HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 04-24-2018 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
COUNCIL/PLANNING COMISSION/HRA MEETING
APRIL 24, 2018, 5:30 p.m.
MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. TOPICS
A. Draft Housing Study
B. Senior Building Cash Flow and Maintenance Schedule
C. Tax Increment District update
D. Set future Study Sessions
3. ADJOURN
Council/Planning Commission/HRA Meeting 1 of 1 April 24, 2018
rp
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quo[ity to Life
SPECIAL
COUNCIL/PLANNING
COMMISSION/HRA
To:
Prepared by:
MEETING Reviewed by:
April 24, 2018 Item:
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Agenda 2A
Number:
Dave Callister, City Manager
James Barnes, HRA Manager
Steve Juetten, Community Development Director
Review Plymouth Multi -Family Housing Study
Review the Housing Market Study prepared by Maxfield Research and provide staff with policy
direction relating to affordable/workforce and senior housing.
2. BACKGROUND:
In April 2017, the Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board (HRA) discussed the various
types of multi -family housing including market rate, affordable/workforce and senior. During the
discussion, it was recommended that a housing study be conducted to provide information that the
Council and HRA can use to better understand different housing markets.
Maxfield Research completed the draft study over the past six months. Staff from Maxfield Research
will be at this meeting to present their findings and address any questions. Attached is the Executive
Summary (the full document was distributed a couple of weeks ago and can also be found in Dropbox
under Reports & Studies).
3. ATTACHMENTS:
Housing Market Study Executive Summary
Rental Housing Market Study
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope of Study
Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC (i.e. "Maxfield Research") was engaged by the City of
Plymouth HRA to conduct a Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study for the City of Plym-
outh. The Housing Market Study provides recommendations on the amount and types of rental
housing that should be developed in order to meet the needs of current and future households
who choose to reside in Plymouth.
The scope of this study includes: an analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics
of the City; a review of the characteristics of the existing housing stock, building permit trends,
and residential land supply; an analysis of the market condition for a variety of rental and for -
sale housing products; and an assessment of the need for housing by product type in the City.
Recommendations on the number and types of housing products that should be considered in
the City are also supplied.
Demographic Analysis
• As of the 2010 Census, the City of Plymouth had 70,576 people and 29,982 households. The
City of Plymouth is forecast to grow by 8,424 people and 2,418 households between 2010
and 2020 and by another 5,000 people and 2,100 households between 2020 and 2030.
• From 2017 to 2022, growth is expected in all ages except in those ages 18 to 24 and in 45
to 54 year olds. The 65 to 74 age cohorts are projected to have the greatest numeric
growth increasing by 1,809 people, while the 75 to 84 age cohort is projected to have the
greatest percentage growth in Plymouth increasing by 32% between 2017 and 2022.
• The City of Plymouth had an estimated median household income of $96,274 in 2017. Non -
senior household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age group at $124,490. The median
income for seniors age 65 to 74 is $84,386 and for 75+ is $45,545.
• Between 2000 and 2015, homeownership rates decreased from 76.5% to 71.4% in the City
of Plymouth. The decline was a result of lender -mediated properties during the Great Re-
cession and the rental housing market that is currently booming in Plymouth.
• Married without children households accounted for the highest household type percentage
in 2015 at 33.3%. However, living alone is the second largest household type accounting for
about 26% of households in Plymouth.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employment Analysis
Plymouth and Hennepin County had an unemployment rate of 3.1% and 3.4% respectively
in June 2017, which is lower than the State of Minnesota (4.1%).
According to Employer -Household Dynamics data from the U.S. Census Bureau there are
roughly 50,551 workers in Plymouth in 2014, 9.9% live in Plymouth. Most other workers are
commuting from Minneapolis (7.4%), Maple Grove (5.9%) and Brooklyn Park (4.3%). Plym-
outh is considered a major importer of works as over 90% of the employees working in
Plymouth are from other communities.
Housing Characteristics
• Per the City of Plymouth Building Department there were 7,225 units permitted from 2000
to May 2017. In 2009 (the peak of the recession), Plymouth observed the fewest building
permits issued at 75, but has averaged building permits for 299 units per year since 2007.
• Nearly one-half of Plymouth's renter -occupied housing were constructed in the 1970s and
1980s (47%), while 22% of Plymouth's renter -occupied housing stock was built since 2000.
• Approximately 70% of Plymouth homeowners have a mortgage compared to 73% of Henne-
pin County and 73% of the metro area. About 17% of homeowners with mortgages also
have a second mortgage or home equity loan.
• The median estimated home value in Plymouth was roughly $331,263 in 2017. The income
required to afford a home at this price would be about $94,646 to $110,421 based on the
standard of 3.0 to 3.5 times the median income (and assuming these households do not
have a high level of debt). About 64% of non -senior households in Plymouth have incomes
of $94,646 or more in 2017.
The median contract rent in Plymouth was $1,057 in 2015. Based on a 30% allocation of in-
come to housing, a household would need an income of about $42,280 to afford the me-
dian contract rent in Plymouth.
Rental Housing Market Analysis
In total, Maxfield Research inventoried 6,972 general occupancy rental units in Plymouth
spread across 44 multifamily developments. At the time of the survey, there were 115 va-
cant units resulting in an overall vacancy rate of 1.6%. Typically, a healthy rental market
maintains a vacancy rate of roughly 5%, which promotes competitive rates, ensures ade-
quate consumer choice, and allows for unit turnover.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Market rate projects make-up 6,372 units and a total of 115 unit vacancies were found, re-
sulting in a market rate rental project vacancy rate of 1.8%.
• Affordable/subsidized projects make-up 600 units and posted no vacant units.
Senior Housing Market Analysis
• There are eight senior housing developments located in the Plymouth with a total of 914
units. There were 23 vacancies identified within the housing developments posting an over-
all vacancy rate of 2.5%. Generally, healthy senior housing vacancy rates range from 5% to
7% depending on service level.
Housing Demand Analysis
• Based on our calculations, demand exists in the City of Plymouth for the following general
occupancy product types between 2017 and 2030:
o Market rate rental 972 units
o Affordable rental 408 units
o Subsidized rental 188 units
• In addition, we find demand for multiple senior housing product types. By 2030, demand in
the Plymouth Market Area for senior housing is forecast for the following:
o Active adult ownership 308 units
o Active adult rental 262 units
o Active adult affordable 234 units
o Active adult subsidized 227 units
o Congregate 457 units
o Assisted Living 234 units
o Memory care 279 units
Recommendations and Conclusions
• Based on the finding of our analysis and demand calculations, the following chart provides a
summary of the recommended development concepts by product type for the City of Plym-
outh through 2030. Detailed findings are described in the Recommendations section of the
report.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 3
Page 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 5
RECOMMENDED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 to 2030
No. of
No. of
No. of
Purchase Price/
Units
Units
Units
Monthly Rent Range'
2017-2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
Total
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Market Rate Rental Housing
Apartment -style
$1,000/1613 - $2,800/3BR
280 -300
180 -200
350 -400
810 -900
Townhomes
$2,300/2BR - $2,700/3BR
50 -60
40 -50
30 -40
120 -150
Total
330-360
220 -250
380-440
930-1,050
Affordable Rental Housing
Apartment -style
Moderate Income'
130-140
100 -120
130 -140
360 -400
Subsidized
30% of Income°
50 -60
50 -60
50 -60
150 -180
Total
180-200
150-180
180-200
510-580
Total Renter -Occupied
510-560
370-430
560-640
1,440 - 1,630
Senior Housing (i.e. Age Restricted)
Senior Coop./Ownership Active Adult
$50,000 - $200,000+
60 -70
80 -90
90 -100
230 -260
Active Adult Market Rate Rentals
$1,400/1BR - $2,700/2BR
70 -80
90 -100
80 -90
240 -270
Active Adult Affordable Rentals
Moderate Income'
80 -90
60 -70
80 -90
220 -250
Active Adult Subsidized Rentals
30% of Income
50 -60
50 -60
80 -90
180 -210
Independent Living/Congregate
$2,050/1BR - $4,000/2BR
120 -130
140 -150
150 -160
410 -440
Assisted Living
$3,750/EFF - $5,300/2BR
50 -60
70 -80
100 -110
220 -250
Memory Care
$2,900/EFF - $6,000/2BR
60 -70
70 -80
90 -100
220 -250
Total Senior Units
490 -560
560 -630
670-740
1,720 - 1,930
Total - All Units
1,000 - 1,120
930- 1,060
1,230 - 1,380
3,160 - 3,560
' Pricing in 2017 dollars. Pricing can be adjusted to account
for inflation.
z Replacement need, infill, and redevelopment.
3 Affordablity subject to income guidelines per Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). See
Table HA -1 for Hennepin
County Income limits.
4Subsized housing will be difficult to develop financially
5Alternative development concept is to combine active adult affordable and market rate active adult into mixed -income senior community
Note - Recommended development does not coincide with total demand. Plymouth may not
be able to accommodate
all recommended
housing types based on land
availability and development constraints.
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 5
Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study
for the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment
Authority
r Maxfield
IVAResearch & Consultinc
7575 Golden Valley Road
Suite 385
Golden Valley, MN 55427
612.338.0012
www.maxfieldresearch.com
Page 6
Maxfield
Research & Consulting
April 4, 2018
Jim Barnes
HRA Manager
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Barnes:
Attached is the Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study for the Plymouth Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority conducted by Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC. The study projects rental housing
demand from 2017 through 2030, and provided recommendations on the amount and type of rental
housing that could be built in Plymouth to satisfy demand from current and future residents over the
next decade.
The study identifies a potential demand for approximately 3,500 new housing units through 2030. Be-
cause the population in Plymouth of the baby boomers will be aging over the next few decades; about
56% of the total demand will be for age -restricted housing types. At the same time, strong demand ex-
ists for general -occupancy apartments with a need for over 1,500 units through 2030. Based on the
survey of occupancies, Plymouth vacancies are extremely low posting an overall vacancy rate of only
1.7% for general -occupancy housing and 2.5% for senior housing.
Detailed information regarding recommended housing concepts can be found in the Recommendations
& Conclusions section at the end of the report. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact us. We have enjoyed conducting this study for you.
Sincerely,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING, LLC
19C
r
Matt Mullins
Max Perrault
Vice President
Associate
Attachment
(main) 612-338-0012 (fax) 612-904-7979
7575 Plymouth Road, Suite 385, Plymouth, MN 55427
www.maxfieldresearch.com
Page 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................
5
Introduction......................................................................................................................
5
Population and Household Growth Trends and Projections from 1990 to 2040 .............
5
Persons Per Household (Household Size).........................................................................
8
AgeDistribution Trends....................................................................................................
9
Household Income by Age of Householder......................................................................
12
Networth..........................................................................................................................
16
Tenure by Household Income...........................................................................................
18
Tenure by Age of Householder.........................................................................................
21
HouseholdType................................................................................................................
23
Tenure by Household Size.................................................................................................
25
Diversity.............................................................................................................................
26
Mobilityin the Past Year...................................................................................................
28
Demographic Comparison.................................................................................................
28
Summary of Demographic Trends....................................................................................
30
EMPLOYMENT....................................................................................................................... 32
EmploymentTrends.......................................................................................................... 32
Employment Growth and Projections............................................................................... 32
ResidentLabor Force........................................................................................................ 33
Employment, Earnings, and Employment by Educational Attainment ............................ 35
CommutingPatterns......................................................................................................... 38
Inflow/Outflow.................................................................................................................. 40
MajorEmployers............................................................................................................... 42
EmploymentInterview...................................................................................................... 43
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................. 44
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 44
Residential Construction Trends 2000 to Present............................................................ 44
American Community Survey............................................................................................ 47
Ageof Housing Stock......................................................................................................... 47
Housing Units by Structure and Occupancy or (Housing Stock by Structure Type) ......... 49
Owner Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status ....................................................... 49
Housing Units by Occupancy Status & Tenure.................................................................. 50
Renter -Occupied Units by Contract Rent.......................................................................... 55
Housing Characteristics Comparison................................................................................ 56
Page 8
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY..................................................................................................... 57
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 57
HousingCost Burden......................................................................................................... 60
HousingVouchers............................................................................................................. 62
Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income......................................................... 64
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 66
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 66
Overview of Rental Market Conditions............................................................................. 66
General Occupancy Rental Properties.............................................................................. 70
Natural Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e. Unsubsidized Affordable) ............................. 85
Licensed Rental Ordinance................................................................................................ 90
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS................................................................................................. 92
SeniorHousing Defined..................................................................................................... 92
Senior Housing in Plymouth.............................................................................................. 93
Senior Housing Comparison.............................................................................................. 102
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 104
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 104
Demographic Profile and Housing Demand...................................................................... 104
Housing Demand Overview............................................................................................... 105
Estimated Demand for General Occupancy Rental Housing ............................................. 109
Estimated Demand for Independent Adult/Few Services Senior Housing ........................ 111
Estimated Demand for Subsidized/Affordable Independent Senior Housing ................... 113
Estimated Demand for Congregate Senior Housing.......................................................... 114
Demand Estimate for Assisted Living Housing.................................................................. 116
Estimated Demand for Memory Care Housing.................................................................. 119
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................... 121
Introduction/Overall Housing Recommendations............................................................ 121
Recommended Housing Product Types............................................................................ 123
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES...................................................................................... 128
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................. 137
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 138
Page 9
MAPS
Page
City of Plymouth 2016 Median Income by Census Tract ....................................................... 20
City of Plymouth Residential Parcels by Total Assessed Parcel Value ................................... 52
City of Plymouth Residential Parcels by Year Built................................................................ 53
City of Plymouth Residential Parcels Homesteaded.............................................................. 54
Plymouth GO Rental Housing Developments........................................................................ 83
Plymouth GO Multifamily Rental Housing Units by Census Tract ......................................... 91
Plymouth Senior Housing Developments.............................................................................. 101
Page 10
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title
Page
D1.
Population and Household Growth Trends and Projections, Plymouth Analysis
Area, 1990 to 2040........................................................................................................
7
D2.
Population Age Distribution, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2000 to 2022 ..........................
10
D3.
Household Income by Age of Householder, City of Plymouth, 2017 & 2022 ...............
14
D4.
Net worth by Age of Householder, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2017 ..............................
17
D5.
Tenure by Household Income, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2015 .....................................
18
D6.
Tenure by Age of Householder, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2000 - 2015 ........................
22
D7.
Household Type, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2010 & 2015 ..............................................
24
D8.
Tenure by Household Size, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2010 & 2015 ..............................
25
D9.
Population Distribution by Race, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2010 and 2015 .................
27
D10.
Mobility Estimate in the Past Year by Age for Current Residence, Plymouth, 2015....
28
D11.
Demographic Comparison, Plymouth Analysis Area ....................................................
29
E1. Employment Growth Trends & Projections, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2000-2040 ...... 32
E2. Annual Average Resident Employment, Plymouth MN, 2000 to 2017 ........................ 34
E3. Covered Employment Trends, Plymouth MN, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016 ............. 35
E4. Employment by Earnings, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2014 ............................................ 36
E5. Employment by Educational Attainment, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2014 ................... 36
E6. Business Summary - by NAICS Code, Plymouth MN, 2017 .......................................... 37
E7. Plymouth Commuting Patterns, 2014.......................................................................... 39
E8. Commuting Inflow/Outflow, Plymouth, 2014.............................................................. 40
E9. Major Employers, City of Plymouth, 2017.................................................................... 42
HC1. Residential Construction Building Permitted Units Issued, City of Plymouth, per
Metropolitan Council, 2000 to 2016............................................................................. 45
HC2. Residential Construction Building Permits Issued, City of Plymouth, 2000 to 2016.... 46
HC3. Age of Housing Stock, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2015 .................................................. 48
HC4. Housing Units by Structure & Tenure, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2015 ......................... 49
HCS. Owner -Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2015. 50
HC6. Housing Units by Occupancy Status & Tenure, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2015 ........... 51
HC7. Renter -Occupied Units by Contract Rent, Plymouth Analysis Area, 2015 ................... 55
HCB. Housing Characteristics Comparison, Plymouth Analysis Area . ................................... 56
HA1. MHFA/HUD Income and Rent Limits, Hennepin County, 2017 .................................... 58
HA2. Maximum Rent Based on Household Size and Area Median Income,
HennepinCounty, 2017................................................................................................ 59
HA3. Housing Cost Burden, Plymouth, Twin City MSA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, 2015 61
HA4. Housing Affordability Expiration Date, City of Plymouth ............................................. 63
HAS. Plymouth Housing Affordability - Based on Household Income, City of Plymouth..... 65
R1. Average Rents/Vacancies Trends, Plymouth, 4t" Quarter 2007-2016 .......................... 67
Page 11
R2. Bedrooms by Gross Rent, Renter -Occupied Housing Units, Plymouth, 2015 .............. 69
R3. General Occupancy Rental Developments Year Built, Plymouth, August 2017........... 71
R4. Select General Occupancy Rental Developments Survey, Plymouth, August 2017..... 74
R5. Surveyed Unit Type Summary, Plymouth, September 2017 ........................................ 80
R6. Maximum Rent Based on Household Size and Area Median Income, Hennepin County,
2017.............................................................................................................................. 86
R7. Multifamily Market Rate Rental Developments, Naturally Occurring Rental Housing, City of
Plymouth, August 2017................................................................................................. 87
R8. Multifamily Market Rate Rental Developments, Natural Occurring Summary, Plymouth,
August2017.................................................................................................................. 90
S1. Senior Housing Projects, Plymouth, September 2017 .................................................. 96
S2. Surveyed Unit Type Summary, Senior Housing Developments, September 2017....... 98
S3. Senior Housing Comparison, Plymouth Analysis Area .................................................. 102
S4. Senior Housing Comparison, Plymouth Analysis Area .................................................. 103
HD1. Rental Housing Demand, City of Plymouth, 2017 to 2030 ........................................... 110
HD2. Market Rate Active Adult Housing Demand, City of Plymouth, 2017 and 2030.......... 112
HD3. Deep-Subsidy/Shallow Subsidy Independent Housing Demand, City of Plymouth, 2017
and2030....................................................................................................................... 114
HD4. Market Rate Congregate Rental Housing Demand, Plymouth, 2017 and 2030........... 115
HDS. Market Rate Assisted Living Demand, Plymouth, 2017 and 2030 ................................ 118
HD6. Market Rate Memory Care Demand, Plymouth, 2017 and 2030 ................................. 120
CRI. Summary of Housing Demand, City of Plymouth, September 2017 ............................ 121
CR2. Recommended Housing Development, Plymouth, 2017 to 2030 ................................ 123
Page 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope of Study
Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC (i.e. "Maxfield Research") was engaged by the City of
Plymouth HRA to conduct a Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study for the City of Plym-
outh. The Housing Market Study provides recommendations on the amount and types of rental
housing that should be developed in order to meet the needs of current and future households
who choose to reside in Plymouth.
The scope of this study includes: an analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics
of the City; a review of the characteristics of the existing housing stock, building permit trends,
and residential land supply; an analysis of the market condition for a variety of rental and for -
sale housing products; and an assessment of the need for housing by product type in the City.
Recommendations on the number and types of housing products that should be considered in
the City are also supplied.
Demographic Analysis
• As of the 2010 Census, the City of Plymouth had 70,576 people and 29,982 households. The
City of Plymouth is forecast to grow by 8,424 people and 2,418 households between 2010
and 2020 and by another 5,000 people and 2,100 households between 2020 and 2030.
