, those that may be demolished or those that may be lost due to gentrification during the period under study. Measuring housing need along these lines is fraught with pitfalls for the following reasons: ■ There are no reliable local area estimates of obsolete housing (and whether it is occupied or not); ■ The U.S. Census does not make definitive statements on unit obsolescence but instead only measures certain physical conditions that could be associated with obsolescence; ■ At the time the study was conducted, available Census data did not allow for the identification of the overlap between affordable units and those in poor condition, leading to the danger of double counting if poor condition units were identified; ■ There is no clear way to determine if a demolished unit was affordable or not; ■ Making assumptions about units lost to gentrification involves anticipating which areas may be of interest to developers and homebuyers in the future, which is difficult to predict. Definition of Low -Income Households To define lova-income households across the state, the housing model takes into account the variance in incomes, housing prices and purchasing power between most of Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities. BBC initially considered using one cutoff point, 60% or 80% of median family income, for all areas of the state since both 60% and 80% of median income are federal definitions of low-income commonly used in the administration of HUD programs. However, this approach did not realistically reflect the cost of new construction. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 3 The median family income throughout most of Greater Minnesota is significantly lower than that in the Twin Cities. Simply defining a low-income household at the same cutoff percentage (e.g. 60% of income) throughout the state would misrepresent the number of households that indeed have difficulty finding affordable housing. For example, if the model had set the low-income cutoff at 60% of median income, it would have left out many households in the lowest -income counties of Greater Minnesota who technically earn above the cutoff, but still earn well below what is needed to afford newly constructed unsubsidized housing. If the model had set the low-income cutoff at 80% of median income, it would have included many Twin Cities area households who are technically defined as "low-income" (below the 80% cutoff], but for whom ample, affordable market -rate options exist. The final version of the model uses a "blended" rate to define low-income households across Minnesota: those falling below 60% of HUD median family income in the Twin Cities and those below 80% of median family -income throughout Greater Minnesota.' Data Used The exhibits presented in this report depend on five primary data sources: ■ U.S. Census data for 2000 were used for all of the 2000 exhibits, and 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data were used in confirming the response of the private market in providing low-income housing; ■ Databases provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), GMHF, Habitat for Humanity and MHFA were used to quantify the number of subsidized units in each county in 2000; ■ Key person interviews with representatives of every city and county that receives direct HUD funding, interviews with major non-profit housing providers, and databases provided by GMHF and MHFA were used to quantify the "pipeline" of subsidized units through 2010; ■ Metropolitan Council forecasts of households in 2010 were used to determine household growth during the decade in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area; and ■ Claritas, PCensus, MN Planning were used to project household growth and incomes in Greater Minnesota, and to project household incomes in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The demographic forecasting databases used to project households and incomes in 2010 account for a number of economic and demographic variables in their projections, including in- and out- migration, aging of demographic cohorts, employment, income trends and other factors. For the Twin Cities counties, the model uses the HUD median family income figure for the 7 -county Metro Area as a whole. In the Greater Minnesota counties, the model uses the HUD median family income for each county. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 4 Limitations As with any modeling exercise, the estimates presented in this report are subject to certain limitations. All models are abstractions of reality limited by the available data, and no model can precisely mirror the actual functioning of a housing market. These limitations have a number of effects on the estimates provided in this report. First, data is only provided at the county level, potentially hiding trends at the sub -county level. For example, some rural counties will show no need for new housing in 2010 due to declining population. However, specific cities within these counties may have a need for new housing for one or more household types because of population gains (e.g. in -migration of migrant workers) or changing resident demographics (e.g. aging in place). In these cases, different measures of housing need between the county and local level are reasonable, and neither estimate is necessarily wrong. This situation simply acknowledges the fact that housing markets are often very localized. The research team expects that the figures in this report will be used to support discussions of housing provision at the broader level (e.g. county and region), but that decisions regarding need within a municipality will be based on local area market research. Second, it is impossible to accurately predict the geographic distribution of public and philanthropic resources at small levels of geography. Therefore, new subsidized development projections are reported only at the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Greater Minnesota and Statewide levels. Third, a number of factors may also