• From 2017 to 2022, growth is expected in all ages except in those ages 18 to 24 and in 45
to 54 year olds. The 65 to 74 age cohorts are projected to have the greatest numeric
growth increasing by 1,809 people, while the 75 to 84 age cohort is projected to have the
greatest percentage growth in Plymouth increasing by 32% between 2017 and 2022.
• The City of Plymouth had an estimated median household income of $96,274 in 2017. Non -
senior household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age group at $124,490. The median
income for seniors age 65 to 74 is $84,386 and for 75+ is $45,545.
• Between 2000 and 2015, homeownership rates decreased from 76.5% to 71.4% in the City
of Plymouth. The decline was a result of lender -mediated properties during the Great Re-
cession and the rental housing market that is currently booming in Plymouth.
• Married without children households accounted for the highest household type percentage
in 2015 at 33.3%. However, living alone is the second largest household type accounting for
about 26% of households in Plymouth.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employment Analysis
Plymouth and Hennepin County had an unemployment rate of 3.1% and 3.4% respectively
in June 2017, which is lower than the State of Minnesota (4.1%).
According to Employer -Household Dynamics data from the U.S. Census Bureau there are
roughly 50,551 workers in Plymouth in 2014, 9.9% live in Plymouth. Most other workers are
commuting from Minneapolis (7.4%), Maple Grove (5.9%) and Brooklyn Park (4.3%). Plym-
outh is considered a major importer of works as over 90% of the employees working in
Plymouth are from other communities.
Housing Characteristics
• Per the City of Plymouth Building Department there were 7,225 units permitted from 2000
to May 2017. In 2009 (the peak of the recession), Plymouth observed the fewest building
permits issued at 75, but has averaged building permits for 299 units per year since 2007.
• Nearly one-half of Plymouth's renter -occupied housing were constructed in the 1970s and
1980s (47%), while 22% of Plymouth's renter -occupied housing stock was built since 2000.
• Approximately 70% of Plymouth homeowners have a mortgage compared to 73% of Henne-
pin County and 73% of the metro area. About 17% of homeowners with mortgages also
have a second mortgage or home equity loan.
• The median estimated home value in Plymouth was roughly $331,263 in 2017. The income
required to afford a home at this price would be about $94,646 to $110,421 based on the
standard of 3.0 to 3.5 times the median income (and assuming these households do not
have a high level of debt). About 64% of non -senior households in Plymouth have incomes
of $94,646 or more in 2017.
The median contract rent in Plymouth was $1,057 in 2015. Based on a 30% allocation of in-
come to housing, a household would need an income of about $42,280 to afford the me-
dian contract rent in Plymouth.
Rental Housing Market Analysis
In total, Maxfield Research inventoried 6,972 general occupancy rental units in Plymouth
spread across 44 multifamily developments. At the time of the survey, there were 115 va-
cant units resulting in an overall vacancy rate of 1.6%. Typically, a healthy rental market
maintains a vacancy rate of roughly 5%, which promotes competitive rates, ensures ade-
quate consumer choice, and allows for unit turnover.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Market rate projects make-up 6,372 units and a total of 115 unit vacancies were found, re-
sulting in a market rate rental project vacancy rate of 1.8%.
• Affordable/subsidized projects make-up 600 units and posted no vacant units.
Senior Housing Market Analysis
• There are eight senior housing developments located in the Plymouth with a total of 914
units. There were 23 vacancies identified within the housing developments posting an over-
all vacancy rate of 2.5%. Generally, healthy senior housing vacancy rates range from 5% to
7% depending on service level.
Housing Demand Analysis
• Based on our calculations, demand exists in the City of Plymouth for the following general
occupancy product types between 2017 and 2030:
o Market rate rental 972 units
o Affordable rental 408 units
o Subsidized rental 188 units
• In addition, we find demand for multiple senior housing product types. By 2030, demand in
the Plymouth Market Area for senior housing is forecast for the following:
o Active adult ownership 308 units
o Active adult rental 262 units
o Active adult affordable 234 units
o Active adult subsidized 227 units
o Congregate 457 units
o Assisted Living 234 units
o Memory care 279 units
Recommendations and Conclusions
• Based on the finding of our analysis and demand calculations, the following chart provides a
summary of the recommended development concepts by product type for the City of Plym-
outh through 2030. Detailed findings are described in the Recommendations section of the
report.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 3
Page 15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 16
RECOMMENDED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 to 2030
No. of
No. of
No. of
Purchase Price/
Units
Units
Units
Monthly Rent Range'
2017-2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
Total
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Market Rate Rental Housing
Apartment -style
$1,000/1613 - $2,800/3BR
280 -300
180 -200
350 -400
810 -900
Townhomes
$2,300/2BR - $2,700/3BR
50 -60
40-50
30 -40
120 -150
Total
330-360
220-250
380-440
930-1,050
Affordable Rental Housing
Apartment -style
Moderate Income'
130-140
100 -120
130 -140
360 -400
Subsidized
30% of Income
50 -60
50 -60
50 -60
150 -180
Total
180-200
150-180
180-200
510-580
Total Renter -Occupied
510-560
370-430
560-640
1,440 - 1,630
Senior Housing (i.e. Age Restricted)
Senior Coop./Ownership Active Adult
$50,000 - $200,000+
60 -70
80 -90
90 -100
230 -260
Active Adult Market Rate Rentals
$1,400/1BR - $2,700/2BR
70 -80
90 -100
80 -90
240 -270
Active Adult Affordable Rentals
Moderate Income
80 -90
60 -70
80 -90
220 -250
Active Adult Subsidized Rentals
30% of Income
50 -60
50 -60
80 -90
180 -210
Independent Living/Congregate
$2,050/1BR - $4,000/2BR
120 -130
140 -150
150 -160
410 -440
Assisted Living
$3,750/EFF - $5,300/2BR
50 -60
70 -80
100 -110
220 -250
Memory Care
$2,900/EFF - $6,000/2613
60 -70
70 -80
90 -100
220 -250
Total Senior Units
490-560
560-630
670-740
1,720 - 1,930
Total - All Units
1,000 - 1,120
930- 1,060
1,230 - 1,380
3,160 - 3,560
' Pricing in 2017 dollars. Pricing can be adjusted to account
for inflation.
z Replacement need, infill, and redevelopment.
3 Affordablity subject to income guidelines per Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). See
Table HA -1 for Hennepin
County Income limits.
4Subsized housing will be difficult to develop financially
5Alternative development concept is to combine active adult affordable and market rate active adult into mixed -income senior community
Note - Recommended development does not coincide with total demand. Plymouth may not
be able to accommodate all recommended
housing types based on land
availability and development constraints.
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Page 16
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
This section of the report examines factors related to the current and future demand for
owner- and renter -occupied housing units in Plymouth, Minnesota. It includes an analysis of
population and household growth trends and projections, projected age distribution, house-
hold income, net worth, household types, household tenure, diversity, and mobility trends. A
review of these characteristics provides insight into the demand for various types of housing in
the City of Plymouth.
Population and Household Growth Trends and Projections from 1990 to 2040
Table D-1 presents population and household growth trends and projections from 1990 to
2040. The 1990 to 2010 data is from the U.S. Census. Estimate and projection data is calcu-
lated from the Metropolitan Council; ESRI (a national demographics service provider); with ad-
justments calculated by Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC. The adjustments are intended
to reflect growth that will likely be realized after considering the impact of the current housing
market, employment, and review of building permit trends.
Population
• The City of Plymouth's population grew by 4,682 people (+7.1%) between 2000 and 2010.
During this same period Hennepin County grew by +3.2% and the 7 -County Metro Area
grew by 7.9%.
• In 2010, The City of Plymouth included roughly 6.1% of the total population in Hennepin
County.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 5
Page 17
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
• Maxfield Research projects that Plymouth will have an increase in its population by 8,424
people (+11.9%) between 2010 and 2020.
• We project that between 2020 and 2040, Plymouth will increase by approximately 6,100
people (+7.7%).
Population Trends
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000 -
50,000 -
40,000
30,000 -
20,000 -
10,000
0
2000 2010 2017 2020 2030 2040
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 6
Page 18
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
TABLE D-1
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
1990 to 2040
Change
1990 2000 2010 2017 2020 2022 2030 2040 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.
Plymouth 50,889 65,894 70,576 76,150 79,000 80,600 84,000 85,100 4,682 7.1 8,424 11.9 6,100 7.7
Hennepin County 1,032,431 1,116,200 1,152,425 1,200,862 1,221,620 1,243,336 1,330,200 1,405,060 36,225 3.2 69,195 6.0 183,440 15.0
7 -County Metro Area 2,288,729 2,642,056 2,849,567 2,979,370 3,035,000 3,084,885 3,284,427 3,652,060 207,511 7.9 185,433 6.5 617,060 20.3
Plymouth 19,616 24,820 29,982 31,200 32,400 33,175 34,500 34,700 5,162 20.8 2,418 8.1 2,300 7.1
Hennepin County 419,060 456,129 475,913 512,024 527,500 535,136 565,680 600,040 19,784 4.3 89,767 18.9 72,540 13.8
7 -County Metro Area 1,032,431 1,021,454 1,117,749 1,214,931 1,256,580 1,280,958 1,378,470 1,491,780 96,295 9.4 138,831 12.4 235,200 18.7
Note: Hennepin County and Metro Area totals sourced to Metropolitan Council (2020 to 2040).
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 7
Page 19
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Households
• Household growth trends are typically a more accurate indicator of housing needs than
population growth since a household is, by definition, an occupied housing unit. However,
additional demand can come from changing demographics of the population base, which
results in demand for different housing products.
• Plymouth gained 5,162 households during the 2000s (an increase of +20.8%), increasing its
household base to 29,982 households as of 2010.
• Maxfield Research projects household growth in Plymouth to increase by 2,418 households
(+8.1%) between 2010 and 2020. Overall, we project Plymouth to increase to 34,700
households by 2040.
Household Trends
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000 - - - -
0
2000 2010 2017 2020 2030 2040
Persons Per Household (Household Size)
Household size is calculated by dividing the number of persons in households by the number of
households (or householders). Nationally, the average number of people per household has
been declining for over a century; however, there have been sharp declines starting in the
1960s and 1970s. Persons per household in the U.S. were about 4.5 in 1916 and declined to 3.2
in the 1960s. Over the past 50 years, it dropped to 2.57 as of the 2000 Census. However, due
to the economic recession this trend has been temporarily halted as renters and laid -off em-
ployees "doubled -up," which increased the average U.S. household size to 2.59 as of the 2010
Census.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 8
Page 20
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The declining household size has been caused by many factors, including: aging of the popula-
tion, higher divorce rates, cohabitation, smaller family sizes, demographic trends in marriage,
etc. Most of these changes have resulted from shifts in societal values, the economy, and im-
provements in health care that have influenced how people organize their lives.
In 2000, the average household size range increased between 2.65 (City of Plymouth) and
2.45 (Hennepin County).
• By 2017, it is estimated that the average household sizes range decreased to 2.44 in Plym-
outh and 2.35 in Hennepin County. The average household size in the seven -county metro
area nearly mimics that of the City of Plymouth at 2.45 persons per household.
Persons Per Household
2.70
2.60
2.50
x
= 2.40 — —
a
M
c 2.30 i-
0
2.20 —
v
a
2.10 -
2.00
1.90
1990 2000 2010 2017
■ Plymouth ■ Hennepin Co. Metro Area
Age Distribution Trends
Age distribution affects demand for different types of housing since needs and desires change
at different stages of the life cycle. Table D-2 shows the distribution of persons within nine age
cohorts for Plymouth, Hennepin County, and the Metro Area in 2000 and 2010 with estimates
for 2017 and projections for 2022. The 2000 and 2010 age distributions are from the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau and the 2017 and 2022 figures are estimates based on 2017 ESRI data. The following
are key points from the table.
• In Plymouth between 2000 and 2010, growth occurred in all age cohorts except those under
the age of 18 and the 35 to 44 age cohort. The majority of the growth occurred in those be-
tween the ages of 45 to 84.
• The City of Plymouth's population of 18 to 34 year olds, which consists primarily of renters
and first-time homebuyers, decreased by (-1.5%) between 2000 and 2010, but is expected
to increase by 445 people (+1.4%) between 2017 and 2022.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 9
Page 21
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 10
Page 22
TABLE D-2
POPULATION
AGE DISTRIBUTION
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2000 to 2022
Census
Estimate
Projection
Change
2000
2010
2017
2022
2000-2010
2017 2022
Age
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
Plymouth
Under 18
17,866
16,872
17,280
17,572
-994
-5.6
292
1.7
18 to 24
4,869
4,893
5,346
5,148
24
0.5
-198
-3.7
25 to 34
9,068
9,566
9,761
10,111
498
5.5
350
3.6
35 to 44
12,647
9,522
10,108
11,339
-3,125
-24.7
1,231
12.2
45 to 54
10,622
11,899
10,662
10,338
1,277
12.0
-324
-3.0
55 to 64
5,835
9,307
11,142
11,146
3,472
59.5
4
0.0
65 to 74
3,162
4,922
7,208
9,017
1,760
55.7
1,809
25.1
75 to 84
1,517
2,666
3,367
4,435
1,149
75.7
1,068
31.7
85 and over
308
929
1,277
1,495
621
201.6
217
17.0
Total
65,894
70,576
76,150
80,600
4,682
7.1
4,450
5.8
Hennepin County
Under 18
267,502
261,345
271,024
273,071
-6,157
-2.3
2,047
0.8
18 to 24
108,767
113,551
107,328
106,308
4,784
4.4
-1,020
-1.0
25 to 34
183,860
187,523
184,257
188,290
3,663
2.0
4,033
2.2
35 to 44
191,872
154,304
158,247
168,823
-37,568
-19.6
10,576
6.7
45 to 54
156,068
171,130
155,489
148,085
15,062
9.7
-7,403
-4.8
55 to 64
85,773
133,758
154,813
154,929
47,985
55.9
117
0.1
65 to 74
59,737
66,516
97,436
118,501
6,779
11.3
21,066
21.6
75 to 84
44,942
42,476
46,489
58,608
-2,466
-5.5
12,119
26.1
85 and over
17,679
21,822
25,778
26,720
4,143
23.4
941
3.7
Total
1,116,200
1,152,425
1,200,862
1,243,336
36,225
3.2
42,474
3.5
Metro Area
Under 18
697,534
700,960
715,248
722,852
3,426
0.5
7,604
1.1
18 to 24
244,226
263,462
248,229
239,719
19,236
7.9
-8,510
-3.4
25 to 34
411,155
420,311
430,515
441,179
9,156
2.2
10,663
2.5
35 to 44
469,324
391,324
394,459
427,843
-78,000
-16.6
33,385
8.5
45 to 54
363,592
440,753
401,611
375,721
77,161
21.2
-25,890
-6.4
55 to 64
200,980
326,007
386,615
391,102
125,027
62.2
4,487
1.2
65 to 74
130,615
163,425
239,535
291,236
32,810
25.1
51,701
21.6
75 to 84
90,292
97,442
108,833
138,681
7,150
7.9
29,848
27.4
85 and over
34,338
45,883
54,326
56,553
11,545
33.6
2,227
4.1
Total
2,642,056
2,849,567
2,979,370
3,084,885
207,511
7.9
105,515
3.5
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 10
Page 22
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
• The senior age cohorts are projected to have the greatest percentage growth. The 75 to 84
age cohort is forecast to increasing by 1,068 people (+31.7%) in Plymouth between 2017
and 2022. The growth in the senior age cohorts can be primarily attributed to the baby
boom generation aging into their senior years.
• The social changes that occurred with the aging of the baby boom generation, such as
higher divorce rates, higher levels of education, and lower birth rates has led to a greater
variety of lifestyles than existed in the past — not only among baby boomers, but also
among their parents and children. The increased variety of lifestyles has also fueled de-
mand for alternative housing products to single-family homes. Seniors, in particular, and
middle-aged persons tend to do more traveling and participate in more activities than previ-
ous generations, and they increasingly prefer maintenance -free housing that enables them
to spend more time on activities outside the home.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 11
Page 23
Population Age Distribution
City of Plymouth
2000, 2010, & 2022
20,000
■ 2000
18,000
■ 2010
16,000
-
■ 2022
14,000
o
12,000
L
w
10,000
o
n' m .1
Z
8,000
�
o r,
o
6,000
—
— —
4,000
— �
— — — —
2,000
_
—'Ili
`^
00 01
0
W
0
Under 18 18 to 24
25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64
65 to 74 75 to 84
85 and
over
Age Group
• The senior age cohorts are projected to have the greatest percentage growth. The 75 to 84
age cohort is forecast to increasing by 1,068 people (+31.7%) in Plymouth between 2017
and 2022. The growth in the senior age cohorts can be primarily attributed to the baby
boom generation aging into their senior years.
• The social changes that occurred with the aging of the baby boom generation, such as
higher divorce rates, higher levels of education, and lower birth rates has led to a greater
variety of lifestyles than existed in the past — not only among baby boomers, but also
among their parents and children. The increased variety of lifestyles has also fueled de-
mand for alternative housing products to single-family homes. Seniors, in particular, and
middle-aged persons tend to do more traveling and participate in more activities than previ-
ous generations, and they increasingly prefer maintenance -free housing that enables them
to spend more time on activities outside the home.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 11
Page 23
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Household Income by Age of Householder
The estimated distribution of household incomes in Plymouth for 2017 and 2022 are shown in
Table D-3. The data was estimated by Maxfield Research based on income trends provided by
ESRL The data helps ascertain the demand for different housing products based on the size of
the market at specific cost levels.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing costs as 30% of
a household's adjusted gross income. For example, a household in Plymouth with the median
income of $96,274 per year would be able to afford a monthly housing cost of about $2,407.
Maxfield Research uses a figure of 25% to 30% for younger households and 40% or more for
seniors, since seniors generally have lower living expenses and can often sell their homes and
use the proceeds toward rent payments.
A generally accepted standard for affordable owner -occupied housing is that a typical house-
hold can afford to pay 3.0 to 3.5 times their annual income on a single-family home. Thus, a
$96,274 income would translate to an affordable single-family home of $288,822 to $336959.
The higher end of this range assumes that the person has adequate funds for down payment
and closing costs, but does not include savings or equity in an existing home which would allow
them to purchase a higher priced home.
• Plymouth has an estimated median household income of $96,274 in 2017 and is expected
to increase over the next five years to $104,687 in 2022 (+8.7%).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 12
Page 24
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
■ 2017
7,000
6,000
1,000
A
Growth and Income Trends by Age of Householder
City of Plymouth: 2017 and 2022
■ 2022 ♦ 2017 Median Income
$124,490
$1 73 ♦ 64
r A
$84,386
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age of Householder
Median Household Income, 2017
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000 —
$60,000 —
$40,000 —
$20,000 - —
$0
Under25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
■ Plymouth ■ Hennepin Co. Metro Area
$140,000
5,000
$120,000
0
v
4,000
0
E
0
3,000 $49,553
$80,000
o
c
m
z
2,000
1,000
A
Growth and Income Trends by Age of Householder
City of Plymouth: 2017 and 2022
■ 2022 ♦ 2017 Median Income
$124,490
$1 73 ♦ 64
r A
$84,386
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age of Householder
Median Household Income, 2017
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000 —
$60,000 —
$40,000 —
$20,000 - —
$0
Under25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
■ Plymouth ■ Hennepin Co. Metro Area
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
E
0
$80,000
c
m
$60,000
$40,000
n
N
$20,000
$0
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 13
Page 25
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Non -Senior Households
In 2017, 3.1% of non -senior (under age 65) households in Plymouth had incomes under
$15,000 (736 households). All of these households would be eligible for deep -subsidy rental
housing. Another 3.8% of Plymouth's non -senior households had incomes between
$15,000 and $24,999 (894 households). Many of these households would qualify for deep -
subsidy housing, but many could also afford shallow -subsidy or older market rate rentals. If
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 14
Page 26
TABLE D-3
HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
(Number of Households)
2017 and
2022
Age
of Householder
Total
Under 25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
2017
Less than $15,000
1,244
85
166
116
124
244
191
316
$15,000 to $24,999
1,659
122
229
179
144
219
319
446
$25,000 to $34,999
1,674
109
308
236
188
240
234
358
$35,000 to $49,999
2,909
161
546
425
370
405
417
587
$50,000 to $74,999
4,536
200
824
692
681
727
740
671
$75,000 to $99,999
4,061
123
813
783
667
802
650
222
$100,000 to $149,999
6,206
81
967
1,206
1,384
1,445
849
273
$150,000 to $199,999
3,775
42
482
888
1,018
853
396
96
$200,000+
5,135
24
377
1,060
1,420
1,493
588
174
Total
31,200
948
4,713
5,585
5,997
6,429
4,384
3,144
Median Income
$96,274
$49,553
$81,931
$110,773
$124,490
$114,964
$84,386
$45,545
2022
Less than $15,000
1,293
81
169
127
98
217
220
381
$15,000 to $24,999
1,626
120
205
152
113
176
337
522
$25,000 to $34,999
1,574
103
274
216
140
191
246
405
$35,000 to $49,999
2,718
157
474
373
291
328
433
662
$50,000 to $74,999
4,196
191
724
630
515
591
765
779
$75,000 to $99,999
4,177
144
818
812
597
742
777
287
$100,000 to $149,999
7,142
101
1,098
1,446
1,417
1,511
1,144
425
$150,000 to $199,999
4,408
51
571
1,081
1,054
925
570
158
$200,000+
6,041
29
466
1,304
1,484
1,607
873
277
Total
33,175
977
4,799
6,141
5,710
6,286
5,364
3,896
Median Income
$104,687
$52,440
$90,152
$120,824
$134,719
$124,353
$96,123
$49,326
Change - 2017 to 2022
Less than $15,000
49
-4
3
11
-26
-28
28
65
$15,000 to $24,999
-33
-2
-24
-27
-31
-43
17
76
$25,000 to $34,999
-100
-6
-34
-21
-49
-49
12
47
$35,000 to $49,999
-192
-4
-72
-51
-78
-77
16
75
$50,000 to $74,999
-340
-9
-100
-62
-166
-136
25
108
$75,000 to $99,999
116
20
4
29
-70
-61
127
65
$100,000 to $149,999
936
20
130
240
33
65
295
152
$150,000 to $199,999
633
9
89
192
36
72
174
62
$200,000+
906
5
90
245
64
114
285
103
Total
1,975
29
86
556
-286
-143
980
753
Median Income
$8,413
$2,887
$8,221
$10,051
$10,229
$9,389
$11,737
$3,781
Sources: ESRI; Maxfield
Research and Consulting LLC
Non -Senior Households
In 2017, 3.1% of non -senior (under age 65) households in Plymouth had incomes under
$15,000 (736 households). All of these households would be eligible for deep -subsidy rental
housing. Another 3.8% of Plymouth's non -senior households had incomes between
$15,000 and $24,999 (894 households). Many of these households would qualify for deep -
subsidy housing, but many could also afford shallow -subsidy or older market rate rentals. If
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 14
Page 26
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
housing costs absorb 30% of income, households with incomes of $15,000 to $24,999 could
afford to pay $375 to $625 per month.
In most geographic areas, household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age group and
that group is usually considered to be in their peak earning years. In 2017, the median
household income in Plymouth was highest in the 45 to 54 age group at $124,490. The 35
to 44 age group has a median income of $110,773 in 2017. By 2022, the median income for
the 35 to 44 and the 45 to 54 age groups are projected to increase to $120,824 (9.1%) and
$134,719 (8.2%) respectively. The 55 to 64 age group is projected to increase from
$114,964 to 124,353 (+8.2%) by 2022.
• The median estimated home value in Plymouth was roughly $331,263 2017. The income
required to afford a home at this price would be about $94,646 to $110,421 based on the
standard of 3.0 to 3.5 times the median income (and assuming these households do not
have a high level of debt). About 64% of non -senior households in Plymouth have incomes
of $94,646 or more in 2017.
• Incomes are expected to increase by 8.7% between 2017 and 2022 in Plymouth. This
equates to an increase of 1.7% annually.
Senior Households
• The oldest householders have lower incomes in 2017. In Plymouth, 4.4% of households
ages 65 to 74 had incomes below $15,000, compared to 10.1% of households ages 75 and
over. Many of these low-income older senior households rely solely on social security bene-
fits. Typically, younger seniors have higher incomes due to the fact they are still able to
work or are married couples with two pensions or higher social security benefits. The 2017
median income for Plymouth householders age 65 to 74 and 75+ are $84,386 and $45,545,
respectively.
Generally, senior households with incomes greater than $25,000 will be able to afford mar-
ket rate senior housing in Plymouth. Based on a 40% allocation of income for housing, this
translates to monthly rents of at least $833. About 6,255 senior households in Plymouth
(83% of senior households) have incomes above $25,000 in 2017.
• The median income for seniors age 65+ in Plymouth is $64,965 in 2017. It is projected to
increase by $7,760 (11.9%) to $72,724 by 2022.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 15
Page 27
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Net Worth
Table D-4 shows household net worth in the Plymouth in 2017. Simply stated, net worth is the
difference between assets and liabilities, or the total value of assets after the debt is sub-
tracted. The data was compiled and estimated by ESRI based on the Survey of Consumer Fi-
nances and Federal Reserve Board data.
According to data released by the National Association of Realtors, the average American
homeowner has a net worth about 31 to 46 times greater than that of a renter and that in 2016
the average American homeowner net worth is estimated at 44 times greater than that of a
renter. The Federal Reserve survey is conducted every three years and this research was based
on the 2016 Federal Reserve survey that showed the median net worth of a homeowner was
$231,400, whereas the median net worth of a renter was $5,200.
• Plymouth had a median net worth of $300,121. Median net worth is generally a more accu-
rate depiction of wealth than the average figure. A few households with very large net
worth can significantly skew the average.
Similar to household income, net worth increases as households age and decreases after
they pass their peak earning years and move into retirement. Median and average net
worth usually peak in the 65 to 74 age cohort. The median net worth in the Plymouth for
age cohorts 45+ was $250,001 in 2017. Senior households usually have higher net worth
due to their saving investments, and other retirement funds.
• Households often delay purchasing homes and instead choose to rent until they acquire suf-
ficient assets to cover the costs of a down payment and closing costs associated with home
ownership. Lending has recently become slightly easier for obtaining mortgages making
mortgages with little or no down payments easier to obtain in today's mortgage lending en-
vironment than it has been the past year.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 16
Page 28
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 17
Page 29
TABLE D-4
NET WORTH
BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
PLYMOUTH
ANALYSIS AREA
2017
Age of Householder
Total
Under 25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Less than $15,000
4,467
569
1,639
845
522
457
187
248
$15,000 to $34,999
1,659
174
647
384
207
137
35
75
$35,000 to $49,999
921
65
274
256
126
111
54
35
$50,000 to $99,999
2,529
48
544
763
414
303
225
232
$100,000 to $149,999
1,887
21
312
430
333
285
296
210
$150,000 to $249,999
2,774
39
417
491
519
519
344
445
$250,000 or more
16,917
29
875
2,408
3,866
4,608
3,238
1,893
Subtotal
31,154
945
4,708
5,577
5,987
6,420
4,379
3,138
Median Net Worth
$300,121
$12,456
$38,090
$166,936
$250,001
$250,001
$250,001
$250,001
Average Net Worth
$1,131,424
$47,550
$200,338
$955,295
$1,206,892
$1,638,739
$1,853,387
$977,683
Less than $15,000
132,117
19,322
Hennepin
43,495
County
24,521
17,113
14,620
6,359
6,687
$15,000 to $34,999
34,398
2,952
11,846
7,426
5,022
3,770
1,460
1,922
$35,000 to $49,999
17,939
826
5,123
4,732
2,584
2,329
1,587
758
$50,000 to $99,999
47,217
984
10,944
12,291
7,946
6,303
4,382
4,367
$100,000 to $149,999
31,797
380
5,725
6,680
5,433
5,159
4,638
3,782
$150,000 to $249,999
47,720
506
6,567
8,915
8,923
9,301
6,165
7,343
$250,000 or more
200,417
466
10,094
26,211
45,420
54,365
38,338
25,523
Subtotal
511,605
25,436
93,794
90,776
92,441
95,847
62,929
50,382
Median Net Worth
$135,412
$9,873
$18,709
$80,165
$237,865
$250,001
$250,001
$250,001
Average Net Worth
$762,132
$32,697
$123,008
$574,227
$863,354
$1,221,915
$1,415,366
$782,457
Less than $15,000
258,474
33,663
82,288
48,562
35,172
30,573
13,515
14,701
$15,000 to $34,999
73,876
6,326
24,863
16,292
10,749
8,282
3,000
4,364
$35,000 to $49,999
40,005
1,932
10,851
10,746
5,829
5,349
3,540
1,758
$50,000 to $99,999
114,601
2,829
27,811
29,767
19,004
14,762
10,392
10,036
$100,000 to $149,999
80,910
1,038
16,128
17,249
13,746
12,508
11,717
8,524
$150,000 to $249,999
124,765
1,269
18,267
25,466
24,231
23,335
15,213
16,984
$250,000 or more
505,472
1,026
25,484
69,833
122,953
137,329
93,804
55,043
Total
1,198,103
48,083
205,692
217,915
231,684
232,138
151,181
111,410
Median Net Worth
$168,704
$10,713
$29,794
$108,223
$250,001
$250,001
$250,001
$244,387
Average Net Worth
$773,328
$37,913
$138,556
$577,985
$872,106
$1,209,626
$1,376,580
$711,663
Sources: ESRI; Maxfield
Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 17
Page 29
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Median Net Worth by Age of Householder, 2017
$300000
,
$250,000
s $200,000
L
� $150,000
v
Z $100,000
$50,000
$0
Under25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age
Tenure by Household Income
Table D-5 shows household tenure by income for Plymouth in 2015. Data is an estimate from
the American Community Survey. Household tenure information is important to assess the
propensity for owner -occupied or renter -occupied housing options based on household afford-
ability. As stated earlier, the Department of Housing and Urban Development determines af-
fordable housing as not exceeding 30% of the household's income. The higher the income, the
lower percentage a household typically allocates to housing. Many lower income households,
as well as many young and senior households spend more than 30% of their income, while mid-
dle-aged households in their prime earning years typically allocate 20% to 25% of their income.
• Typically, as income increases, so does the rate of homeownership. This can be seen in the
Plymouth, where the homeownership rate increases from 33.3% of households with in-
comes below $15,000 to 89.6% of households with incomes above $100,000.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 18
Page 30
TABLE D-5
TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2015
City of Plymouth
Hennepin County
Metro Area
Own
Rent
Own
Rent
Own
Rent
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No. Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
Less than $15,000
499
33.3
1,000
66.7
11,286 23.0
37,812
77.0
26,809
41.5
37,812
58.5
$15,000 to $24,999
1054
55.4
847
44.6
14,948 36.4
26,089
63.6
35,265
57.5
26,089
42.5
$25,000 to $34,999
1,136
56.6
871
43.4
17,827 44.0
22,701
56.0
44,018
66.0
22,701
34.0
$35,000 to $49,999
1,761
55.9
1,388
44.1
30,782 52.4
27,952
47.6
78,573
73.8
27,952
26.2
$50,000 to $74,999
2,702
56.5
2,081
43.5
51,925 62.3
31,379
37.7
139,502
81.6
31,379
18.4
$75,000 to $99,999
2,780
71.4
1,116
28.6
46,933 73.6
16,859
26.4
128,280
88.4
16,859
11.6
$100,000+
11,680
89.6
1,352
10.4
133,694 87.0
20,009
13.0
332,965
94.3
20,009
5.7
Total
21,612
71.4
8,655
28.6
1 307,395 62.7
182,801
37.3
1 785,412
81.1
182,801
18.9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau;
American Community Survey;
Maxfield Research
& Copnsulting, LLC
• Typically, as income increases, so does the rate of homeownership. This can be seen in the
Plymouth, where the homeownership rate increases from 33.3% of households with in-
comes below $15,000 to 89.6% of households with incomes above $100,000.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 18
Page 30
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
• A portion of renter households that are referred to as lifestyle renters, or those who are fi-
nancially -able to own but choose to rent, have household incomes of $50,000 or more
(about 53% of the Plymouth's renters in 2015). Households with incomes below $15,000
are typically a market for deep subsidy rental housing (about 11% of the Plymouth's renters
in 2015).
Median Household Income by Census Tract
The map on the following page shows median household income by census tract in Plymouth in
2016. Geographic Information System (GIS) data was provided through ESRI, a national de-
mographics and GIS service provider. Below are key points from the map.
Census tracts with the highest median income tend to be located on the west and north
sides of Plymouth. Median incomes in Plymouth ranged from $146,581 on the high end to
$55,838 on the low end.
Within the central section of the city and in two census tracts bordering US -Hwy 169, on the
eastside of Plymouth, are the areas with the lowest median incomes. These three tracts all
had median incomes below $65,000 in 2016.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 19
Page 31
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
'F' Ilackdrr cEe F'cl --`
n Meana
Go x s
Country
a Club
H.rrn
L.akn I
Pik
Vh
S
'5%dl0
gbirla 80
3
E
z
8
$100.000.00
c
r,.
Spring Hill
G alt Club �1
S,.r"Ja rti
L u1 L.,k,
7Voo
ITrW, rtla
- fF Ceun[ry
- Club -
NFood hl 17'
`gi IIAa][flelc
IM Research & Gonsultin
2016 Median Income by Census Tract
L' ^I $52.054.00
$70,491.00
a
I
a F'ak
i"
$84,641.00
•� n [oil
i Lal. R.g.ounl Mrd AtaN r
Pad l -
- -62nd Ava N r i
¢a p m
P.
Z c
Z v
v kax
z � -
r -
m u
r I
49th Avo TJ Z
J 0
$63,835.00
New Hope � a 4G
42nu•Avedr
C+.+h�amane
Y G mvlery
$55,838.00
it rer tm�m
I pan.
m Ave N
2
d 2-1I}AVe 14 a
$75,499.00
$90,117.00 - M&lialtc Lake Rd
J
z
,lK el TF k
� I �Geo9ase, IGIJ,
_ Aapmylndia,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 20
Page 32
-
z
a m
a o
a
n
5 �
F
2 C
��
$86,816.00
2015 Median Frcame by Census Tract
OC,1,an
O 5]0.001-5100 A00
- Siaa.aoi-5130A00
L•Cei ilii
Ca
-�S 13PA41
F wL
f
�
t2
V,
TV.-1rtaRlBf]'
—rit P Cap.,
Cb, USCS:,FM. t.
Qdnanc SuNey,EsriJapen;7AET, Esri Chin6;fltrrg l{_,;.
>Wis>:: :::
Bp contributors, and the 4315 Lisa mmun6 I'•
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 20
Page 32
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Tenure by Age of Householder
Table D-6 shows the number of owner and renter households in Plymouth by age group in
2000, 2010 and 2015. This data is useful in determining demand for certain types of housing
since housing preferences change throughout an individual's life cycle. The following are key
findings from Table D-6.
• In 2000, 76.5% of all households in the Plymouth owned their housing. By 2010, that per-
centage declined to 72.4% and in 2015 it is estimated that 71.4% of all Plymouth house-
holds owned their housing.
• The housing market downturn contributed to the decrease in the homeownership rate
during the late 2000s as it became more difficult for households to secure mortgage loans,
households delayed purchasing homes due to the uncertainty of the housing market, and
foreclosures forced households out of their homes. Currently it is estimated that there is a
growing trend of lifestyle renters seeking rental properties in the Plymouth area and Metro
Area as can be seen by the growing percentage of renters.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 21
Page 33
Tenure by Age of Householder
City of Plymouth, 2015
6,000
87% 89%
100%
82% 81%
90%
5,000
67% A °
64/0
80%
4,000
70%
0
60%
4;
3,000%
50%
0
40%
_
= 2,000
30%
1,000
°
20%
1 ■ ■,
°
0
—
0%
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
■ Renters ■ Owners Homeownership Rate
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 21
Page 33
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 22
Page 34
TABLE D-6
TENURE BY
AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS
AREA
2000-2015
City of Plymouth
Hennepin County
Metro
Area
Age
No.
sir
Pct.
r
No.
i
Pct.
r
No.