serve to understate the need for affordable housing. Households that are not cost -burdened but are living in housing that is in poor condition or overcrowded are not measured in this study. At the time the study was completed, it was not possible to assess the overlap between poor condition, overcrowded and cost -burdened households using Census data. Given the limitations of the data, a conservative approach was taken and only cost -burdened households were considered in the model. In addition, housing units lost to gentrification or demolition are also not estimated in this analysis, due to the lack of reliable demolition data and the difficulty in predicting gentrification. These limitations combine to make the estimates presented in this report a conservative picture of affordable housing needs in Minnesota. Finally, a note on how homelessness was considered in this study. The estimated housing needs of Minnesota's homeless population are included in the "cost -burdened" category. However, homeless households are very difficult to count. The study estimated this need using the most recent data available from the Minnesota Department of Human Services Quarterly Shelter Survey. This is a very conservative estimate of homelessness, as it only includes those utilizing shelters on a given night. More complete information on the overall need for housing to serve the homeless will be available in the 2003 Wilder Research Center survey of homeless adults and children in Minnesota, expected to be released in early 2004. Presentation of Data The exhibits and summary reports throughout the Next Decade of Minnesota project present the need for affordable housing at a number of geographic levels, including county, EVHI Region (see below), Greater Minnesota, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and statewide. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area summary includes the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 5 Scott and Washington, while the Greater Minnesota summary encompasses the other 80 Minnesota counties. The EVHI regional reports include counties as listed below. Figure 2. Breakdown of Minnesota Counties by EVHI Region (For Regional Analyses) 'Southeast Southwest �- Wes#Centra .z , � Benton Anoka Aitkin Beltrami Blue Earth Big Stone Becker Cass Carver Carlton Clearwater Brown Chippewa Clay Chisago Dakota Cook Hubbard Dodge Cottonwood Douglas Crow Wing Hennepin Itasca Kittson Faribault Jackson Grant Isanti Ramsey Koochiching Lake of the Woods Fillmore Kandiyohi Otter Tail Kanabec Scott Lake Mahnomen Freeborn Lac Qui Parle Pope Mille Lacs Washington St. Louis Marshall Goodhue Lincoln Stevens Morrison Norman Houston Lyon Traverse Pine Pennington Le Sueur McLeod Wilkin Sherburne Polk Martin Meeker Stearns Red Lake Mower Murray Todd Roseau Nicoliet Nobles Wadena Olmsted Pipestone Wright Rice Redwood Sibley Renville Steele Rock Wabasha Swift Waseca Yellow Medicine Watonwan Winona Detailed Description of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Households by income and household type 2000 and 2010 Exhibit 1 first presents the number of households in several income categories in 2000. The model uses 2000 HUD Median Family Income for the seven-counry Twin Cities Metropolitan area for each of the Metro Area counties. For each of the remaining Greater Minnesota counties, the model uses the median family income that HUD defines for that specific county. Census data were supplemented by quarterly shelter survey data provided by the Minnesota Department of Human Services to incorporate homeless households that are not counted by the Census. Households in each income category in Exhibit 1 were subdivided into three categories: family households, senior households and non -senior households without children under 18. This division was completed using a variery of cross -tabulations from the 2000 Census. These categories of housing types correspond with a varier), of housing programs and potential housing solutions. The second pan of Exhibit 1 includes projections for 2010 following the same income breakdown as in 2000. In the 80 Greater Minnesota counties, the household projections reflect averages of data provided by MN Planning and two commercial data providers, Claritas and PCensus. In the seven - county Twin Cities Metro Area, total households were projected using Metropolitan Council forecasts, and were then distributed into income and household type categories using the averages from other resources. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 6 A two-step method was used to allocate the projected households into groups of household types. First, PCensus forecasts of households by age were used to identify senior and non -senior households. The second step used 2000 data to split remaining households into households with and without children under the age of 18. Finally, Exhibit I concludes by subtracting the 2000 Census data from the 2010 projections to show the change over the decade. Exhibit 2. The structure of the low-income housing market in 2000. The second exhibit calculates the private market's success at housing low-income households in 2000. As in Exhibit 1, data are provided for all households, family households, senior households and non - senior households without children under 18. Cost -burdened households and subsidized units are subtracted from total households to arrive at the share of affordable housing that is provided by the private market. Throughout the model, households "housed affordably by the private market" indicate non -cost -burdened, low-income households that are not living in subsidized housing. Although these are low-income households, they have successfully found housing they can afford in the private market. Subsidized units for each household type (family, senior, other) were estimated using a variety of databases. In many cases, these databases identified the target population for each property. When such information was not available, non -senior units were allocated to family