Pct.
t28632
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
15-24
Own
148
13.7
95
10.1
44
7.6
11.8
2,790
10.9
1,458
6.S
9,790
17.3
7,947
16.0
4,963
11.6
Rent
934
86.3
843
89.9
536
92.4
88.2
22,734
89.1
19,949
93.2
46,699
82.7
41,789
84.0
37,764
88.4
Total
1,082
100.0
938
100.0
580
100.0
100.0
25,524
100.0
21,407
100.0
56,489
100.0
49,736
100.0
42,727
100.0
25-34
Own
2,269
52.0
2,003
42.5
1,839
35.9
44,563
46.9
39,850
42.3
38,814
39.0
114,071
55.5
102,236
50.6
98,991
46.7
Rent
2,092
48.0
2,714
57.5
3,283
64.1
50,435
53.1
54,312
57.7
60,755
61.0
91,342
44.5
99,716
49.4
112,759
53.3
Total
4,361
100.0
4,717
100.0
5,122
100.0
94,998
100.0
94,162
100.0
99,569
100.0
205,413
100.0
201,952
100.0
211,750
100.0
35-44
Own
5,538
81.6
3,769
71.6
3,562
67.2
79,041
72.5
57,684
66.6
54,874
62.6
203,729
77.7
154,678
72.3
143,886
68.1
Rent
1,249
18.4
1,495
28.4
1,735
32.8
29,926
27.5
28,946
33.4
32,721
37.4
58,438
22.3
59,303
27.7
67,401
31.9
Total
6,787
100.0
5,264
100.0
5,297
100.0
108,967
100.0
86,630
100.0
87,595
100.0
262,167
100.0
213,981
100.0
211,287
100.0
45-54
Own
5,267
87.8
5,557
82.4
5,220
81.6
74,037
79.7
75,651
75.4
70,987
73.9
177,090
83.1
202,404
79.8
192,198
78.4
Rent
733
12.2
1,190
17.6
1,179
18.4
18,829
20.3
24,688
24.6
25,107
26.1
36,077
16.9
51,379
20.2
52,855
21.6
Total
6,000
100.0
6,747
100.0
6,399
100.0
92,866
100.0
100,339
100.0
96,094
100.0
213,167
100.0
253,783
100.0
245,053
100.0
55-64
Own
3,136
90.5
4,742
86.6
5,205
87.3
42,671
81.9
65,466
79.5
69,927
7102,583
84.9
162,595
092.6
174,794
80.9
Rent
328
9.5
733
13.4
760
12.7
9,412
18.1
16,891
20.5
20,226
22.4
18,205
15.1
34,355
17.4
41,383
19.1
Total
3,464
100.0
5,475
100.0
5,965
100.0
52,083
100.0
82,357
100.0
90,153
100.0
120,788
100.0
196,950
100.0
216,177
100.0
65-74
Own
1,693
87.0
2,706
89.0
3,428
89.0
30,672
81.2
34,028
80.0
40,246
79.5
68,030
82.4
85,347
82.6
100,740
82.5
Rent
254
13.0
336
11.0
423
11.0
7,090
18.8
8,502
20.0
10,382
20.5
14,491
17.6
17,998
17.4
21,409
17.5
Total
1,947
100.0
3,042
100.0
3,851
100.0
37,762
100.0
42,530
100.0
50,628
100.0
82,521
100.0
103,345
100.0
122,149
100.0
75-84
Own
812
81.8 1
1,465
1 80.5
1,666
81.4
22,083
72.8
21,975
75.6
21,813
75.2
43,576
71.8
50,083
75.6
50,917
75.7
Rent
181
18.2
354
19.5
381
18.6
8,242
27.2
7,108
24.4
7,209
24.8
17,109
28.2
16,185
24.4
16,330
24.3
Total
993
100.0
1,819
100.0
100.0
30,325
100.0
29,083
100.0
29,022
100.0
60,685
100.0
66,268
100.0
67,247
100.0
85+
Own
131
70.4
419
63.4
648
5,346
50.9
8,677
56.8
9,276
59.0
10,097
49.9
17,185
54.2
18,923
56.0
Rent
55
29.6
242
36.6
358
�OO
5,150
49.1
6,611
43.2
6,452
41.0
10,127
50.1
14,549
45.8
14,841
44.0
Total
186
100.0
661
100.0
1,006
10,496
100.0
15,288
100.0
15,728
100.0
20,224
100.0
31,734
100.0
33,764
100.0
TOTAL
Own
18,994
76.5
20,756
72.4
21,612
71.4
301,793
66.2
306,121
64.3
307,395
62.7
728,966
71.4
782,475
70.0
785,412
68.3
Rent
5,826
23.5
7,907
27.6
8,655
28.6
154,336
33.8
169,792
35.7
182,801
37.3
292,488
28.6
335,274
30.0
364,742
31.7
Total
24,820
100.0
28,663
100.0
30,267
100.0
456,129
100.0
475,913
100.0
490,196
100.0
1,021,454
100.0
1,117,749
100.0
1,150,154
100.0
` 2015 data is from the American
Community Survey
Sources: U.S.
Census Bureau; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 22
Page 34
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
As households progress through their life cycle, housing needs change. The proportion of
renter households decreases significantly as households' age out of their young -adult
years. However, by the time households reach their senior years, rental housing often be-
comes a more viable option than homeownership, reducing the responsibility of mainte-
nance and a financial commitment.
• In 2015, ACS estimated that 92.4% of the Plymouth's households between the ages of 15
and 24 rented their housing, compared to 64.1% of households between the ages of 25
and 34. Householders between 35 and 84 were overwhelmingly homeowners, with no
more than 32.8% of the householders in each 10 -year age cohort renting their housing.
• The higher homeownership rates in Plymouth (71.4%) compared to Hennepin County
(62.7%), and the Metro Area (68.3%) reflects the suburban character of the City and was
originally developed as a single-family housing community.
Household Type
Table D-7 shows a breakdown of the type of households present in Plymouth in 2010 and 2015.
The data is useful in assessing housing demand since the household composition often dictates
the type of housing needed and preferred.
Between 2010 and 2015, Plymouth experienced an increase in all household types besides
Other Family households, which decreased by -2.8%. Married families without children
grew the most numerically, adding +1,101 households (+12.3%), The increase in households
married without children can be attributed to couples waiting longer to have children, and
the baby boomers aging into empty nester years.
• The differences between Plymouth compared to Hennepin County and the Twin Cities
Metro Area reflect the demographic changes that were seen in Table D-2 Population Age
Distribution. The aging of baby boomers is increasing the Married without child category
and decreasing the Married with Child category. The Other category (Single -parent families,
unmarried couples with children) is also increasing at a higher rate in Plymouth, but is
catching up to a similar distribution of Other households as compared to Hennepin County
and the Twin Cities Metro Area. Roommates are accounting for smaller percentages in all
areas which shows that economic conditions are changing in the area for households with
more households seeking Living Alone options and more households are considered Family
Households in Plymouth in 2015 than there was in 2010
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 23
Page 3 5
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Household Type
Plymouth
2010 and 2015
12,000
■ 2010
10,000 N ■ 2015
n
O
O
8,000
01
00
O
v 6,000 -
7
O
2
4,000 - -
2,000 -
o -
Married with Child Married w/o Child Other Family Living Alone Roommates
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 24
Page 36
TABLE D-7
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2010 & 2015
Number of Households
Plymouth
.
2010
28,663
2015
30,267
Married w/o Child
2010 2015
8,971 10,072
HouseholdsFamily
Married w/ Child
Other *
Living Alone
Households
Roommates
2010 2015
1,864 1,897
2010 2015
2010 2015 2010 2015
3,304 3,212 7,569 7,886
6,955 7,200
Hennepin County
475,913
490,196
116,099
123,135
89,084 92,038
67,702
68,773
155,807
160,687
47,221
45,563
Twin Cities Metro Area
1,117,749
1,150,154
298,723
316,180
244,687 247,506
164,086
167,069
319,030
331,010
91,223
88,389
Percent of Total
Plymouth
100%
100%
31.3%
33.3%
24.3% 23.8%
11.5%
10.6%
26.4%
26.1%
6.5%
6.3%
Hennepin County Total
100%
100%
24.4%
25.1%
18.7% 18.8%
14.2%
14.0%
32.7%
32.8%
9.9%
9.3%
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
j 100%
100%1 1
26.7%
27.5%1
1 21.9% 21.5%1
1 14.7%
14.5%1
j 28.5%
28.8%1
8.2%
7.7%
* Single -parent families, unmarried couples with children.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
Household Type
Plymouth
2010 and 2015
12,000
■ 2010
10,000 N ■ 2015
n
O
O
8,000
01
00
O
v 6,000 -
7
O
2
4,000 - -
2,000 -
o -
Married with Child Married w/o Child Other Family Living Alone Roommates
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 24
Page 36
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Tenure by Household Size
Table D-8 shows the distribution of households by size and tenure in the Plymouth in 2015 and
2010. This data is useful in that it sheds insight into the number of units by unit type that may
be most needed in Plymouth.
• Household size for renters tends to be smaller than for owners. This trend is a result of the
typical market segments for rental housing, including households that are younger and are
less likely to be married with children as well as older adults and seniors who choose to
downsize from their single-family homes. In 2015, approximately 40% of the total renter -
occupied households in the Plymouth were one-person households.
Approximately 68% of renter households in Plymouth in 2015 have either one or two peo-
ple. The one-person households would primarily seek one -bedroom units and two -person
households that are couples would primarily seek one -bedroom units. Two -person house-
holds that consist of a parent and child or roommate would primarily seek two-bedroom
units. Larger households would seek units with multiple bedrooms.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 25
Page 37
TABLE D-8
TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS
AREA
2010 &
2015
2015
City of Plymouth
Hennepin
County
Metro
Area
Owners
Pct.
Renters
Pct.
Owners
Pct.
Renters
Pct.
Age
Renters Pct. Owners Pct.
82,196
51.2
IPP Household
4,705 59.7
3,181 40.3 78,491 48.8
175,681
53.1
155,329
46.9
2PP Household
8,649
75.9
2,746
24.1
114,302
69.7
49,741
30.3
287,943
74.5
98,732
25.5
3PP Household
3,382
68.8
1,531
31.2
46,133
67.5
22,257
32.5
124,856
72.6
47,146
27.4
4PP Household
3,404
80.6
818
19.4
42,974
73.8
15,250
26.2
122,186
78.7
33,141
21.3
5PP Household
1,122
82.0
247
18.0
16,681
70.4
7,022
29.6
49,255
74.3
17,005
25.7
6PP Household
239
67.1
117
32.9
5,398
60.7
3,495
39.3
15,930
68.3
7,398
31.7
7PP+ Household
111
88.1
15
11.9
3,416
54.6
2,840
45.4
9,561
61.5
5,991
38.5
21,612
71.4
1 182,801
37.3
Total
1 8,655
28.6
1 307,395
62.7
1 785,412
68.3
1 364,742
31.7
2.37
2.18
Average HH Size
2.02 2.52
2.63
2.19
City of Plymouth
Hennepin
County
Metro
Area
Age
Owners
Pct.
RentersPct.
Owners
Pct.
Renters
Pct.
Owners
Pct.
Renters
Pct.
IPP Household
4,445
58.7
3,124
41.3
77,198
49.5
78,609
50.5
171,241
53.7
147,789
46.3
2PP Household
7,888
75.2
2,597
24.8
112,157
71.5
44,706
28.5
280,552
76.3
87,139
23.7
31313 Household
3,266
74.1
1,143
25.9
47,338
70.3
20,044
29.7
128,197
75.1
42,563
24.9
4PP Household
3,474
83.7
677
16.3
42,878
76.3
13,330
23.7
123,219
80.6
29,587
19.4
5PP Household
1,234
83.9
237
16.1
16,863
71.7
6,653
28.3
50,854
77.4
14,883
22.6
61313 Household
334
80.5
81
19.5
5,442
62.6
3,255
37.4
16,887
71.0
6,908
29.0
7PP+ Household
1 115
70.6
48
29.4
4,245
57.1
3,195
42.9
11,525
64.3
6,405
35.7
Total
1 20,756
72.4
1 7,907
27.6
1 306,121
64.3
1 169,792
35.7
1 782,475
70.0
1 335,274
30.0
Average HH Size
2.37
1.86
2.51
2.12
2.64
2.18
Sources: U.S. Census; Maxfield Research & Consutling, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 25
Page 37
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
• One-person households in the Plymouth have the highest percentage of renters among all
household types. Seven -person plus households have the lowest renter percentage among
all household types (11.9%).
Renter Household Size
City of Plymouth
45.0%
40.0%
35.0% —
30.0%
25.0% —
20.0% —
15.0% - —
10.0% -
5.0%
0.0%
1PP 2PP 3PP 4PP 5PP 6PP 7PP+
Household Household Household Household Household Household Household
2010 2015
Diversity
The population distribution by race, Table D-9 presents the diversity of the population in Plym-
outh and Hennepin County for 2010 and 2015. The data was obtained from the U.S. Census.
• In 2015, "White Alone" comprised the largest proportion of the population in Plymouth
(83.2%), Hennepin County (74.3%), and the Metro Area (78.2%). The percentage has de-
creased since 2010 where "White Alone" was 84.2% in Plymouth, 74.4% in Hennepin
County, and 78.8% in the Metro Area.
• U.S. Census respondents that list themselves ethnically as Hispanic or Latino, racially list
themselves in various race categories. As of 2015, 3.8% of Plymouth's population was His-
panic/Latino. The Hispanic/Latino population was 3.0% of Plymouth's population in 2010.
• The race "Asian Alone" experienced the largest percentage growth between 2010 and 2015
in Plymouth, increasing by +1.4% from 4,888 to 6,112 people.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 26
Page 38
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Hispanic or Latino 1
Ethnicity not Race
2010
2,117
77,676
2015
2,772
81,719
167,558
TABLE D-9
3.0%
6.7%
3.8%
6.8%
5.9%
6.1%
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY RACE
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2010 and 2015
American Indian
Native Hawaiian
Black or African
Two or More
White Alone
and Alaska Native
and Pacific Islander
Asian Alone
Some Other Race
American Alone
Alone
NUMBER
Alone (AIAN)
Alone (NHPI)
2010 2015
2010 2015
2010 2015
2010 2015
2010
2015
2010
2015
2010
Plymouth
59,460 61,450
3,704 3,756
188 315
22 0
4,888
6,112
717
362
1,597
Hennepin County
856,834 889,634
136,262 145,718
10,591 8,273
506 475
71,905
81,406
38,878
30,305
37,449
Metro Area
2,246,356 2,309,380
238,723 257,069
20,219 17,200
1,262 1,164
183,421
207,088
74,516
61,390
84,383
]Rae
PERCENTAGE
Plymouth
84.2% 83.2%
5.2% 5.1%
0.3% 0.4%
0.03% 0.00%
6.9%
8.3%
1.0%
0.5%
2.3%
Hennepin County
74.4% 74.3%
11.8% 12.2%
0.9% 0.7%
0.0% 0.0%
6.2%
6.8%
3.4%
2.5%
3.2%
Metro Area
78.8% 78.2%
8.4% 8.7%
0.7% 0.6%
0.0% 0.0%
6.4%
7.0%
2.6%
2.1%
3.0%
US Census respondents list themselves ethnically Hispanic or Latino and racially
in one of the other listed categories.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau ACS; Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Hispanic or Latino 1
Ethnicity not Race
2010
2,117
77,676
2015
2,772
81,719
167,558
179,371
3.0%
6.7%
3.8%
6.8%
5.9%
6.1%
2%
Page 39
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Mobility in the Past Year
Table D-10 shows the mobility patterns of Plymouth residents within a one-year time frame
(2015 is the last year available).
• The majority of residents in the Plymouth (84.7%) did not move within the last year.
• Of the remaining 15.3% of residents that moved within the last year, approximately 3.7%
moved from outside of Hennepin County but within Minnesota and 8.4% were intra -county
moves (i.e. one location in Hennepin County to another Hennepin County location).
• A greater proportion of younger age cohorts (a large student population) tended to move
compared to older age cohorts. Approximately 30.7% of those age 18 to 24 moved within
the last year compared to 9.6% of those age 75+.
Demographic Comparison
Table D-11, on the following page, provides a demographic summary that compares the City of
Plymouth to neighboring cities in the Metro Area.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 28
Page 40
TABLE D-10
MOBILITY
ESTIMATE IN
THE PAST YEAR BY AGE FOR
CURRENT RESIDENCE
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2015
Not Moved
Moved
City of Plymouth
Same House
Within Same County
Different County Same
State
Different State
Abroad
Age
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
13,171
84.3%
1,518
9.7%
378
2.4%
331
2.1%
222
1.4%
Under 18
18 to 24
3,110
69.3%
736
16.4%
465
10.4%
162
3.6%
15
0.3%
25 to 34
7,418
67.6%
1,798
16.4%
1,008
9.2%
528
4.8%
216
2.0%
35 to 44
7,982
82.8%
960
10.0%
367
3.8%
191
2.0%
141
1.5%
45 to 54
10,110
91.4%
519
4.7%
188
1.7%
235
2.1%
5
0.0%
55 to 64
9,897
95.4%
226
2.2%
97
0.9%
138
1.3%
15
0.1%
65 to 74
5,956
95.4%
180
2.9%
44
0.7%
23
0.4%
42
0.7%
75+
4,088
90.4%
191
4.2%
174
3.8%
23
0.5%
46
1.0%
Total
61,732
84.791.
1 6,128
8.4%
1 2,721
3.7%
1
1,631
2.2%
1 702
1.0%
Sources: 2010-2015 American Community Survey; Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
Demographic Comparison
Table D-11, on the following page, provides a demographic summary that compares the City of
Plymouth to neighboring cities in the Metro Area.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 28
Page 40
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
TABLE D-11
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
r -
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
Num Pct.
48,973
Total Population and Households
76,150
64,545
51,476
21,536
69,340
6,259
52,664
Population (2017)
Households (2017)
31,200
25,205
22,121
9,260
25,516
2,164
23,054
23,440
Age Distribution (2017)
Under25
22,626 29.7%
20,637 32.0%
14,677 28.5%
5,420 25.2%
22,300 32.2%
2,015 32.2%
13,416 25.5%
12,855 26.2%
25 to 34
9,761 12.8%
8,045 12.5%
4,322 8.4%
2,126 9.9%
8,729 12.6%
494 7.9%
6,027 11.4%
10,152 20.7%
35 to 44
10,108 13.3%
8,843 13.7%
5,242 10.2%
2,568 11.9%
10,181 14.7%
608 9.7%
5,911 11.2%
6,889 14.1%
45 to 54
10,662 14.0%
9,649 14.9%
7,024 13.6%
2,983 13.9%
10,612 15.3%
1,094 17.5%
7,103 13.5%
5,910 12.1%
55 to 64
11,142 14.6%
9,608 14.9%
7,771 15.1%
3,406 15.8%
9,873 14.2%
1,074 17.2%
8,988 17.1%
5,738 11.7%
65 to 74
7,208 9.5%
5,048 7.8%
5,867 11.4%
2,429 11.3%
5,377 7.8%
625 10.0%
6,304 12.0%
3,784 7.7%
75+
4,644 6.1%
2,715 4.2%
6,573 12.8%
2,611 12.1%
2,270 3.3%
351 5.6%
4,915 9.3%
3,645 7.4%
Household Income (2017)
$129,033
$136,890
$144,691
$117,872
$130,196
$162,377
$124,916
$92,219
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
$96,274
$103,684
$92,620
$89,183
$102,799
$107,270
$88,511
$69,125
Net Worth (2017)
$1,131,424
$1,046,325
$1,782,745
$1,323,912
$1,123,496
$1,472,410
$1,275,545
$546,693
Average Net Worth
Median Net Worth
$300,121
$333,183
$363,665
$325,546
$393,432
$500,001
$306,465
$110,945
Household Tenure (2
Owner
21,612 71.4%
17,776 72.8%
15,327 73.4%
6,851 76.9%
21,019 84.4%
1,735 93.6%
15,995 70.5%
12,705 56.8%
Renter
8,655 28.6%
6,643 27.2%
5,554 26.6%
2,054 23.1%
3,885 15.6%
119 6.4%
6,681 29.5%
9,662 43.2%
Household Type (2010)
Married With Children
6,955 24.3%
6,834 28.6%
4,955 20.7%
1,648 18.7%
7,123 31.1%
626 36.8%
4,306 19.7%
3,084 14.2%
Married Without Children
8,971 31.3%
7,091 29.6%
6,153 25.7%
2,784 31.6%
7,508 32.8%
640 37.6%
7,104 32.4%
4,647 21.4%
Other
3,304 11.5%
2,592 10.8%
1,810 7.6%
985 11.2%
2,591 11.3%
120 7.1%
2,209 10.1%
2,728 12.5%
Living Alone
7,569 26.4%
6,004 25.1%
6,851 28.6%
2,682 30.4%
4,415 19.3%
266 15.6%
6,821 31.1%
8,716 40.1%
Roommates
1,864 6.5%
1,409 5.9%
903 3.8%
717 8.1%
1,230 5.4%
50 2.9%
1,461 6.7%
2,568 11.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Maxfield Research, Inc.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
29
Page 41
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Summary of Demographic Trends
The following points summarize key demographic trends that will impact demand for housing
throughout the Plymouth.
• The City of Plymouth experienced a population increase between 2000 and 2017, by gaining
an estimated 10,256 people (+15.6%), and 6,380 households (+25.7%).
• Between 2010 and 2040, Plymouth's population is expected to increase by +20.6% (+14,524
people) while the number of households is expected to increase by +15.7% (+4,718 house-
holds). The City of Plymouth can expect to see continued population growth since it is lo-
cated near employment opportunities and urban services that would support residential de-
velopment. More people will choose to locate near their place of work as increasing trans-
portation costs increase the desirability of living close to employment. As the amount of
buildable land starts to dwindle within Plymouth, the City will need to consider options to
support housing growth such as changes to building or zoning restrictions.
• In the City of Plymouth, growth is projected to occur in all age cohorts except the 18 to 24
year olds (-3.7%), 45 to 54 year olds (-3.0%), and 55 to 64 year olds (0.0%) between 2017
and 2022. The greatest percentage growth is projected to occur among seniors 75 to 84
year olds (+31.7%).
Plymouth has an estimated median household income of $96,274 in 2017 and is projected
to increase over the next five years to $104,687. There are 736 non -senior households
(3.1% of households with incomes less than $15,000) eligible for deep -subsidy rental hous-
ing. Median incomes for households in Plymouth peak at $124,490 for the 45 to 54 age
group in 2017. Incomes are expected to increase by 8.2% (1.6% annually) between 2017
and 2022 in the Plymouth.
Plymouth had an average net worth of $1,131,424 in 2017 and a median net worth of
$300,121. Median net worth is generally a more accurate depiction of wealth than the av-
erage figure. A few households with very large net worth can significantly skew the aver-
age.
Typically, as income increases, so does the rate of homeownership. Homeownership in the
Plymouth increases from 33.3% of households with incomes below $15,000 to 89.6% of
households with incomes above $100,000.
Between 2010 and 2015, Plymouth experienced an increase in all household types besides
Other Family households, which decreased by -2.8%. Married families without children
grew the most numerically, adding +1,101 households (+12.3%), The increase in households
married without children can be attributed to couples waiting longer to have children, and
the baby boomers aging into empty nester years.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 30
Page 42
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
An estimated 68.5% of renter households in Plymouth in 2015 had either one or two peo-
ple.
In 2015, "White Alone" (83.2%) comprised the largest proportion of the population in Plym-
outh. The race "Asian Alone" experienced the largest percentage growth between 2010
and 2015 in Plymouth, increasing by +1.4% from 4,888 to 6,112 people.
• Of Plymouth residents that moved in the past year, approximately 3.7% moved from out-
side of Hennepin County but within Minnesota and 8.4% were intra -county moves.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 31
Page 43
EMPLOYMENT
Employment Trends
Since employment growth generally fuels household growth, employment trends are a reliable
indicator of housing demand. Typically, households prefer to live near work for convenience.
However, housing is often less expensive in smaller towns, making commuting from outlying
communities to work in larger employment centers attractive for households concerned about
housing affordability.
Employment Growth and Projections
Table E-1 shows projected employment growth in Plymouth, Hennepin County, and the Twin
Cities Metro Area. Table E-1 shows employment growth trends and projections from 2000 to
2040 based on the most recent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Develop-
ment (DEED) and Metropolitan Council employment outlook projections.
TABLE E-1
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2000-2040
Actual Forecast
2000-2010
2010-2020 2020-2030
.7 i „� ��lllllllllMI
Plymouth 53,206 45,881 49,414 53,900 57,700 61,500 -7,325 -13.8%
8,019 17.5%
3,800 7.1%
Hennepin County 874,882 803,733 883,488 924,710 981,800 1,038,140 -71,149 -8.1%
120,977 15.1%
57,090 6.2%
Twin Cities Metro Area 1,600,741 1,537,041 1,675,271 1,791,080 1,913,050 2,032,660 -63,700 -4.0%
254,039 16.5%
121,970 6.8%
*Values from 2000, 2010, 2015 Data is from MNDEED Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Note: Twin Cities Metro represents the 7 -County planning region
Sources: MN Dept of Employment and Economic Development; Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC.
There was an estimated total of 49,414 jobs in Plymouth in 2015, which was 5.6% of the
Hennepin County total (883,488 jobs).
• The number of jobs in Plymouth is projected to grow by 8,019 jobs from 2010 through 2020
(17.5%). This projection is higher than what is expected for Hennepin County (15.1%) and
the Twin Cities Metro Area (16.5%). Between 2010 and 2015 it is estimated that Plymouth
added 3,533 jobs. Job creation in Plymouth continues to grow, making Plymouth more ap-
pealing for housing.
• Plymouth's employment is anticipated to increase by 7.1% between 2020 and 2030 and is
forecast to increase another 7.1% between 2030 and 2040.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 32
Page 44
EMPLOYMENT
Resident Labor Force
Recent employment growth trends are shown in Tables E-2 and E-3. Table E-2 presents resi-
dent employment data for the City of Plymouth from 2000 through June 2017. These numbers
were derived from the proportion of jobs in Plymouth as compared to Hennepin County, the
State of Minnesota, and the United States. Resident employment data is calculated as an an-
nual average and reveals the workforce and number of employed persons living in the City. Itis
important to note that not all of these individuals necessarily work in the City or County. Table
E-3 presents covered employment numbers as available for the City of Plymouth from 2000
through 2016. Covered employment data is calculated as an annual average and reveals the
number of jobs in the designated area, which are covered by unemployment insurance. Many
temporary workforce positions, agricultural, self-employed persons, and some other types of
jobs are not covered by unemployment insurance and are not included in the table. Some agri-
cultural businesses and employees are listed in Table E-3, but not all positions are included. The
data in both tables is sourced from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development. The following are key trends derived from the employment data:
Resident Employment
• Resident employment (number of employed persons) in Plymouth increased by approxi-
mately 2,334 people between 2000 and June 2017 (+5.9%) and the unemployment rate in-
creased from 2.3% (2000) to 3.1% in June 2017. By comparison, Hennepin County's unem-
ployment rate was at 3.4% and the State of Minnesota was at 4.1% as of June 2017.
Plymouth's unemployment rate has stayed lower than Minnesota's unemployment rate
since 2000. The greatest yearly difference was 1.4% lower than the State in 2009.
• The unemployment rate in Hennepin County increased to a high of 7.3% (2009) which was
the peak of the recession. However, as of June 2017, the unemployment rate has fallen to
3.4%, which is considered to be below equilibrium (5.0%).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 33
Page 45
Unemployment Rate
2000 Through 2016
9.0%
—
8.0
7.0%
6.0%
5.0
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2000 2002
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
a Plymouth
a Hennepin Co. 7 Co. MetroArea --e— Minnesota
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 33
Page 45
EMPLOYMENT
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 34
Page 46
TABLE E-2
ANNUAL AVERAGE
RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT
PLYMOUTH MN
2000 to 20171
Labor
Year
Force
Employed
Unemployed
Rate
PLYMOUTH
2000
40,187
39,258
929
2.3%
2005
41,365
40,081
1,284
3.1%
2010
40,078
37,558
2,520
6.3%
2015
42,095
40,828
1,267
3.0%
2016
42,570
41,264
1,306
3.1%
20171
42,922
41,592
1,330
3.1%
Change 2000-20171
Number
2,735
2,334
401
--
Percent
6.8%
5.9%
43.2%
--
HENNEPIN COUNTY
2000
666,621
648,571
18,050
2.7%
2005
652,568
628,595
23,973
3.7%
2010
650,891
605,294
45,597
7.0%
2015
671,702
649,491
22,211
3.3%
2016
679,285
656,426
22,859
3.4%
20171
685,177
661,652
23,525
3.4%
MINNESOTA
2010
2,938,795
2,721,194
217,601
7.4%
2015
2,975,533
2,864,583
110,950
3.7%
2016
3,006,324
2,888,922
117,402
3.9%
20171
3,019,856
2,895,136
124,720
4.1%
U.S. Z
2010
153,889
139,878
14,011
9.6%
2015
157,130
148,833
8,297
5.3%
2016
159,396
151,769
7,627
4.8%
20171
159,867
152,584
7,283
4.6%
1 Through June 2017
z Estimated in Thousands
Note: Data not seasonally
adjusted
Sources: U.S.
Department
of Labor, MN Workforce
Center, Maxfield
Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 34
Page 46
EMPLOYMENT
Covered Employment by Industry
• Between 2000 and 2016, the number of jobs decreased in Plymouth by -1,718, a -3.2% de-
crease in the City. Education and Health Services gained the greatest number of jobs
(+1,995, jobs) between 2000 and 2016. Manufacturing declined the most (-5,228 jobs) be-
tween 2000 and 2016.
Employment, Earnings, and Employment by Educational Attainment
Table E-4 displays information on the employment by earnings, Table E-5 identifies employ-
ment by educational attainment, and Table E-6 is the business summary in. The employment
by earnings and the employment by educational attainment are both sourced by the US Census
for 2014 while the business summary for Plymouth is sourced from ESRI for 2017.
It should be noted that certain industries in Table E-6 may not display any information which
means that there is either no reported economic activity for that industry or the data has been
suppressed to protect the confidentiality of cooperating employers. This generally occurs when
there are too few employers or one employer comprises too much of the employment in that
geography.
As of 2014, approximately 21,910 (57.8%) employees make more than $3,333 per month in
Plymouth. This is a higher percentage than Hennepin County (49.8%) and the Metro Area
(49.5%) of those who make more than $3,333 per month.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 35
Page 47
TABLE E-3
COVERED EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
PLYMOUTH MN
2000,
2005, 2010,
2015,
2016
North American Industrial Classification System (NAILS)
Change
Average Number
of Employees2000
- 2016%
of Total
Industry
2000
2005
2010
2015
2016
No.
Pct.
2000
2005
2010
2015
2016
Natural Resources & Mining
213
195
180
167
183
-30
-14.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
Construction
2,213
2,115
1,593
2,220
2,154
-59
-2.7%
4.2%
4.2%
3.6%
4.5%
4.2%
Manufacturing
15,034
12,449
9,379
10,041
9,806
-5,228
-34.8%
28.3%
24.7%
20.9%
20.3%
19.0%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
11,219
10,636
9,113
10,965
11,428
209
1.9%
21.1%
21.1%
20.3%
22.2%
22.2%
Information
1,499
1,105
1,281
727
722
-777
-51.8%
2.8%
2.2%
2.9%
1.5%
1.4%
Financial Services
4,676
4,496
4,433
3,774
5,179
503
10.8%
8.8%
8.9%
9.9%
7.6%
10.1%
Professional and Business Services
10,076
9,185
9,506
9,627
10,096
20
0.2%
18.9%
18.2%
21.2%
19.5%
19.6%
Education and Health Services
3,957
4,964
4,793
5,884
5,952
1,995
50.4%
7.4%
9.8%
10.7%
11.9%
11.6%
Leisure and Hospitality
2,314
2,931
3,061
3,009
2,949
635
27.4%
4.3%
5.8%
6.8%
6.1%
5.7%
Other Services
1,011
1,067
-
1,464
1,403
392
38.8%
1.9%
2.1%
-
3.0%
2.7%
Public Administration
989
1,273
1,504
1,553
1,611
1 622
62.9%
1 1.9%
2.5%
3.4%
3.1%
3.1%
Totals
53,201
50,416
44,843
49,431
51,483
1 -1,718
-3.2%
Source: Minnesota Workforce Center; Maxfield Research
& Consulting,
LLC
Employment, Earnings, and Employment by Educational Attainment
Table E-4 displays information on the employment by earnings, Table E-5 identifies employ-
ment by educational attainment, and Table E-6 is the business summary in. The employment
by earnings and the employment by educational attainment are both sourced by the US Census
for 2014 while the business summary for Plymouth is sourced from ESRI for 2017.
It should be noted that certain industries in Table E-6 may not display any information which
means that there is either no reported economic activity for that industry or the data has been
suppressed to protect the confidentiality of cooperating employers. This generally occurs when
there are too few employers or one employer comprises too much of the employment in that
geography.
As of 2014, approximately 21,910 (57.8%) employees make more than $3,333 per month in
Plymouth. This is a higher percentage than Hennepin County (49.8%) and the Metro Area
(49.5%) of those who make more than $3,333 per month.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 35
Page 47
EMPLOYMENT
• As of 2014, approximately 11,872 (31.3%) employees have a bachelor's degree or advanced
degree. This is a higher percentage than Hennepin County and the Metro Area where
27.5% and 27.0% respectively have a bachelor's or advanced degree.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 36
Page 48
TABLE E-4
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT BY EARNINGS
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2014
2014
Plymouth
Hennepin County
Metro Area
Type
No. Pct.
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
$1,250/month or less
8,011 21.1%
138,086
22.9%
353,773
23.3%
$1,251 to $3,333/month
8,007 21.1%
164,242
27.3%
413,324
27.2%
More than $3,333/month
21,910 57.8%
300,130
49.8%
750,898
49.5%
Total
37,928 100%
602,458
100%
1,517,995
100%
Sources: US Census Bureau; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
410,475
27.0%
Educational Attainment Not Available
7,968 21.0%
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 36
Page 48
TABLE E-5
EMPLOYMENT
BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2014
Plymouth
Hennepin County
Metro Area
No. Pct.
No.
36,078
Pct.
6.0%
No.
87,877
Pct.
5.8%
Type
Less Than High School
1,865 4.9%
High School or Equivalent, No College
6,705 17.7%
109,293
18.1%
281,815
18.6%
Some College or Associate Degree
9,518 25.1%
147,741
24.5%
379,952
25.0%
Bachelor's Degree or Advanced Degree
11,872 31.3%
165,460
27.5%
410,475
27.0%
Educational Attainment Not Available
7,968 21.0%
143,886
23.9%
357,876
23.6%
Total
37,928 100%
602,458
100%
1,517,995
100%
Sources: US Census Bureau; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 36
Page 48
EMPLOYMENT
TABLE E-6
BUSINESS SUMMARY - BY NAICS CODE
PLYMOUTH MN
2017
Business/Industry
Number
Pct
Pct
NAICS CODES
Agriculture & Mining
7
0.2%
0.1%
Mining
3
0.1%
0.0%
Utilities
2
0.1%
0.0%
Construction
225
7.2%
7.2%
Manufacturing
211
6.7%
16.6%
Wholesale Trade
216
6.9%
9.9%
Retail Trade
330
10.5%
10.2%
Transportation & Warehousing
37
1.2%
0.8%
Information
86
2.7%
4.0%
Finance & Insurance
228
7.3%
11.3%
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
205
6.5%
2.6%
Professional, Scientific & Tech Services
384
12.2%
9.8%
Management of Companies & Enterprises
6
0.2%
0.3%
Admin& Support & Waste Management & Remediation Services
148
4.7%
2.5%
Educational Services
75
2.4%
5.1%
Health Care & Social Assistance
297
9.5%
7.7%
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
55
1.8%
1.9%
Accommodation & Food Services
139
4.4%
5.1%
Other Services (except Public Administration)
249
7.9%
3.3%
Public Administration
20
0.6%
1.1%
Unclassified Establishments
213
6.8%
0.4%
Total
3,136
100.0%
100.0%
Sources: ESRI, Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
• As of 2017, there were approximately 3,136 businesses in the City of Plymouth.
• Professional, Scientific and Technical Services have the highest proportion of establishments
(12.2%), while the Manufacturing sector had the highest proportion of employees (16.6%)
in Plymouth.
• The Retail Trade sector is one of the largest industry types in Plymouth with 10.5% busi-
nesses and 10.2% employees.
• The Finance & Insurance sector account for the second largest share of employees (11.3%)
and ranked fifth in proportion of businesses (7.3%).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 37
Page 49
EMPLOYMENT
Commuting Patterns
Proximity to employment is often a primary consideration when choosing where to live, since
transportation costs often account for a large proportion of households' budgets. Table E-7
highlights the commuting patterns of workers in Plymouth in 2014 (the most recent data availa-
ble), based on Employer -Household Dynamics data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
As shown in Table E-7, 13.1% of Plymouth residents were employed in Plymouth. Most em-
ployees that live in Plymouth commuted to jobs in Minneapolis (20.8%).
• Of the workers who work in Plymouth, 9.9% also live in Plymouth. The remaining workers
are commuting from mostly Minneapolis (7.4%), Maple Grove (5.9%), and Brooklyn Park
(4.3%).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 38
Page 50
EMPLOYMENT
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 39
Page 51
TABLE E-7
PLYMOUTH COMMUTING PATTERNS
2014
Place of Residence
Place of Employment
Count
Percent
Place of Residence for
Plymouth city, MN
Workers Commuting to Plymouth
Plymouth
4,980
9.9%
Minneapolis city, MN
Plymouth
3,746
7.4%
Maple Grove city, MN
Plymouth
2,966
5.9%
Brooklyn Park city, MN
Plymouth
2,158
4.3%
St. Paul city, MN
Plymouth
1,451
2.9%
Minnetonka city, MN
Plymouth
1,317
2.6%
Coon Rapids city, MN
Plymouth
1,083
2.1%
St. Louis Park city, MN
Plymouth
1,079
2.1%
Eden Prairie city, MN
Plymouth
1,022
2.0%
Crystal city, MN
Plymouth
949
1.9%
All Other Locations
Plymouth
29,800
59.0%
Metro Area
Plymouth
40,362
79.8%
Outstate MN
Plymouth
9,398
18.6%
Other State
Plymouth
791
1.6%
EmploymentPlace
50,551
100.0%
of
Plymouth
.-
Minneapolis city, MN
7,879
20.8%
Plymouth
Plymouth city, MN
4,980
13.1%
Plymouth
Minnetonka city, MN
2,370
6.2%
Plymouth
Golden Valley city, MN
2,131
5.6%
Plymouth
Bloomington city, MN
1,598
4.2%
Plymouth
Maple Grove city, MN
1,479
3.9%
Plymouth
St. Paul city, MN
1,424
3.8%
Plymouth
St. Louis Park city, MN
1,389
3.7%
Plymouth
Eden Prairie city, MN
1,196
3.2%
Plymouth
Edina city, MN
1,145
3.0%
Plymouth
All Other Locations
12,337
32.5%
Plymouth
Metro Area
35,776
94.4%
Plymouth
Outstate MN
1,645
4.3%
Plymouth
Other State
507
1.3%
37,928
100.0%
Sources: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics; Maxfield Research &
Consulting,
LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 39
Page 51
EMPLOYMENT
Inflow/Outflow
Table E-8 provides a summary of the inflow and outflow of workers in the City of Plymouth.
Outflow reflects the number of workers living in the City of Plymouth but employed outside of
the city while inflow measures the number of workers that are employed in the City of Plym-
outh but live outside. Interior flow reflects the number of workers that both live and work in
the City of Plymouth.
• The City of Plymouth can be considered a major importer of workers, as the number of resi-
dents coming into the City (inflow) for employment was more than the number of residents
leaving the City for work (outflow). Approximately 45,571 workers came into the City of
Plymouth for work while 32,948 workers left, for a net difference of 12,623.
TABLE E-8
COMMUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW
PLYMOUTH MN
2014
Employed in the Selection Area
Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside
Employed and Living in the Selection Area
Living in the Selection Area
Living in the Selection Area but Employed Outside
Living and Employed in the Selection Area
Commuting Distance - Work to Home
Less than 10 miles
10 to 24 miles
25 to 50 miles
Greater than 50 miles
Commuting Distance - Home to Work
Less than 10 miles
10 to 24 miles
25 to 50 miles
Greater than 50 miles
Plymouth
20,833
Num.
Pct.
50,551
100%
45,571
90.1%
4,980
9.9%
37,928
100%
32,948
86.9%
4,980
13.19/
Num. Pct.