or non -family households by assuming that units with two or more bedrooms were for families and one -bedroom or studio units were for non -family households. Using these data and assumptions, relatively few units were identified as targeted to non -family households. However, it is possible that non -family households could be living in "family" units. The cost -burdened household tallies are taken from the U.S. Census and supplemented with homeless households identified through quarterly state shelter counts. The calculations in Exhibit 2 produce estimates of the proportion of households served by the private market and the proportion of households not housed affordably by any provider. Exhibit 3 Unmet low-income housing need. Exhibit 3 projects the total number of new low-income households that will be in need of affordable housing in 2010, based on growth during the decade. The calculations start with new low-income households that are expected to be added during the decade in each area, by household type. Certain counties show declines in the overall number of low-income households (or among certain household types) mirroring expected declines in the larger population. In these cases, Exhibit 3 will show negative change numbers encased in parentheses (). Negative population growth does not necessarily indicate that housing investment is not needed. In such counties, rehabilitation and/or preservation may be key strategies, rather than new construction. The exhibit then determines the number of low-income households that are not expected to be served by the private market by 2010. This is accomplished by subtracting the expected private market provision of low-income housing in 2010 from new low-income households that are expected during the decade. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 7 If the number of low-income households is predicted to decrease across all household types, the model assumes no new private market provision for the low-income market. However, in some counties, the number of certain types of low-income households (e.g., senior households) is predicted to decrease, while the number of other types of low-income households (e.g., families with children < 18) is expected to increase. In these cases, the model does not address potential shifting of units between different household types. For example, if the number of senior households decreases, the model does not assume that units vacated by those households would be suitable for families with children. While some units may be acceptable for all household types, quantifying the number of those units is beyond the scope of this study. As a result, some counties may show net household loss but still have a need for new units targeted to certain household types. At the State, Greater Minnesota and Twin Cities Metropolitan Area levels, Exhibit 3 provides a deeper level of analysis, one that illuminates the true need for low-income housing during the decade due to increasing numbers of low-income households. At the bottom of the Exhibit, the model factors in the provision of low-income housing expected by the public and philanthropic sectors during the decade. After considering this production source, the new low-income households that remain in one of these three larger areas are truly unsupported; they find a home neither in the private market, nor in newly -built subsidized units. This is termed unmet need for new low-income units. Exhibit 4. Analysis of unmet housing need 2010 This exhibit analyzes unmet need by income level and household type at the State, Greater Minnesota and Twin Cities Metropolitan Area levels. This exhibit works off of two sources: 1) the unmet need for new low-income housing units in 2010 that the model determined in Exhibit 3; and 2) the cost -burdened, low-income households in 2000 that the model described in Exhibit 2. The former demand source could be characterized as demand for newly -constructed units that will emerge during the decade. The latter source of demand could be characterized as an entrenched, structural, housing -market problem that could be solved by a variety of programs, just one of which could be new construction. Households that were cost -burdened in 2000 (and still presumably are), were technically housed, but were in need of some sort of assistance to relieve a high-cost burden. This relief could come in a variety of unit- or household -based subsidy programs, among other solutions. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION 11, PAGE 8 SECTION 111. Summary of Findings SECTION 111. Summary of Findings The purpose of the Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota study is to quantify the need for affordable housing in Minnesota from 2000 to 2010. The study was completed by BBC Research & Consulting (BBC), an independent firm based in Denver that specializes in housing market analysis. The study was funded by a collaborative of public and philanthropic organizations that provide resources for affordable housing development.' Key Conclusions During the past several years, the issue of affordable housing has become increasingly prominent in Minnesota. The study indicates that many households will continue to have difficulty finding affordable housing during the next decade. ■ Almost 300,000 low-income households are living in unaffordable housing in Minnesota! For the one-third of these households that earn less than 30% of median income, this housing cost burden often forces difficult choices between housing and other necessities. There will be a shortfall of 33,000 affordable housing units for low-income households by 2010 in Minnesota. This shortfall will occur despite increased private market provision of housing and significant public and philanthropic contributions for affordable housing. Study Findings This section provides summary data on housing needs at the statewide, 80 -county Greater Minnesota, and seven -county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area levels. Map 1 on the following page presents all counties in Minnesota, split into Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Additional information on county -level housing needs is provided in Section IV of the report. ' Funders of the study include the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Family Housing Fund and Greater Minnesota Housing Fund. Additional support was provided by the Metropolitan Council. Z The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing as affordable if the household spends no more than 30% of gross income to occupy it. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1 Map 1. Counties in the State of Minnesota Source: BBC Research b Consulting. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 2 Lak�uf " the ds Marshall Northwest Kooctric ung Beltrami :. Pennington Red Lake Cook P Northeast ear'- Lake ter Itasca b"ah n- `. St. Louis tan om an iib bard Cass Qay Becker West Wa- Wik�n dens fvtkin Calton Central Crow rig Otter Tail Nalle Grant Todd Morrison.. Lacs .Roe Traverse Douglas C ntr i Kan :atpc ton Ste- Pope Ch s ago verr Stearns Sher-Isan6 he Bic Stone Swf t Kano- Wright Armka LYON Meeker Washinalon Lac PPe— Fie n- Ramsey wParle -Mc min Twin Cities Kerrville Lead Yellow Mei Carver Metro Area Dakota Scott Sibley ncoh Lyon F,cvood Le Goodhue toter s�ur RCe Southwest Wabasha Brown Pipe- Was- ". Slone Murray Conon- Wato- l— ea dge Olmsted wood rrwan -t ele Wona- Fbu- Rock 1J0Nes Jackson Martin jE Faribault Freeborn M>,er fill pre' stop Southeast Source: BBC Research b Consulting. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 2 Statewide Housina Needs. Almost 300,000 low-income Minnesota households are paying more than they can afford for housing. In 2000, Minnesota had more than 791,000 low-income households.' This represented 42% of all households in the state. Of these households, approximately 300,000 (or 38%) spent more than 30% of their income on housing.' Nearly seventy percent of these households earn less than 50% of median income and 34% earn less than 30% of median income. Assistance for these households could take many forms, including but not limited to new unit construction, rent subsidies, vouchers, and other forms of subsidy. Demographic trends will result in 116,000 new low-income households seeking affordable housing by 2010. From 2000 to 2010, Minnesota is expected to grow by almost 207,000 households, or about 11 percent. More than one-half of these new households, approximately 116,000, are projected to be low-income households. The private sector is projected to be able to satisfy 49% of the increased demand for affordable housing by 2010, resulting in a shortfall of 59,300 affordable units. The private housing market effectively meets the needs of many Minnesota households. However, rising construction and operating costs make it increasingly difficult to provide affordably -priced housing for low-income households. Of the 116,000 new low-income households by 2010, it is expected that approximately half (approximately 59,300 households) will not find affordable housing units in the private market. Public and philanthropic funding may create 26,400 new affordable units, but 32,800 households will still lack affordable housing in 2010. Among the 59,300 new low-income households not served by the private market, about 26,400 (45%) are expected to find housing in newly -developed subsidized units financed by public and philanthropic organizations during the decades This leaves 32,800 new low-income households (55%) that will not be affordably housed by any provider in 2010. Of these households, 70% are expected to have incomes less than 50% of median, and 33% will have incomes less than 30% of median. Approximately 22,200 of these households will live in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, while 10,600 will reside in Greater Minnesota. 3 For the purposes of the Next Decade of Minnesota project, low-income households are defined as households with income below 60 percent of the family median for the seven Twin Cities metropolitan counties and incomes below 80 percent of the family median for the remaining 80 Greater Minnesota counties. ' The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing as affordable if the individual spends no more than 30% of gross income to occupy it. The figure counting those households paying above 30% of their incomes for housing also includes households who were homeless according to the statewide Quarterly Shelter Survey. 5 Public funding sources include the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other government sources. Philanthropic sources include the Family Housing Fund, Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, and other private funders. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 3 Map 2. Minnesota Cost Burdened Households, 2000, by County 315 667 344 Northwest 634 221 WE K 730 516 317 BBC RESEARCH S`. CONSULTING SECTION 111, PAGE 4 1,363 Legend 3 a,1,456 1 - 1,499 1,479 01,500 - 4,999 1,2s 5,000 - 9,999 TaoSO 909 m 10,000 + a, B9 f 319 1,872 4 1,7 Twin Cities 1,127 Metro Area 8,263 71 628 2 9D ' ? 40,505 BBC RESEARCH S`. CONSULTING SECTION 111, PAGE 4 Map 3. New Low -Income Households Not Served by the Private Market, 2010, by County 0 70 0 59 I 51 415 i �� Twill Cities 0 �$"`` 0 Metro Area 12 214 4414 79 17 :. . 128 21 400 51389173 147 49-0 168 uthw st 126 �a 7 21 0 124 310 63 371 a� 3183 0 15 0 1 211 317 84 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 5 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Housing Need. The study defines the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as the following seven counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. Approximately 171,000 low-income households in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area are paying more than they can afford for housing. In 2000, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area had 373,000 low-income households. This represented 36% of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area household base, and 47% of the state's low-income household base. Among low-income households in the Twin Cities, 171,000 (or 46%) spent more than 30% of their income on housing.G While a smaller percentage of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area's total population is low-income compared to the state as a whole, a higher percentage of the low-income households are not housed affordably. Eighty percent of these cost -burdened households earn less than 50% of median income and 40% earn less than 30% of median income. Assistance for these households could take many forms, including but not limited to new unit construction, rent subsidies, vouchers, and other forms of subsidy. Map 4. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Cost Burdened Households, 2000, by County Twin Cities Metro Area Carver 2,902 Scott 3,338 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. Legend 1-4,999 5,000-19,999 20,000 + G The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing as affordable if the individual spends no more than 30% of gross income to occupy it. The figure counting those households paying above 30% of their incomes for housing also includes households who were homeless according to the statewide Quarterly Shelter Survey. BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 6 Demographic trends will result in 60,500 new low-income households seeking affordable housing by 2010. From 2000 to 2010, the number of households in the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is expected to grow by approximately 160,000, or about 16 percent. More than 60,000 of these new households (38%) are projected to be low-income households. The private market is projected to be able to satisfy 40% of the increased demand for affordable housing in the metro area by 2010, resulting in a shortfall of 36,100 units. Of the 60,500 new low- income households, it is expected that 36,100 (60%) will not find affordable housing units in the private market in 2010. Public and philanthropic funding may create 13,900 new affordable units, but 22,300 households will still lack affordable housing in 2010. Among the 36,100 new low-income households not served by the private market, about 13,900 (38%) are expected to find housing in newly -developed subsidized units financed by public and philanthropic organizations during the decade. This leaves 22,300 new low-income households (62%) that will not be affordably housed by any provider in 2010. Of these households, 76% are expected to have incomes less than 50% of median, and 35% will have incomes less than 30% of median. Map S. New Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Low -Income Households Not Served by the Private Market, 2010, by County Twin M etrc Source: BBC Research & Consulting. Legend Zero 1-3,999 4,000-7,999 - 8,000 + BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 7 Greater Minnesota Housing Need. The study defines Greater Minnesota as the 80 counties of Minnesota outside the seven -county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Approximately 126,000 low-income households in Greater Minnesota are paying more than they can afford for housing. In 2000, Greater Minnesota had 418,000 low-income households. This represented 48% of the Greater Minnesota household base, and 53% of the state's low-income household base. Of these households, 126,000 (or 30%) spent more than 30% of their income on housing! Fifty-eight percent of these households earn less than 50% of median income, and 30% earn less than 30% of median income. Assistance for these households could take many forms, including but not limited to new unit construction, rent subsidies, vouchers, and other forms of subsidy. Demographic trends in Greater Minnesota will result in 55,200 new low-income households seeking affordable housing by 2010. From 2000 to 2010, the total number of households in Greater Minnesota is expected to grow by approximately 47,000, or only about 5 percent. However, the number of low-income households in Greater Minnesota is projected to increase by over 55,000 or 13 percent, due to expected population loss at higher income levels. This growth rate for low-income households is more than twice the growth rate for the overall population, meaning that almost all of the net growth among the Greater Minnesota counties will be among low-income households. It is important to note, however, that these trends represent the net figures for Greater Minnesota. Overall population and population among the middle- and upper-income categories are expected to grow in many of the individual counties. The private market is projected to be able to satisfy 58% of the increased demand for affordable housing by 2010, resulting in a shortfall of 23,100 affordable units. The private market effectively meets the housing needs of many Minnesota households. However, rising construction and operating costs make it increasingly difficult to provide affordably -priced housing for low-income households. Of the 55,200 new low-income households by 2010, it is expected that about 42% (approximately 23,100 households) will not find affordable housing units in the private market. Public and philanthropic funding may create 12,600 new affordable units, but 10,600 households will still lack affordable housing in 2010. Among the 23,100 new low-income households not served by the private market, about 12,600 (54%) are expected to find housing in newly -developed subsidized units financed by public and philanthropic organizations during the decade. This leaves 10,600 new low-income households (46%) that will not be affordably housed by any provider in 2010. Of these households, 56% are expected to have incomes less than 50% of median, and 28% will have incomes less than 30% of median. 7 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing as affordable if the individual spends no more than 30% of gross income to occupy it. The figure counting those households paying above 30% of their incomes for housing also includes households who were homeless according to the statewide Quarterly Shelter Survey. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 8 Map 6. Greater Minnesota Cost Burdened Households, 2000, by County IJ.LY✓ mm�tiA . Nnrthpact 317 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 9 �enirar , .]JAJJIM central: 171771 1,7BD ' of R �� 17 *- �'>: 11 . • • • .c • 6 824 +��yyh �']] I . • 77 213484,280 ) Cities 1 Metro Area Mai N m740 Zk 7,219 .2785; BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 9 Map 7. New Greater Minnesota Low -Income Households Not Served by the Private Market, 2010, by County Source: BBC Research & Consulting. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 10 Study Limitations The research team believes the study presents an accurate picture of housing needs in Minnesota. However, there are some important data limitations that affect the study results: The estimated housing needs of Minnesota's homeless population are included in the "cost burdened" category. However, homeless households are very difficult to count. The study estimated this need using the most recent data available from the statewide Quarterly Shelter Survey. This is a very conservative estimate of homelessness, as it only includes those utilizing shelters on a given night. More complete information on the overall need for housing to serve the homeless will be available in the 2003 Wilder Research Center survey of homeless adults and children in Minnesota, expected to be released in early 2004. An analysis of housing units lost to demolition and attrition, as well as units that are in poor condition or overcrowded, is not included in the study. Good statewide data was not available, so the researchers excluded these factors in the calculation of housing need. As a result, the study presents a more conservative picture of housing need. ■ It is impossible to predict the level of public and philanthropic resources available to each county during the decade. As a result, the actual shortfall of affordable housing (after provision of subsidized units) can only be calculated at the statewide and Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Greater Minnesota levels rather than for individual counties. The study only provides data at the county level, which may mask trends at the sub - county (i.e., city) level. For example, some rural counties may show no housing need due to declining populations, but particular cities within a county may experience growth and need additional housing. In these cases, local area market research will be required to make decisions about the level of housing need and the provision of public and philanthropic resources. ■ Finally, the study does not attempt to predict policy changes or funding priorities during the coming decade. It does not offer funding recommendations, such as the type of subsidized housing (e.g., owner versus rental) that should be provided to address the identified shortfall. It is the responsibility of a variety of decision makers at the local, regional, and state levels to evaluate the study results and determine the appropriate responses. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 11 SECTION IV. Housing Need Exhibits 1-0.4 / \ R 4-10 H C C Ij 0 0 0 N CU Y C O N O v C O J cu i O Q% L .F� v L V1 N X W v v O � rn O C U d 3 `v a O — v R � Y c o E a R y R •C 5 E a � O 'O O v A 01L .R C61 O 'c o E L p NC 0 m O = o v v L > E Oo 3 o 4L C t O 7 a c L pG N ... _ r V O O L E � O C� C O 0 C R V V O_ a R v v Q c O v � v v 9 n 3 v U D R R o o Sm � R Q) E Q a p E L 0 0 R O O L V c — v o p r v v C aC c U U zs of CO N '- N h '- M x. h,- 10 a c o c o Ol ,- o x " F D , N1 is o 0 0 0 0 _ , , 00 oq \D M O\ 0000 ^ 'CI N s '. � O q�' C plD O O N 00 COI\ 10 Lr cop�0'7 \. N i :zFf t� N N N C I 01 N O '6 VVIIII O cu C O v w v v O � rn O C U d 3 `v a O — v R � Y c o E a R y R •C 5 E a � O 'O O v A 01L .R C61 O 'c o E L p NC 0 m O = o v v L > E Oo 3 o 4L C t O 7 a c L pG N ... _ r V O O L E � O C� C O 0 C R V V O_ a R v v Q c O v � v v 9 n 3 v U D R R o o Sm � R Q) E Q a p E L 0 0 R O O L V c — v o p r v v C aC c U U zs OE� Y� f Ln co cl� Ln IV �MIN .. s^ f� r M,fcs A 1 r ,Ln to y Z 00ooi ✓1 'ct co f� h M O M M v1 LLi. O y p v, 00 n M r Ln <' J H. 00 h NI M rs, y� Y y Vcc N u > d N �z M � u. N cu O O 2 N + O 2 v O Z O p CN O O C v C) p 0 J Gr cu o Z v •> Ln y �> p V _O p 3 N C O v r 01 Z 2 J v r 0 i J —_ � V O 3Qo3 y0i V C (UC) Z w Fq Z w a D N / N ra 1j 00 0 0 O O G, N ON p m M N r to O` O �o O\ ; M In %O M r r O Ln 't7 00 o Q M r n N 00 O\ Ln �o O V1 Ln M -V N r 0 0000 O '•- �O N O M M N r r M 'C r.'00 h M N Ln M to O\ v1 rl M N mer• N - r 0 000 0 C> O\ p M M N Ln 'n 00 N O N Ol M c co t\ W O M v E 0 C O vN Q/ O O — Ol � a, — R E cv C C R O v E OR O o 0 0 0On LO W 0 0 0 0 0 H m m Ln �o O S _ 0 0 0 0 `L�N`,�sA�". p O M M N .N- 014°i' i.f � .5 eF •✓ fix;; 00 O r N yr r. C\ \O Ln v1 M Nr C14 5 R H, a 0 0 0 0 0 rn M N \O 00 O, r+i N O� O R M t 0000 NLn0 MMN N M 00 0 O r O� .. O rr1 r'i O� �p N N r F p �O rb N 00 Lr)N N ^ N vV '1 N V- s C\ N O O w m r r 7.%' 3 x E 0 C O s v c v u is C v .-. ¢' C o EO o ovO o O O O .: h �o 00 O. mm mm Ln %0 O �qt 0 N a O^ n v1 O. Nj h ^ ^ co ^ O CO M N o0'. " a, a v rte. N a aoa0o.nvc �- h CO n b V N M .� M b N n CO ri n D` M vl N ry I O 00 C wi P Q N N fN Q O ry T a0 n Q N m N N M � �D O• n CO m O� CO O M Q Cp M v1 I� N P b O b vt Q v1 N b v1 O O 2 / ) ± � \ / & \ \ \ f \ E c E < k /\ g6 , 3%{ \2=b t\ 72 \. 2/ E\ /ƒ _ƒ ƒE \\±) ) } { m 75 {( [$� \5/( } c j "C22 }\/a = E / \ /\ �b % $ E E»i=� ® \ \ -ac)\/ f )_ /$} \2E §% �< 0\\± y=2 \§} { (} 5 \2 cu \ mC \�{ t±<2»± \\}}\� /{\32} \/ /C:7 0 z = E 5 C £ = tla Q) L C ^0 0— 0 L 4a CU H V �3 N C 7 O C cn a 0 Z .co � r r C 3 M r y m 4. F ��. s �s ,,, y DoLn Ln Ln "ADS 0o I �� Nh 4 � s o0 � 1N _ M O R N to �I � s Y vi .�c r R R U u o c` Q- 0 0 y� O v ° v� E C) 0 o Z o 0 0 n UO U O N- C Z C 0 C 3 0 0 ° e 0 N 3 c c o Z cu C) E E 0 o� N v v> o r 3 0 v 0 ON N v "•, ? cu J 3 a o Z w N Z N w e tu a 0 Z 0 0 1010o p N M Ln O M Q N r %0 v1 ON O M Q N r C, Ln h W O, n N •- 0 0 0 0 p M Q N r N O \0 \-O O, O\ 00 00 N M N 0 0 0 0 O � Q p M Q N py r� Q N N CO \0N N n cr V N w E 0 u C O v a � E o o >, V E O C L T N QJ o E 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 000 M M Ln v Z 0 0 0 p M Q N r CO m M N \.O Q N O N Q v1 m O� ri r�i 00 N N M O O O O Q O M r r M O 00 \0 Q M 00 p if 06 �6 � N 0 0 0 0 O n O N O M Q N \�O 00 r� V) %0 O` Q 0 00 0 O O O O O1 E 0 u C 0 � v v D 0 0 m Tv R V E a E 0 -0 V y E 0 0 o CP 0 0 0 0 1 F- M M Ln O S v L O1 V o E Z::� O L 0 O L d C A of�pt�Q^00"OM I ^O .0 W N 10 M M ^ M lc O Q 00 M N M ^ c 10 � ;; / M NO b m Q N D\ o0 00 00 � N cc b Q 00 %0 0] cr O N ^ h Q N M M N N � P O P O O• n N R h O, 00 N c N N ^ 0 n O Pa, C, ��+1 v1 00 Q b D\ 6 C, N N .� ^ ^ ✓1 ^ t� N 00 Q ^ ^ ^ N Q ry b00 OD Q O ^ P O O N Ol Q N M �p OMP O,'O^ 01 e n o=co°�c N w b Q P M M M N I� 00 M c Q M H M O N M M O N N h � ^ � N ✓Ni � N ^ CO Cl Q N 00 h 00 D\ ✓1 Cl N ^ nicNmM;N ea o� a E d E � o o O � OOD t ] j O D t _T �E 2 c d �0 ° E � 000 3 0 0 o O ^ + vt %0 c0 ^ o h 0 0 0 0 0^ 10 00 ^ a b O\ N 10 N m N n P m m ry ry m W n M O` O` 00 rrl 00 CO 00 00 ^ 00 0 1-�O - M p N 00 M Q C m N ^ ^ Q op N N v1 Q O� R N N c 0 n O N v N" - ^ 0, N h n O a 00 .- Q Q 00 vi ori N N O W N N ^ 00 ^ ^ O Q Q M Q O M M o0 d M b N �p Q vt N M m 00 b P v1 � � N �D Mj C, ^ N 00 - v1 Q h ^ v a E c o �- e � O ° � t O r\ M o � A ° IC al NI � O O O ^ + •3 Z° � ' O O O 0 0^ W a, o CL v � Ol V V O C d v u C 3 a o — a is L` E � w V �p � E a C c •3 T v � o o 2 v v 0 o a o c A c L O E L O'2 N v C 0 �O a Gi L > E a o — u ti O C L A L m E N r O o a v � •v Q c 00 c D o `o a y 0 O c of � v c D O V y a a E c v o v E .cQ ao o =o R o 3 U ° -o O o ° _o m r � LL QJ 16 N c 2 C V C V = V d c O 'o O E Q 3 O D 2 v s v o L N JO o O C _ H L v _C a0 O E � o ° 0 o y v a V O R O U j _ U y ;�� ;�� ►��, o o � � of rLn- pn•p,cr, 00 �y, .- 06 ce + + II o O V C M O O O h O 100 r M H !f N M O L O to t t II L o 0 0 0 0 -_ 3 ';:; O M h N r \D o 00� o t t II O O oI O O —�. V", Lf) rn a co O 00 W 7 N tri � z c CL) > O 0o V tt` i N O 7 � 2 � v C 2 R m o cu 'n 'Y c C .n p to v "O 3 a °1 yi m' 0 0 = a, o CL v � Ol V V O C d v u C 3 a o — a is L` E � w V �p � E a C c •3 T v � o o 2 v v 0 o a o c A c L O E L O'2 N v C 0 �O a Gi L > E a o — u ti O C L A L m E N r O o a v � •v Q c 00 c D o `o a y 0 O c of � v c D O V y a a E c v o v E .cQ ao o =o R o 3 U ° -o O o ° _o m r � LL QJ 16 N c 2 C V C V = V d c O 'o O E Q 3 O D 2 v s v o L N JO o O C _ H L v _C a0 O E � o ° 0 o y v a V O R O U j _ U y I 07 r r. "fiwn +•� :y N oo N er �O N N Op fl O �F M N r .v L } ;A M 00 ONS i t1d S vO i/1 O CO N Mi N1 r .Y 67 OD M LL Do �i M NA� J O i,w v1 PA "; a s ° u > > > C-1 c o � � N .O > Y r,4 H OO o, v oN Z v 0 k d ��b E O H E O 0 V .D v O C _ s v 0 0 3 3 O J J N 3 O Z CU CU O N O v w O 'O O= C O O V 3x 0 O N 0 O �a Z r' N i y O 3 3 `m a•1O E u ;cu cO Z w N Z w C O O O O O \ \ O N N r- N r � N'o M v '- 0 0 0 0 0 O N N M � N Ln M I� O M D` O, O %O m en 0 0 O0 -O O 00 00 V) O\ M 00 In O O \0 �D U \O C V1 O� O� w1 O 01 E O v c O L 0! GJ O O T V •C = C o t N 0/ p0o0 >. i0 o Ln �o 00 n 0 0 00 0 rn m Ln �D 0J Z O O OF O O O \O I, \O N p N N M r O r� 00 O Ln M 'T %D %0 v) CO V1 00 N N 1� uj O C O O O 00 co O r-4 O', V^ M r 00 Ln 00 0 0 0 O M %D � V O NN M N QN. m O 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 O O rt W p MN N N CO n rn C, mm co �p O\ N o7 ✓1 v1 1, ✓1 n 'C' N M M — M v E O c O F � v 7 'L O O L r R E V ;a E � O'O V w = E g o 0 'O-6000 o o Ln � 0o 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 M M kn \O O 2 R � N O Q� L C ar O t � -O v v `v v C N - C E R � R R � Q1 L c 0 C O R L 'O O n d v -p v O yL v _ 0 O R L Q� y C O u O C 'C '3 0 O O O c E O O a E O O 0 3 v v � o v O � v C p d R Q 0 O O C O O .-3 N N c v O C) O C C C CD O 7 0 d O aui :2 ? V 0 O O 3 L v 7 O 7 O y O R V � B 7 O EL p 6 L j u v v O O y E O vo p t c OJ O " = O v O v 3 D u v E 3 v � a v ' Q -01D December 1, 2003 TO: Metropolitan Council FR: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities RE: 2030 Regional Development Framework Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the public hearing draft of the 2030 Regional Development Framework. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is composed of 75 cities from around the seven -county metropolitan area, which are home to approximately 90 percent of the region's citizens. After closely following your work developing the draft Framework and discussing it with our member cities, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities offers the following comments for your consideration. 2030 Regional Development Framework Overall, the draft Framework appears to be a step in the right direction. Our member cities are encouraged by the general tone of the document and its focus on the Council's core mission. The draft Framework is more succinct, more flexible and seems to offer more collaborative overtures than previous planning documents published by the Metropolitan Council. Our members support the MUSA approach contained in the document, which moves our region away from growth based on outwardly moving concentric circles and toward a more flexible staging process that provides greater opportunity for local control and input. We also support the Council's plans to leave decisions about the long-term protection of agricultural lands up to local officials. In talking with our members about the Framework, they have also identified four major shortcomings of the document. 