20,833
41.2%
21,202
41.9%
4,886
9.7%
3,630
7.2%
Num. Pct.
20,141
53.1%
15,676
41.3%
623
1.6%
1,488
3.9%
Sources: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics; Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 40
Page 52
EMPLOYMENT
Sources: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 41
Page 53
EMPLOYMENT
Major Employers
Table E-9 shows the major employers in Plymouth based on data provided by the City of Plym-
outh. Please note that the table is not a comprehensive list of all employers and presents a se-
lected list of employers and their employees as identified by the City of Plymouth. The follow-
ing are key points from the major employers table.
• Independent School District No. 284 is the largest identified employer with approximately
1,505 employees. Quadion Holdings LLC employs over 1,000 employees. Another major
employer in Plymouth is Abbott, previously St. Jude Medical, with approximately 800 em-
ployees.
TABLE E-9
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017
Independent School Dist No.284 (Wayzata)
1,505
Quadion Holdings LLC
1,100
Abbott (Previously St Jude Medical)
800
Uniprise Inc
600
Smiths Medical Asd, Inc.
576
Honeywell International Inc.
500
Sterilmed, Inc.
500
Realogy Holdings Corp.
485
Daikin Applied Americas Inc.
450
Covidien LP
430
Medivators Inc.
413
Fluke Electronics Corporation
413
Flynn America LP
400
Onebeacon Insurance Group LLC
400
Source: City of Plymouth; Maxfield Research and Consulting
LLC
• The list of major employers represents several industry sectors, but the highest concentra-
tions of large employers are in the Educational Services, Healthcare & Social Assistance, and
Manufacturing sectors.
• The top four employers account for approximately 47% of the employee base out of the
major employers in the City of Plymouth.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 42
Page 54
EMPLOYMENT
Employment Interview
Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC interviewed a small sample size of economic develop-
ment specialists and local officials regarding major employment changes and other issues that
may impact long-term employment projections in Plymouth. Community economic develop-
ment information provides useful job growth data and assists in identifying housing demand in
an area. Though our sample size was small, we encourage diving deeper into interviewing local
employers. The following summarizes key points derived from the information provided.
• Some employers noted that they had employees having longer commutes, traveling from
cities like St. Paul, Blaine, and Monticello.
• Rental housing is often desired among newer and younger employees. Other employees
would prefer to rent before they establish their roots in the community and purchase a
home.
• Many middle- to upper positioned employees come from already established backgrounds
and primarily consist of home -owners as opposed to renters.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 43
Page 55
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
The variety and condition of the housing stock in a community provides the basis for an attrac-
tive living environment. Housing functions as a building block for neighborhoods and goods
and services. We initially examined the characteristics of the housing supply in Plymouth by re-
viewing data on the age of the existing housing stock; examining residential building trends
since 2000; and reviewing housing data from the American Community Survey that relates to
the City of Plymouth.
Residential Construction Trends 2000 to Present
Maxfield Research obtained data from the Metropolitan Council on the number of building per-
mits issued for new housing units in Plymouth from 2000 through 2016 and compared this with
the number of units permitted as identified by the City of Plymouth. Table HC -1 displays units
permitted issued for different housing types as reported by Metropolitan Council and verified
with the City of Plymouth. Table HC -2 displays total units permitted and demolition permits for
single-family detached units as recorded by the City of Plymouth. The following are key points
about housing development since 2000.
• Per the Metropolitan Council, the City of Plymouth issued 7,225 permits between 2000 and
2016. That equates to about 401 residential units permitted annually since 2000.
• Since 2007, there have been a decreasing number of single-family attached homes permits.
The City of Plymouth saw a high of 186 single-family attached units permitted in 2004, but
has only averaged 25 units permitted since 2008.
• The City of Plymouth averages roughly 160 multifamily units permitted each year since
2000. Plymouth issued a high of 938 multifamily units in 2002. There were a total of seven
years between 2000 and 2016 were no multifamily permits were issued.
• The City of Plymouth has issued roughly 15 demolition permits for single-family detached
units per year between 2000 and 2017 for a total of 278 single-family detached demo per-
mits.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 44
Page 56
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
1000
900
800
700
600
N
c 500
D
400
300
200
100
0
New Construction Permitted (Units): 2000th rough 2016
■Single-family (Detached)
■ Multifamily (5+ Units)
1 1
2000 01 02 03 04 2005 06 07 08 09 2010 11 12 13 14 2015
Year
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 45
Page 57
HC -1
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PERMITTED UNITS ISSUED
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
per Metropolitan Council & City of Plymouth
2000 to 2016
Units Permitted
ownhomes
Single -Family
(Single -Family Duplex, Triplex,
Multifamily (5+
Year
(Detached)
Attached) Quadplex
Units)*
Total Units
2000
142
142 0
77
361
2001
86
94 0
621
801
2002
115
165 0
938
1,218
2003
136
179 0
332
647
2004
75
186 28
0
289
2005
31
164 2
170
367
2006
47
124 14
66
251
2007
105
114 4
0
223
2008
79
66 0
0
145
2009
59
16 0
0
75
2010
94
39 0
0
133
2011
184
35 2
67
288
2012
247
16 0
90
353
2013
261
8 0
194
463
2014
291
12 0
0
303
2015
272
20 0
157
449
2016
290
11 0
0
301
Total
2,514
1,391 50
2,712
6,667
* 2000-2003 may contain units from structures of 3+ units
Sources:
Metropolitan Council; City of Plymouth; Maxfield Research & Consulting LLC
1000
900
800
700
600
N
c 500
D
400
300
200
100
0
New Construction Permitted (Units): 2000th rough 2016
■Single-family (Detached)
■ Multifamily (5+ Units)
1 1
2000 01 02 03 04 2005 06 07 08 09 2010 11 12 13 14 2015
Year
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 45
Page 57
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 46
Page 58
HC -2
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUILDING & DEMO PERMITS
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2000 to 2017
Total SF Demo Permits
Year
Total Building Permits Issued
Issued
2000
361
7
2001
801
18
2002
1,218
10
2003
647
10
2004
289
12
2005
367
12
2006
251
16
2007
223
16
2008
145
7
2009
75
9
2010
133
14
2011
288
9
2012
353
8
2013
463
15
2014
303
40
2015
449
31
2016
301
30
2017
558
14
Total
7,225
278
Sources: City of Plymouth; Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 46
Page 58
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
American Community Survey
The American Community Survey ("ACS") is an ongoing statistical survey administered by the
U.S. Census Bureau that is sent to approximately 3 million addresses annually. The survey gath-
ers data previously contained only in the long form of the Decennial Census. As a result, the
survey is ongoing and provides a more "up-to-date" portrait of demographic, economic, social,
and household characteristics every year, not just every ten years. The most recent ACS high-
lights data collected between 2011 and 2015. Tables HC -3 to HC -7 show key data for Plymouth.
Age of Housing Stock
The following graph shows the age distribution of the housing stock in 2015 based on data from
the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (5 -Year). Table HC -3 includes the number
of housing units built in Plymouth, prior to 1940 and during each decade since.
• As of 2015, the City of Plymouth was estimated to have 30,267 housing units, of which
roughly 71.4% were owner -occupied and 28.6% were renter -occupied. In Hennepin
County, approximately 37.3% were renter -occupied while in Minnesota 26.2% of the hous-
ing stock was renter -occupied.
• Homes in Plymouth are newer than homes in Hennepin County. Most housing (68.2%) was
built in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. The greatest number of homes in Plymouth were
constructed in the 1980's (roughly 27%). By comparison, the highest number of homes in
Hennepin County was built prior to 1940 (19.2%).
• Compared to Hennepin County and the Twin Cities Metro Area, 16.7% of Plymouth's hous-
ing stock has been built since 2000 compared to 10.5% of Hennepin County, 8.6% of Twin
Cities Metro Area.
• Per the City of Plymouth, 508 multifamily units have been permitted since 2010.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 47
Page 59
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 48
Page 60
All Housing Units Built by Decade
City of Plymouth
9,000
TABLE HC -3
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2015
8,000
7,000
6,000
-
Total Med: Yr.
"r
No.
Pct."NIcl.
"NIcl.
"NIcl."Nolcl.
Year Unit Built
"NPct,
2,000
"lPcl.
-
rr�uilt
No.
Pct.
Ln -
0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
<1940s
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 19805 19905 20005
Decade of Construction
Owner -Occupied
Renter -Occupied
21,612
8,655
1963
1977
366
184
1.7
2.1
1 270
85
1.2
1.0
1
1,016 4.7
125 1.4
1,766
761
8.2
8.8
1 3,993
2,064
18.5
23.8
6,081
2,039
28.1
23.6
4,979
1,495
23.0
17.3
2,689
1,810
12.4
20.9
Total
30,267
1965
1 550
1.81
1 355
1.21
1
1,141 3.81
1 2,527
8.31
1 6,057
20.01
1 8,120
26.81
1 6,474
21.41
1 4,499
14.9
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Owner -Occupied
Renter -Occupied
307,395
182,801
1967
1972
59,724
34,320
19.4
18.8
20,362
8,125
6.6
4.4
51,676 16.8 31,070
15,373 8.4 25,179
10.1
13.8
38,821
37,714
12.6
20.6
43,979
26,723
14.3
14.6
30,348
15,328
9.9
8.4
28,552
17,116
9.3
9.4
Total
490,196
1970
1 94,044
19.21
1 28,487
5.81 1
67,049 13.71 1 56,249
11.51
1 76,535
15.61
1 70,702
14.41
1 45,676
9.31
1 45,668
9.3
METRO AREA
Owner -Occupied
Renter -Occupied
1,026,407
364,742
1974
1977
364,742
59,160
35.5
16.2
1 110,528
13,428
10.8
3.7
1
34,704 3.4
28,556 7.8
96,299
46,570
9.4
12.8
1 76,288
72,799
7.4
20.0
1 105,139
56,336
10.2
15.4
1 119,915
39,311
11.7
10.8
1 109,222
42,555
10.6
11.7
Total
1,391,149
1975
423,902
30.5
123,956
8.9
63,260 4.5
142,869
10.3
149,087
10.7
161,475
11.6
159,226
11.4
151,777
7.5
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 48
Page 60
All Housing Units Built by Decade
City of Plymouth
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
-
5,000
c
4,000
3,000
-
2,000
-
1,000
Ln
Ln -
0
<1940s
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 19805 19905 20005
Decade of Construction
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 48
Page 60
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Units by Structure and Occupancy or (Housing Stock by Structure Type)
Table HC -4 shows the housing stock in the City of Plymouth by type of structure and tenure as
of 2015.
• The dominant housing type in Plymouth is the single-family detached home, representing
an estimated 73.1% of all owner -occupied housing units and 7.5% of renter -occupied hous-
ing units as of 2015.
• About one-half of the renter -occupied housing units are within structures that have 50 or
more units in Plymouth.
• Most of the housing units with two or more units are renter -occupied.
Owner -Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status
Table HC -5 shows mortgage status and average values from the American Community Survey
for 2015 (5 -Year). Mortgage status provides information on the cost of homeownership when
analyzed in conjunction with mortgage payment data. A mortgage refers to all forms of debt
where the property is pledged as security for repayment of debt. A first mortgage has priority
claim over any other mortgage or if it is the only mortgage. A second (and sometimes third)
mortgage is called a 'junior mortgage," a home equity line of credit (HELOC) would also fall into
this category. Finally, a housing unit without a mortgage is owned free and clear and is debt
free.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 49
Page 61
TABLE HC -4
HOUSING
UNITS BY STRUCTURE
& TENURE
PLYMOUTH
ANALYSIS AREA
2015
PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY
METRO AREA
Owner-
Renter-
Owner-
Renter-
Owner-
Renter -
Units in Structure
Occupied
Pct.
Occupied
Pct.
Occupied
247,800
Pct.
80.6%
Occupied
23,400
Pct.
13%
Occupied
632,367
Pct.
80.5%
Occupied
50,228
Pct.
13.8%
1, detached
15,792 73.1% 651 7.5%
1, attached
4,427
20.5%
1,189
13.7%
30,109
9.8%
12,592
7%
93,048
11.8%
37,318
10.2%
2
56
0.3%
75
0.9%
4,012
1.3%
12,829
7%
6,727
0.9%
23,053
6.3%
3 to 4
237
1.1%
195
2.3%
2,669
0.9%
8,885
5%
5,410
0.7%
18,481
5.1%
5 to 9
220
1.0%
350
4.0%
2,588
0.8%
10,911
6%
5,610
0.7%
22,420
6.1%
10 to 19
45
0.2%
338
3.9%
2,076
0.7%
22,573
12%
3,355
0.4%
43,460
11.9%
20 to 49
236
1.1%
1,565
18.1%
4,620
1.5%
32,276
18%
7,767
1.0%
63,623
17.4%
50 or more
569
2.6%
4,273
49.4%
12,573
4.1%
58,794
32%
18,628
2.4%
104,067
28.5%
Mobile home
30
0.1%
19
0.2%
910
0.3%
446
0%
12,395
1.6%
1,844
0.5%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
38
0.0%
95
0%
105
0.0%
248
0.1%
Total
21,612
100%
8,655
100%
307,395
100%
182,801
100%
1 785,412
100%
364,742
100%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
• About one-half of the renter -occupied housing units are within structures that have 50 or
more units in Plymouth.
• Most of the housing units with two or more units are renter -occupied.
Owner -Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status
Table HC -5 shows mortgage status and average values from the American Community Survey
for 2015 (5 -Year). Mortgage status provides information on the cost of homeownership when
analyzed in conjunction with mortgage payment data. A mortgage refers to all forms of debt
where the property is pledged as security for repayment of debt. A first mortgage has priority
claim over any other mortgage or if it is the only mortgage. A second (and sometimes third)
mortgage is called a 'junior mortgage," a home equity line of credit (HELOC) would also fall into
this category. Finally, a housing unit without a mortgage is owned free and clear and is debt
free.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 49
Page 61
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
• Approximately 70% of Plymouth homeowners have a mortgage. About 17% of homeown-
ers with mortgages in Plymouth also have a second mortgage and/or home equity loan.
These numbers are slightly lower compared to Hennepin County and the Metro Area where
approximately 73% of homeowners in Hennepin County and in the Metro Area have a mort-
gage.
• The median value for homes with a mortgage for the City of Plymouth homeowners is ap-
proximately $301,600, while the median value for homes without a mortgage are $15,700
lower at $285,900.
TABLE HC -5
OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY MORTGAGE STATUS
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2015
PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN CO.
METRO AREA
Mortgage Status
No. Pct.
No. Pct.
Pct.
Pct.
Housing units without a mortgage
6,450 29.8
83,550 27.2
182,334
26.6
Housing units with a mortgage/debt
15,162 70.2
223,845 72.8
503,556
73.4
Second mortgage only
701 3.2
12,747 4.1
30,582
4.5
Home equity loan only
3,005 13.9
38,113 12.4
85,592
12.5
Both second mortgage and equity loan
61 0.3
1,731 0.6
4,192
0.6
No second mortgage or equity loan
11,395 52.7
171,254 55.7
383,190
55.9
Total
21,612 100.0F
307,395 100.0
685,890
100.0
Average Value by Mortgage Status
Housing units with a mortgage
$301,600
$232,200
$224,570
Housing units without a mortgage
$285,900
$220,400
$209,350
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey; Maxfield Research & Consuilting, LLC
Housing Units by Occupancy Status & Tenure
Tenure is a key variable that analyzes the propensity for householders to rent or own their
housing unit. Tenure is an integral statistic used by numerous governmental agencies and pri-
vate sector industries to assess neighborhood stability. The Follow are key points from Table
HC -6:
• The City of Plymouth had a larger portion (68%) of the City's housing stock devoted to
owner occupied units in 2015 than Hennepin County (59%) and the Metro Area (65%).
• Approximately 27% of housing units in the City of Plymouth were renter occupied in the
2015, compared to a moderately higher percentage in Hennepin County (35%) and the
Metro Area (30%).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 50
Page 62
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
About 4.4% of Plymouth's housing stock was vacant in 2010 and decreased to 4.1% in 2015.
It is important to note, however, that the Census's definition of vacant housing units in-
cludes: units that have been rented or sold, but not yet occupied, seasonal housing (vaca-
tion or second homes), housing for migrant workers, and even boarded -up housing. Thus,
the U.S. Census vacancy figures are not always a true indicator of adequate housing availa-
ble for new households wishing to move into the area.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 51
Page 63
TABLE HC -6
HOUSING UNITS BY OCCUPANCY STATUS
& TENURE
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2010 & 2015
Wil kTA •CO.
METRO AREA
Year/Occupancy
No.
Pct. No.
Pct.
Pct,
Pct.
2010
Owner Occupied
20,756
69.2 306,121
60.1
782,475
65.9
Renter Occupied
7,907
26.4 169,792
33.3
335,274
28.2
Vacant
1,319
4.4 33,556
6.6
69,237
5.8
Total
29,982
100.0 509,469
100.0
1,186,986
100.0
2015
Owner Occupied
21,612
68.4 307,395
59.3
785,412
65.1
Renter Occupied
8,655
27.4 182,801
35.3
364,742
30.2
Vacant
1,308
4.1 28,136
5.4
56,584
4.7
Total
31,575
100.0 518,332
100.0
1,206,738
100.0
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 51
Page 63
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
0
City of Plymouth Residential Parcels by Total Assessed Parcel Value
City of Maple Grove
City of Wayzata City of Minnetonka
Legend
Single S TWo-family Properties
- 399,999 Gr under
5100,000-5199,999
5200,000 -5299,999
5340,000 -5399,999
54 00, 0 0 0 - 5499,999
i $500,000-5749,999
- 3750,008-S999,999
- $1,000,000 or more
[i Maxf
RIIIrr,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Multi -family Properties
[� $99,999 a u nder
5100,000 -5199,999
- 8200,000 - 5299,999
- $300,000-$399,999
- 5400,000-3499,999
- 5500,000 - 5749,999
- 3750,000 - 5999,999
- £1,000,000 or more
0
CL
0
z
a
0
0
City of St. Louis Park
Nan -Residential Parcels
Water
0 9 2
'files
52
Page 64
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
0
a
C
Q
0
A6
City of Plymouth Residential Parcels by Year Built
City of Maple Gro,, e
.7t.
City of Wayzata
Legend
= Vacant No Year Built
r iMaxfielResearch & in
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
P
7jr
City of Minnetonka
m
CL
P
3r
Z
A:
i.
d
City of 5t LOUiSPark
water Residential Parcels Year Built 1961-1970
- Priorto 1900 1971 -1980
1901-1920 1981-1990
1921 -1940 1991 - 2000
1941 - 1950 2001 -2010
1951 -1960 2011 -2017
0 1 2
Miles
53
Page 65
\
`k 11 L'i FTI t M- C:
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Renter -Occupied Units by Contract Rent
Table HC -7 presents information on the monthly housing costs for renters called contract rent
(also known as asking rent). Contract rent is the monthly rent agreed to regardless of any utili-
ties, furnishings, fees, or services that may be included.
• The median contract rent in Plymouth was $1,057 and $874 in Hennepin County. Based on
a 30% allocation of income to housing, a household in Plymouth would need an income of
about $42,280 to afford an average monthly rent of $1,057.
• Approximately 56% of Plymouth renters have monthly rents over $1,000, 37% of renters
paying between $500 and $999, 4.8% of renters pay less than $500.