1) Redevelopment Expectations The draft Framework calls for 30 percent of the forecasted growth to be accommodated through redevelopment and reinvestment in the already developed portions of the region. This is a bold goal, which our member cities largely support — in principle. Redevelopment allows our fully developed communities to adapt to changing consumer preferences, expand their tax base and maintain their vitality. It also allows the region to take advantage of the extensive public investment in infrastructure that already exists in these areas. However, we continue to hear concerns from our fully developed cities about the availability of the tools and resources necessary to meet this goal. While Council representatives say that this is only a modest increase from what is currently taking place and the draft Framework clearly outlines a preference for letting the "market" function, the feedback we are receiving from the individual cities actually expected to carry this out is much different. For example, the City of Robbinsdale tells us that during the decade of the 1980's they experienced a redevelopment boom, which resulted in the addition of 500 new households in ten years. They were able to achieve that as a result of optimum conditions — broad and flexible TIF authority and political leadership that was willing to do whatever it took to get the projects done. Today, you are asking the City of Robbinsdale to plan for more than 600 new households a decade, for three straight decades — yet the costs are higher, the conditions are more challenging, and the tools available to the city have declined. As a group, our member cities want to grow and redevelop. But it isn't going to be easy. It is going to take time, effort, incentives and investments. As the years go by, and the easier places to redevelop are completed, the remaining opportunities will be increasingly challenging. The market alone is likely to provide some level of redevelopment, especially along the riverfronts or next to key amenities. But the market alone will not achieve the kind of widespread redevelopment that these forecasts call for. Regional plans and policies need to recognize the challenge that lies ahead, as well as the additional investments that will be needed to accomplish this goal. 2) Transportation Investments The draft Framework recognizes the need to enhance transportation choices and slow the growth in congestion, for the sake of our economy and our daily quality of life. However, it stops short of providing a plan or strategy for meeting this need. Twenty-five years ago, sewers were the growth challenge for this metropolitan area. With some out-of-the-box thinking, bold public policies and a little political risk taking, we have now reached the point where the Metropolitan Council's environmental services are widely recognized as a successful regional system, with an established and stable funding source, that keeps pace with growth and allows infrastructure investments to be coordinated with planned development. But the term "urban services" must be recognized as more than simply wastewater treatment. Today we need the same leadership for our transportation system that our wastewater treatment system has benefited from over the past thirty years. This metropolitan area has a compelling and urgent need for investment in both roads and transit; tailoring the appropriate mode and investment to individual neighborhoods, cities, corridors and subregions. As it stands today, the draft Framework is lacking a plan to provide the full range of urban services and regional investments needed to accommodate the forecasted population growth. For example, the Framework forecasts call for the three Dakota County cities of Lakeville, Farmington, and Rosemount to grow by 89,000 people by the year 2030 — that's almost ten percent of all of the growth projected for the region. Yet an examination of MnDOT's investment plans for the metropolitan area fails to identify a single road or highway in Dakota County that is scheduled for improvement before the year 2025. The population and household forecasts contained in this document will bring significant growth and development to individual cities and entire sub -regions of the metropolitan area. Without a coordinated regional strategy for transportation, and the funding mechanisms to implement it, this growth will only bring more congestion, increased limitations on economic growth and a declining quality of life for the residents of this region. 3) Coordination with State Policy, Collaboration with State Agencies Thirdly, the draft Framework needs to give more attention to impacts state fiscal policy and state agency policies will have on this region's ability to accommodate the forecasted growth. State policy on issues such as local government aid and levy limits are working in direct opposition to the Council's efforts to accommodate an additional million people by the year 2030. How are communities such as Lakeville supposed to accommodate 20.000 new households, if state imposed levy limits won't allow them to access that new taxbase? Current state policy severely limits growing cities' ability to raise the revenue necessary to hire the additional police offers or plow the additional city streets needed to serve new households. Meanwhile, the loss of state aids is forcing many fully developed cities to close recreation facilities, cut back on park maintenance and reduce other quality of life services, at the same time the Council is expecting them to attract thousands of new residents. Beyond the fiscal issues, there are policy and permit issues. The Metropolitan Council is asking the City of Prior Lake to plan for approximately 9,000 new households by 2030, yet DNR requirements are restricting their ability to dig a new well. If the Council wants to work with local governments and strengthen collaboration, then it must give serious consideration to working within the administration and with metro -area legislators to resolve these contradictions. 4) Links to Adjacent County Growth Finally, we would urge the Council to go further in addressing the inter -relatedness of the seven -county area and the wider metropolitan region. Forecasting population, household and employment trends cannot be done in isolation from the adjacent counties, nor can planning for investments in transportation and the other regional systems. Our member cities continue to note that the legitimacy and usefulness of the planning taking place within the seven -county area is increasingly questionable when done in isolation from the wider metropolitan region.