• Within Hennepin County, nearly half of renters (49.7%) paid a contract rent between $500
and $999, while just over a third of renters (35.9%) paid a contract rent above $1,000. The
remaining renters who paid cash rent in Hennepin County consist of renters who paid a con-
tract rent less than $500 (12.2%).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 55
Page 67
TABLE HC -7
RENTER -OCCUPIED UNITS BY CONTRACT RENT
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2015
PLYMOUTH
HENNEPIN CO.
METRO AREA
Contract Rent
No.
Pct.
No.
Pct.
Pct.
Pct.
No Cash Rent
193
2.2
3,979
2.2
9,618
2.6
Cash Rent
8,462
97.8
178,822
97.8
355,124
97.4
$0 to $249
143
1.7
11,121
6.1
20,313
5.6
$250-$499
275
3.2
11,119
6.1
23,675
6.5
$500-$749
707
8.2
38,975
21.3
79,666
21.8
$750-$999
2,505
28.9
51,905
28.4
107,773
29.5
$1,000-$1,500
3,910
45.2
47,983
26.2
93,061
25.5
$1,500+
922
10.7
17,719
9.7
30,636
8.4
Total
8,655
100.0
182,801
100.0
364,742
100.0
Median Contract Rent
$1,057
$874
$864
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 55
Page 67
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Characteristics Comparison
Table HC -8, on the following page, provides a comparison on various housing characteristics in
Plymouth compared to neighboring peer cities in the Metro Area.
TABLE HC -8
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISION
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
21,612
8,655
$1,057
3.2%
$1,176
1,511
$325,000
$372,849
15,162
$297,400
878
1,926
2,804
17,776
6,643
$1,104
2.2%
$1,212
1,175
$308,500
$357,670
13,534
$303,600
331
508
839
15,327
5,554
$1,126
3.3%
$1,378
1,004
$435,010
$529,736
10,173
$403,000
533
1,523
2,056
6,851
2,054
$1,036
1.6%
$1,288
457
$290,275
$343,493
4,627
$265,300
39
705
744
21,019
3,885
$1,188
3.6%
$1,312
1,462
$256,700
$292,793
16,674
$248,000
1,416
2,173
3,589
1,735
119
$1,207
N/A
N/A
129
$541,250
$622,633
1,318
$607,200
79
573
652
15,995
6,681
$1,082
2.3%
$1,263
1,018
$307,350
$355,936
11,015
$289,300
329
1,087
1,416
12,642
9,872
$966
2.2%
$1,229
1,011
$245,000
$272,848
9,287
$236,900
504
1,410
1,914
Owner Units (2015)
Renter Units (2015)
Median Contract Rent (2015)
Vacancy Rate (6/2017)*
Average Rent (6/2017)*
Resales (2016)
Median Resale Price (2016)
Average Resale Price (2016)
Mortgage Status - Housing Units
with a Mortgage (2015)
Median Home Value (2015)
Residential Building Permits
2007-2011
2012-2016
2007 - 2016 Total
*Vacancy Rate &Average Rent for Maple Grove incorporates vacancy rates and rents from Osseo & Rogers
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Marquette Advisors; Met Council; Northstar MLS; Maxfield Research, Inc.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 56
Page 68
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Introduction
Affordable housing is a term that has various definitions according to different people and is a
product of supply and demand. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment (HUD), the definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30% of its
annual income on housing (including utilities). Families who pay more than 30% of their in-
come for housing (either rent or mortgage) are considered cost burdened and may have diffi-
culty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.
Generally, housing that is income -restricted to households earning at or below 80% of Area Me-
dian Income (AMI) is considered affordable. However, many individual properties have income
restrictions set anywhere from 30% to 80% of AMI. Rent is not based on income but instead is
a contract amount that is affordable to households within the specific income restriction seg-
ment. Moderate -income housing, often referred to as "workforce housing," refers to both
rental and ownership housing. Hence the definition is broadly defined as housing that is in-
come -restricted to households earning between 50% and 120% AMI. Figure 1 below summa-
rizes income ranges by definition.
FIGURE 1
AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI) DEFINITIONS
Definition
Extremely Low Income 0% - 30%
Very Low Income 31% - 50%
Low Income 51% - 80%
Moderate Income 80% - 120%
Note: Hennepin County 4 -person AMI = $90,400 (2017)
Rent and Income Limits
Table HA -1 shows the maximum allowable incomes by household size to qualify for affordable
housing and maximum gross rents that can be charged by bedroom size in Hennepin County.
These incomes are published and revised annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and also published separately by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
based on the date the project was placed into service. Fair market rent is the amount needed
to pay gross monthly rent at modest rental housing in a given area. This table is used as a basis
for determining the payment standard amount used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy
for families at financially assisted housing.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 57
Page 69
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Sources: MHFA, HUD, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
Table HA -2 shows the maximum rents by household size and AMI based on income limits illus-
trated in Table HA -1. The rents on Table HA -2 are based on HUD's allocation that monthly rents
should not exceed 30% of income. In addition, the table reflects maximum household size
based on HUD guidelines of number of persons per unit. For each additional bedroom, the
maximum household size increases by two persons.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 58
Page 70
TABLE HA -1
MHFA/HUD INCOME AND RENT LIMITS
HENNEPIN COUNTY- 2017
EFF
16R
26R
36R
Income Limits by Household Size
30% of median
$474
$543
1 pph
2 pph
3 pph
4 pph
5 pph
6 pph
7 pph
8 pph
30% of median
$18,990
$21,720
$24,420
$27,120
$29,310
$31,470
$33,630
$35,820
50% of median
$31,650
$36,200
$40,700
$45,200
$48,850
$52,450
$56,050
$59,700
60% of median
$37,980
$43,440
$48,840
$54,240
$58,620
$62,940
$67,260
$71,640
80% of median
$50,640
$57,920
$65,120
$72,320
$78,160
$83,920
$89,680
$95,520
100% of median
$63,300
$72,400
$81,400
$90,400
$97,700
$104,900
$112,100
$119,400
120% of median
$75,960
$86,880
$97,680
$108,480
$117,240
$125,880
$134,520
$143,280
Sources: MHFA, HUD, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
Table HA -2 shows the maximum rents by household size and AMI based on income limits illus-
trated in Table HA -1. The rents on Table HA -2 are based on HUD's allocation that monthly rents
should not exceed 30% of income. In addition, the table reflects maximum household size
based on HUD guidelines of number of persons per unit. For each additional bedroom, the
maximum household size increases by two persons.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 58
Page 70
Maximum Gross Rent
EFF
16R
26R
36R
46R
30% of median
$474
$543
$610
$678
$732
50% of median
$791
$905
$1,017
$1,130
$1,221
60% of median
$949
$1,086
$1,221
$1,356
$1,465
80% of median
$1,266
$1,448
$1,628
$1,808
$1,954
100% of median
$1,582
$1,810
$2,035
$2,260
$2,442
120% of median
$1,899
$2,172
$2,442
$2,712
$2,931
Fair Market Rent
EFF
16R
2BR
3BR
4BR
Fair Market Rent
$699
$862
$1,086
$1,538
$1,799
Sources: MHFA, HUD, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
Table HA -2 shows the maximum rents by household size and AMI based on income limits illus-
trated in Table HA -1. The rents on Table HA -2 are based on HUD's allocation that monthly rents
should not exceed 30% of income. In addition, the table reflects maximum household size
based on HUD guidelines of number of persons per unit. For each additional bedroom, the
maximum household size increases by two persons.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 58
Page 70
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
TABLE HA -2
MAXIMUM RENT BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND AREA MEDIAN INCOME
HENNEPIN COUNTY - 2017
HouseholdMaximum Rent Based on
of Income)
HHD Size 30% 50%
Min Max Min. Max. Min. Max.
.0
Min. Max.
Min.
:0
Max.
Min.
00
Max.
Min.
Max.
Studio 1 1 $475 - $475 $791 - $791
$950 - $950
$1,266
- $1,266
$1,583
- $1,583
$1,899
- $1,899
1BR 1 2 $475 $543 $791 $905
$950 $1,086
$1,266
$1,448
$1,583
$1,810
$1,899
$2,172
2BR 2 4 $543 $678 $905 $1,130
$1,086 $1,356
$1,448
$1,808
$1,810
$2,260
$2,172
$2,712
3BR 3 6 $611 $787 $1,018 $1,311
$1,221 $1,574
$1,628
$2,098
$2,035
$2,623
$2,442
$3,147
413R 4 8 $678 $896 $1,130 $1,493
$1,356 $1,791
$1,808
$2,388
$2,260
$2,985
$2,712
$3,582
1 One -bedroom plus den and two-bedroom plus den units are classified as 113R and 2BR units, respectively.
To be classified
as a bedroom, a
den must have a window and
closet.
Note: 4 -person Hennepin County AMI is $90,400 (2017)
Sources: HUD, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 59
Page 71
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing Cost Burden
Table HA -3 shows the number and percentage of owner and renter households in Minnesota,
Hennepin County, the Twin Cities Metro Area, and Plymouth that pay 30% or more of their
gross income for housing. This information was compiled from the American Community Sur-
vey 2015 estimates. This information is different than the 2000 Census which separated house-
holds that paid 35% or more in housing costs. As such, the information presented in the tables
may be overstated in terms of households that may be "cost burdened." The Federal standard
for affordability is 30% of income for housing costs. Without a separate break out for house-
holds that pay 35% or more, there are likely a number of households that elect to pay slightly
more than 30% of their gross income to select the housing that they choose. Moderately cost -
burdened is defined as households paying between 30% and 50% of their income to housing;
while severely cost -burdened is defined as households paying more than 50% of their income
for housing.
Higher -income households that are cost -burdened may have the option of moving to lower
priced housing, but lower-income households often do not. The figures focus on owner house-
holds with incomes below $50,000 and renter households with incomes below $35,000.
Key findings from Table HA -3 follow.
In Plymouth, 19.6% of owner households and 42.8% of renter households are considered
cost burdened. Plymouth is slightly less cost burdened for owner households than the Twin
Cities Metro Area (22.7%), Hennepin County (23.5%), and the State of Minnesota (22.1%).
Plymouth is also slightly less cost burdened for renter households than the Twin Cities
Metro Area (48.5%), Hennepin County (47.9%), and the State of Minnesota (48.2%).
• Among owner households earning less than $50,000, 57.8% were cost burdened in Plym-
outh. This is higher than both the Twin Cities Metro Area (57.7%) and the State of Minne-
sota (50.4%), but lower than Hennepin County (60.4%).
• Approximately 93.8% of Plymouth renter households earning less than $35,000 were cost
burdened which is significantly higher than the Twin Cities Metro Area (82.3%), Hennepin
County (82.3%) and the State of Minnesota (77.7%).
The median contract rent in Plymouth was $1,057 in 2015 and was significantly higher than
the Twin Cities Metro Area ($855), Hennepin County ($874), and the State of Minnesota
($759). Plymouth's median contract rent was roughly 21% higher than that of Hennepin
County.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 60
Page 72
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 61
Page 73
TABLE HA -3
HOUSING COST BURDEN
PLYMOUTH, METRO
AREA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
2015
Owner Households
All Owner Households
21,612
896,777
307,395
1,522,618
Cost Burden 30% or greater
4,230
19.6% 202,714 22.7%
71,961
23.5%
334,738
22.1%
Owner Households w/ incomes <$50,000
4,450
214,911
74,843
450,483
Cost Burden 30% or greater
2,528
57.8% 121,783 57.7%
44,329
60.4%
223,625
50.4%
Renter Households
All Renter Households
8,655
389,982
182,801
602,127
Cost Burden 30% or greater
3,594
42.8% 181,389 48.5%
84,579
47.9%
272,894
48.2%
Renter Households w/ incomes <$35,000
2,718
186,890
86,602
316,969
Cost Burden 30% or greater
2,395
93.8% 145,084 82.3%
67,661
82.3%
228,441
77.7%
Median Contract Rent'
$1,057
$855
$874
$759
Median Contract Rent 2015
Note: Calculations exclude households not computed.
Sources: American Community Survey 2015 estimates; Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 61
Page 73
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing Vouchers
In addition to subsidized apartments, "tenant -based" subsidies like Housing Choice Vouchers,
can help lower income households afford market -rate rental housing. The tenant -based sub-
sidy is funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and is managed
by the City of Plymouth HRA. Under the Housing Choice Voucher program (also referred to as
Section 8) qualified households are issued a voucher that the household can take to an apart-
ment that has rent levels with Payment Standards. The household then pays approximately
30% of their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for rent and utilities, and the Federal government
pays the remainder of the rent to the landlord. The maximum income limit to be eligible for a
Housing Choice Voucher is 50% Area Median Income (AMI) based on household size, as shown
in Table HA -1. The following are key points about the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Plym-
outh.
• The Plymouth HRA manages roughly 375 Housing Choice rental assistance vouchers
throughout the city.
• The voucher program uses a payment standard which matches the cost of housing and utili-
ties and households may use the housing voucher for units with rent that is below or above
the payment standard.
Housing Choice Vouchers can be used for several types of residences to include apartment
rentals, single family housing rentals, duplexes, townhouses, and homeownership.
Table HA -4 on the following page provides a breakdown of properties that offer subsidized
units and includes the expiration date of the properties funding source as well as the percent-
age of subsidized units at the select property.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 62
Page 74
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 63
Page 75
TABLE HA -4
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY EXPIRATION DATE
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Name
I Subsidized Units
Total Units
Pct. Subsidized
I Exp. Date
Funding
At the Lake
61
204
30%
7/29/2019
Housing Revenue Bonds
The Axis
16
161
10%
12/31/2038
TIF/MN DEED/Met Council
Basset Creek Commons (senior housing)
46
46
100%
2039
TIF/HUD
Currents (Harbor Lane)
64
326
20%
2/15/2026
Housing Revenue Bonds
Kimberly Meadows
39
39
100%
10/8/2018
Project Based Section 8/HUD/MHFA
Lakeview Commons
62
62
100%
7/1/2025
LIHTC
Lancaster Village
32
160
20%
9/15/2031
Bonds
Mission Oaks
28
28
100%
12/31/2018
Project Based Section 8/HUD
Parkside Apartments
21
211
10%
4/15/2033
Revenue Bonds
Shenandoah Woods Apartments
46
64
72%
10/26/2024
HRA/Hennepin Co/FHF/MHFA
Stone Creek Village
34
132
26%
4/1/2038
TIF/Met Council/FHF/LIHTC/Hennepin County
Vicksburg Commons
50
50
100%
9/30/2041
TIF/Section 8/Met Council
West View Estates
67
67
100%
6/20/2041
TIF/Section 8/Met Council
Willow Woods
39
40
98%
12/1/2035
HRA Loan/Project Based section 8
HRA OWNED
Plymouth Towne Square
99
99
100%
N/A
GO Bonds
Vicksburg Crossing
96
96
100%
N/A
GO Bonds
Sources: City of Plymouth; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 63
Page 75
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income
Housing costs are generally considered affordable at 30% of a households adjusted gross in-
come. Table HA -5 on the following page illustrates key housing metrics based on housing costs
and household incomes in Plymouth. The table estimates the percentage of Plymouth house-
holders that can afford rental housing based on a 30% allocation of income to housing. Housing
costs are based on the Plymouth average.
The housing affordability calculations assume the following:
Rental Housing
■ Background check on tenant to ensure credit history
■ 30% allocation of income
■ Renter household income per 2015 ACS
• The median income of all Plymouth households in 2017 was about $96,274. However, the
median income varies by tenure. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, the
median income of a homeowner is $107,396 compared to $52,043 for renters.
About 83% of existing renter households can afford to rent a one -bedroom unit in Plymouth
($950/month). The percentage of renter income -qualified households decreases to 62%
that can afford an existing three-bedroom unit ($1,850/month). After adjusting for new
construction rental housing, the percentage of renters that are income -qualified decreases.
About 75% of renters can afford a new market rate one -bedroom unit while 44% can afford
a new three-bedroom unit.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 64
Page 76
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 65
Page 77
TABLE HA -5
PLYMOUTH HOUSING AFFORDABILITY - BASED ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Rental (Market Rate)
Existing
Rental
1BR
2BR
3BR
1BR
2BR
3BR
Monthly Rent
$950
$1,300
$1,850
$1,300
$2,000
$2,800
Annual Rent
$11,400
$15,600
$22,200
$15,600
$24,000
$33,600
Housing Costs as % of Income
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
Minimum Income Required
$38,000
$52,000
$74,000
$52,000
$80,000
$112,000
Pct. of ALL Plymouth HHDS who can afford'
83.5%
74.8%
62.4%
74.8%
58.9%
43.7%
No. of Plymouth HHDS who can afford'
25,262
22,652
18,898
22,652
17,817
13,221
Pct. of Plymouth renter HHDs who can afford
65.4%
65.4%
56.8%
46.8%
25.9%
13.2%
No. of Plymouth renter HHDs who can afford
5,659
5,659
4,920
4,050
2,245
1,142
No. of Plymouth renter HHDS who cannot afford
2,996
2,996
3,735
4,605
6,410
7,513
1 Based on 2017 household income for ALL households
Z Based on 2015 ACS household income by tenure (i.e. owner and
renter incomes. Owner incomes = $107,396 vs. renter incomes = $52,043)
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 65
Page 77
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Introduction
Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC identified and surveyed larger rental properties of 25 or
more units in Plymouth. In addition, interviews were conducted with rental housing manage-
ment firms, and others in the community familiar with Plymouth's' rental housing stock.
For purposes of our analysis, rental properties are classified rental projects into two groups,
general occupancy and senior (age -restricted). All senior properties are included in the Senior
Housing Market Analysis section of this report. The general occupancy rental properties are di-
vided into three groups: market rate (those without income restrictions); affordable or shallow -
subsidy housing (those receiving tax credits or another type of shallow -subsidy and where there
is a quoted rent for the unit and a maximum income that cannot be exceeded by the tenant);
and subsidized or deep -subsidy properties (those with income restrictions at 30% or less of AMI
where rental rates are based on 30% of their gross adjusted income.
Overview of Rental Market Conditions
Maxfield Research utilized data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and Marquette Ad-
visors Apartment Trends report for Minnesota, the Twin Cities Metro Area, Hennepin County
and Plymouth to summarize rental market conditions in the Plymouth Analysis Area. The data
from Marquette Advisors is shown for the 4th Quarter of 2007 through 4th Quarter of 2016,
while the ACS data is 2011— 2015. ACS includes all rental units, regardless of structure size.
The following are key points concerning Plymouth's rental conditions.
The equilibrium vacancy rate for rental housing is considered to be 5.0%. This allows for
normal turnover and an adequate supply of alternatives for prospective renters. During the
fourth quarter of 2016, the vacancy rate was 3% in Plymouth overall, with the highest va-
cancies in two-bedroom (3.3%) and one -bedroom (3%) units.
• Vacancy rates were lowest for studio (1.6%), two-bedroom with den (1.6%), and one -bed-
room with den (1.8%) units in Plymouth.
Between the fourth quarter 2007 and 2016, the average rents for a studio unit increased
20.7%, 10.7% for a one -bedroom, and 14.5% for a two-bedroom.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 66
Page 78
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 67
Page 79
TABLE R-1
AVERAGE RENTS/VACANCIES TRENDS
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
4th Quarter 2007-2016
1 BR
2 BR
Total
Studio
1 BR
w/ Den
2 BR
w/ Den
3 BR
Units
5,598
128
1,918
218
2,868
128
338
No. Vacant
170
2
58
4
96
2
8
Avg. Rent
$1,166
$857
$1,000
$1,136
$1,234
$1,475
$1,541
Vacancy
3.0%
1.6%
3.0%
1.8%
3.3%
1.6%
2.4%
Units
5,661
116
1,852
218
3,016
121
338
No. Vacant
189
4
53
4
121
5
2
Avg. Rent
$1,127
$831
$960
$1,124
$1,184
$1,426
$1,523
Vacancy
3.3%
3.4%
2.9%
1.8%
4.0%
4.1%
0.6%
Units
5,789
128
1,960
218
3,018
127
338
No. Vacant
226
2
49
4
143
8
20
Avg. Rent
$1,111
$807
$942
$1,122
$1,178
$1,398
$1,498
Vacancy
3.9%
1.6%
2.5%
1.8%
4.7%
6.3%
5.9%
Units
5,658
128
1,979
218
2,884
111
338
No. Vacant
193
1
63
6
109
7
7
Avg. Rent
$1,087
$783
$927
$1,113
$1,150
$1,336
$1,498
Vacancy
3.4%
0.8%
3.2%
2.8%
3.8%
6.3%
2.1%
Units
5,423
127
1,834
218
2,747
111
386
No. Vacant
225
3
55
4
138
10
15
Avg. Rent
$1,102
$748
$950
$1,114
$1,161
$1,386
$1,434
Vacancy
4.1%
2.4%
3.0%
1.8%
5.0%
9.0%
3.9%
Units
4,497
128
1,608
206
2,169
111
275
No. Vacant
189
3
73
6
93
8
6
Avg. Rent
$1,036
$728
$897
$1,061
$1,091
$1,359
$1,408
Vacancy
4.2%
2.3%
4.5%
2.9%
4.3%
7.2%
2.2%
Units
5,248
98
1,811
206
2,671
111
351
'
No. Vacant
267
5
68
15
147
14
18
Avg. Rent
$1,053
$717
$908
$1,048
$1,109
$1,403
$1,356
Vacancy
5.1%
5.1%
3.8%
7.3%
5.5%
12.6%
5.1%
Units
5,269
125
1,851
218
2,648
92
335
No. Vacant
389
13
139
16
200
11
10
Avg. Rent
$1,055
$742
$915
$1,096
$1,110
$1,440
$1,374
Vacancy
7.4%
10.4%
7.5%
7.3%
7.6%
12.0%
3.0%
Units
6,277
121
2,094
218
3,292
104
448
No. Vacant
351
2
85
14
212
14
24
Avg. Rent
$1,044
$708
$904
$1,070
$1,088
$1,407
$1,372
Vacancy
5.6%
1.7%
4.1%
6.4%
6.4%
13.5%
5.4%
Units
5,856
120
2,017
218
2,997
104
400
No. Vacant
248
16
44
6
168
6
8
Avg. Rent
$1,112
$710
$903
$1,091
$1,078
$1,481
$1,411
Vacancy
4.2%
13.2%
2.2%
2.8%
5.6%
5.6%
2.1%
Units
-258
8
-99
0
-129
24
-62
No. Vacant
-78
-14
14
-2
-72
-4
0
Avg.Rent
$54
$147
$97
$45
$156
-$6
$130
Vacancy
-1.2%
-11.6%
0.8%
-1.0%
-2.3%
-4.0%
0.3%
Sources: Marquette Advisors; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 67
Page 79
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
• The following chart illustrates how the Plymouth general occupancy apartment market re-
covered rapidly after struggling with higher vacancy rates between fourth quarter of 2008
and 2010.
• Plymouth has much higher rents compared to Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.
The median gross rent in Plymouth (estimated as of 2015 ACS) was $1,143 per month,
which was 20% higher than the median monthly rent of $951 in Hennepin County and 35%
higher than the median monthly rent of $848 in Minnesota.
• Monthly gross rents in Plymouth ranged from less than $300 to more than $1,500
with approximately 16% renting for $1,500 or more per month. Over 49% had gross
monthly rents between $1,000 and $1,499, 23% had rents between $750 and $999, while
just over 5% had rents between $500 and $749. Only 3% of renters had rents of less than
$500.
• By comparison, an estimated 14% in the Hennepin County had gross monthly rents that
were $1,500 or more. Also, 30% had gross monthly rents from $1,000 to $1,500, 27% had
rents between $750 and $999 and 16% had rents between $500 and $749. In addition, an
estimated 10% had rents of less than $500.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 68
Page 80
Avg. Rents & Vacancy Rate 2007 to 2016
Plymouth MN
$1,200
8.0%
7.0%
$1,150
6.0
$1,100
_
5.0%
ami
4.0%
$1,050
3.0
2.0%
$1,000
— —
1.0%
$950
- 0.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2016
Year
Avg. Rent --*--Pct. Vacant
Ma rquette Advisors
• Plymouth has much higher rents compared to Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.
The median gross rent in Plymouth (estimated as of 2015 ACS) was $1,143 per month,
which was 20% higher than the median monthly rent of $951 in Hennepin County and 35%
higher than the median monthly rent of $848 in Minnesota.
• Monthly gross rents in Plymouth ranged from less than $300 to more than $1,500
with approximately 16% renting for $1,500 or more per month. Over 49% had gross
monthly rents between $1,000 and $1,499, 23% had rents between $750 and $999, while
just over 5% had rents between $500 and $749. Only 3% of renters had rents of less than
$500.
• By comparison, an estimated 14% in the Hennepin County had gross monthly rents that
were $1,500 or more. Also, 30% had gross monthly rents from $1,000 to $1,500, 27% had
rents between $750 and $999 and 16% had rents between $500 and $749. In addition, an
estimated 10% had rents of less than $500.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 68
Page 80
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 69
Page 81
R-2
BEDROOMS BY GROSS RENT,
RENTER -OCCUPIED
HOUSING
UNITS
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
2015
Total:
8,655 100%
182,801100%100%
Median Gross Rent
$1,143
$951
$848
No Bedroom
333
4%
12,192
7%
5%
Less than $300
0
0%
1,393
1%
1%
$300 to $499
0
0%
1,342
1%
1%
$500 to $749
126
1%
5,517
3%
2%
$750 to $999
129
1%
2,377
1%
1%
$1,000 to $1,499
78
1%
1,066
1%
0%
$1,500 or more
0
0%
342
0%
0%
No cash rent
0
0%
155
0%
0%
1 Bedroom
2,641
31%
72,588
40%
33%
Less than $300
43
0%
7,162
4%
4%
$300 to $499
94
1%
3,623
2%
4%
$500 to $749
96
1%
18,031
10%
10%
$750 to $999
1,050
12%
26,223
14%
9%
$1,000 to $1,499
1,209
14%
13,251
7%
4%
$1,500 or more
140
2%
3,758
2%
1%
No cash rent
9
0%
540
0%
0%
2 Bedrooms
4,207
49%
64,026
35%
38%
Less than $300
68
1%
2,173
1%
1%
$300 to $499
15
0%
1,655
1%
2%
$500 to $749
202
2%
3,691
2%
7%
$750 to $999
792
9%
18,235
10%
12%
$1,000 to $1,499
2,577
30%
28,507
16%
11%
$1,500 or more
478
6%
8,430
5%
3%
No cash rent
75
1%
1,335
1%
1%
3 or More Bedrooms
1,474
17%
33,995
19%
24%
Less than $300
15
0%
752
0%
1%
$300 to $499
34
0%
1,099
1%
1%
$500 to $749
77
1%
2,297
1%
3%
$750 to $999
43
0%
2,725
1%
4%
$1,000 to $1,499
427
5%
11,771
6%
8%
$1,500 or more
769
9%
13,402
7%
6%
No cash rent
109
1%
1,949
1%
3%
Sources: 2011-2015 American Community Survey;
Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 69
Page 81
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Renter -Occupied Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Plymouth MN
100% ® -
90% -
80%
70%
60% -
■ 3BR+
50% 2BR
40% ■ 1BR
30% , ■ No BR
20%
10%
0%
Plymouth Hennepin Co. MN
U.S. Census
General -Occupancy Rental Properties
Our research of Plymouth's general occupancy rental market included a survey of 44 market
rate, affordable, and subsidized apartment properties (25 units and larger) in July & August
2017. These properties represent a combined total of 6,972 units, including 6,372 market rate
units, 366 affordable units, and 234 subsidized units.
Although we were able to contact and obtain up-to-date information on the majority of rental
properties, there were a few projects that chose not to participate in this survey or were unable
to reach and had to rely on information from third party sources.
At the time of our survey, 115 market rate units were vacant, resulting in an overall vacancy
rate of 1.6% for all units. The combined overall vacancy rate is well below the industry stand-
ard of 5% vacancy for a stabilized rental market rate which promotes competitive rates, ensures
adequate choice, and allows for sufficient unit turnover.
Table R-3 summarizes year built of Plymouth general occupancy projects. Table R-4 summarizes
information on market rate, affordable, and subsidized general occupancy projects. Table R-5
summarizes available unit types and rents among all general -occupancy housing developments.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 70
Page 82
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
TABLE R-3
GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT YEAR BUILT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Property Name/Location Built Type
Units
The Axis
2016
MR/AFF
161
West View Estates
2012
AFF
67
Vicksburg Commons
2007
AFF
50
Stone Creek at Medicine Lake
2007
MR/AFF/SUB
132
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
2003
MR
361
The Quinn
2002
MR
301
Shadow Hills
2002
MR
322
Creekside Estates
2000
MR
204
Shenandoah Woods
1998
MR/AFF/SUB
64
Lakeview Commons
1995
AFF
62
Fern brook Townhomes
1993
MR
72
Lancaster Park
1991
MR
50
Bass Lake Hills
1990
MR
284
Vicksburg Village
1989
MR
370
Coachman Trails
1988
MR
156
Hummingbird Cove
1988
MR
74
Stonehill
1988
MR
224
Parkers Lake Apartments
1988
MR
248
Plymouth Square at 37th
1987
MR
160
Plymouth Ponds
1987
MR
200
Parkside at Medicine Lake
1986
MR/AFF/SUB
211
Summer Creek
1985
MR
72
Fox Forest Townhomes
1985
MR
160
Park Place Apartments
1985
MR
500
Medicine Lake Woods
1984
MR
17
Mission Oaks
1983
SUB
26
Kimberly Meadows
1980
SUB
39
Willow Wood Estates
1980
AFF
40
Oakwood
1978
MR
107
Willow Creek Apartments
1977
MR
245
Medicine Lake Apartments
1977
MR
81
Lancaster Village
1974
MR/SUB
160
Wellington Apartments
1973
MR
39
Plymouth Commons
1972
MR
212
At the Lake
1971
MR/AFF/SUB
204
Currents
1971
MR/SUB
326
Granite Woods
1971
MR
192
Manor Royal
1971
MR
132
Plymouth Pointe
1969
MR
96
South Shore
1969
MR
17
Countryside Estates
1968
MR
72
Four Season Estates
1968
MR
96
Four Seasons Villas
1967
MR
240
Plymouth Colony
1945
MR
126
Source: City of Plymouth; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 71
Page 83
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Plymouth General Occupancy Rental Units by
Year Built
3,000 —
2,497
2,500
2,000 1,698
1,500 1,370
1,000
521 532
500
126 0
0
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010+
• Many of Plymouth's larger general occupancy rental housing were built post 1980. Approxi-
mately 66% of all multifamily rental developments were built in 1980 or after.
Market Rate
• The newest market rate general occupancy rental housing project in Plymouth is the Axis
Apartments, which came online in 2016 and has a total of 161 units, 145 being market rate
while the remaining 16 being affordable units. Market rate rents average $1,644 a month
or approximately $1.86 per square foot.
• A total of 115 vacancies were found in market rate rental projects, resulting in a vacancy
rate of 1.8% as of August 2017. Market rate rental vacancy stabilized equilibrium is consid-
ered to be 5% to allow for unit turnover and property choice for renters.
• Sizes for market rate units ranged from 418 square feet for a studio apartment at the Cur-
rents Apartments to 1,780 square feet for a three-bedroom apartment at Bass Lake Hills
Apartments. The average size of all market rate apartments in Plymouth is 962 square feet.
• Average rent per square foot for market rate rentals is $1.29 with studios being the highest
at $1.61 and two-bedroom and two-bedroom units being the lowest at $1.24 rent per
square foot.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 72
Page 84
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Affordable
• There are nine general occupancy affordable properties in Plymouth with 366 total units.
There were no vacant units as of August 2017.
Typically, tax credit rental properties should be able to maintain vacancy rates of 3% or less
in most housing markets. The lack of vacancies for tax credit housing units indicates a need
for additional housing of this type.
• Since 2007, three tax credit rental properties have come online, totaling 133. These three
properties account for roughly 36% of Plymouth's affordable housing units.
Subsidized
• There are eight income -restricted properties deep subsidized projects in Plymouth with 234
total units. There were no vacant unit as of August 2017.
• Typically, deep -subsidy rental properties should be able to maintain vacancy rates of 3% or
less in most housing markets. Because there are no vacancies, there is pent-up demand for
additional subsidized product type.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 73
Page 85
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 74
Page 86
TABLE R-4
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT
SURVEY
PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Year
Units/
Monthly
Rent per
Accept
Property Name/Location
Built
Vacant
Unit Mix
Unit Size
Rent
Square Foot
Vouchers
Amenities/Comments
Stone Creek Apartments
2004
26
10 - 1BR
794 -827
30% of AGI
n.m
No
Underground parking included, fitness center, car wash bay, gas grill,
1020 West Medicine Lake Dr
0
10 -2BR
1,074 - 1,536
30% of AGI
n.m
playground, patio/terrace, dishwasher, kitchen pantry, in unit washer &
Dominium
0.0%
6 - 3BR
1,355 - 1,644
30% of AGI
n.m
dryer, outdoor hot -tub with heated deck
Shenandoah Woods
1998
6
1 - IBR
598
30% of AGI
n.m
No
On-site property manager, dishwasher, walk-in closets, heated
2205 Shenandoah Ln N
0
0.0%
4 -2BR
1 -3BR
8S1_880
1,049 - 1,171
30% of AGI
30% of AGI
n.m
n.m
underground parking, BBQ area, subsidized, affordable, & market rate
units offered
Parkside at Medicine Lake
1986
21
8 - 1BR
770 -808
30% of AGI
n.m
No
Outdoor pol, sauna, lounge, underground parking, laundry facilities,
12102 41st Ave N
0
13 -2BR
1,008 - 1,233
30% of AGI
n.m
two fitness centers, additional storage space, picnic area with grill, near
StuartCo
0.0%
walking/biking trail, dishwasher
Mission Oaks
1983
26
18 - 2BR
920-994
30% of AGI
n.m
No
Designed for families with children, common area laundry, playground,
11841 Old Rockford Rd
0
8 - 3BR
1,242
30% of AGI
n.m
nearby walking trails
Tapestry Management
0.0%
Kimberly Meadows
1980
39
19 - 2BR
920-994
30% of AGI
n.m
No
Balcony, playground, high speed internet access, storage uits, on-site
17363 County Road 6
0
18 - 3BR
1,242
30% of AGI
n.m
property manager, flexible lease lengths
Thies & Tolle Management
0.0%
2 - 4BR
1,450
30% of AGI
n.m
Lancaster Village
1974
32
15 - 1BR
700-750
30% of AGI
n.m.
No
Clubhouse, fitness center, outdoor heated pool with sundeck, picnic
3610 Lancaster Ln N
0
17 - 2BR
900-950
30% of AGI
n.m.
area with grills, playground, surface & garage parking
CSM Corporation
0.0%
Currents
1971
64
48 - 1BR
518-818
30% of AGI
n.m.
No
Outdoor & indoor pool, dry sauna, fitness center, outdoor courtyard,
3205 Harbor Ln N
0
16 - 2BR
1,150
30% of AGI
n.m.
picnic area with BBQ stations, multi -sport court, dog park, playground,
Miramar Inc
0.0%
tanning suite, coffee cafe, business center, DVD rentals, dry cleaning
service
At the Lake
1971
20
10 - IBR
750-750
30% of AGI
n.m.
No
Grill & picnic area, laundry facility, tanning salon, dishwasher, balcony,
2500 Nathan Ln N
0
10 - 2BR
950-1,050
30% of AGI
n.m.
fitness center, playground, pool, sauna, basketball & volleyball court
MN Apartment People
0.0%
Subsidized Total
11111ff
234
0 0.0%
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 74
Page 86
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 75
Page 87
Continued
TABLE R-4
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Year
Units/
Monthly
Rent per
Accept
Property Name/Location
Built
Vacant
Unit Mix
Unit Size
Rent
Square Foot
Vouchers
Amenities/Comments
Affordable Tax -Credit (Section 42)
The Axis
2016
16
8 - 1BR
576-728
N/A
N/A
Yes
Bike storage & fix -it station, pet wash, tv room, sundeck, gas grills,
350 Nathan Ln N
0
8 - 2BR
1,130 - 1,292
N/A
N/A
surface parking & undergound parking garage, fitness center, pool, in -
Steven Scott Management
0.0%
unit washer & dryer, ping pong table & bocce ball court, tax credit &
West View Estates
2012
67
4 - 1BR
956
$764
$0.80
Yes
Dishwasher, assigned parking, coffee bar, playground, walk-in closets,
6125 Vicksburg Ln N
0
38 - 2BR
1,122
$915
$0.82
balcony, laundry facilities
Sand Companies
0.0%
25 - 3BR
1,444
$1,054
$0.73
Vicksburg Commons
2007
50
4 - 1BR
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
One & two car attached garages, central air, in -unit washer and dryer,
6040 Shenandoah Ln N
0
20 - 2BR
N/A
N/A
N/A
community room, computer lab, playground, waitlist closed, no longer
Commonbond Properties
0%
26 - 3BR
N/A
N/A
N/A
accepting applications at time of survey
Stone Creek Apartments
2004
8
4 - 1BR
794-827
N/A
N/A
No
Underground parking included, fitness center, car wash bay, gas grill,
1020 West Medicine Lake Dr
0
4 - 2BR
1,074 - 1,536
N/A
N/A
playground, patio/terrace, dishwasher, kitchen pantry, in unit washer &
Dominium
0.0%
dryer, outdoor hot -tub with heated deck
Shenandoah Woods
1998
40
21 - 1BR
598
N/A
N/A
Yes
On-site property manager, dishwasher, walk-in closets, heated
2205 Shenandoah Ln N
0
8 - 2BR
851-880
N/A
N/A
underground parking, BBQ area, subsidized, affordable, & market rate
Hornig Companies
0%
11 - 3BR
1,049 - 1,171
N/A
N/A
units offered
Lakeview Commons
1995
62
14 - 2B
1,040
$1,075
$1.03
Yes
Dishwasher, garage parking, walk-in closets, playground, on-site
15235 18th Ave N
0
48 - 3B
1,320
$1,238
$0.94
manager, washer & dryer connections, nearby walking & biking trails
Heartland Management
0.0%
Parkside at Medicine Lake
1986
42
6 - Studio
560
N/A
N/A
No
Outdoor pol, sauna, lounge, underground parking, laundry facilities,
12102 41st Ave N
0
9 - 1BR
770-808
N/A
N/A
two fitness centers, additional storage space, picnic area with grill, near
StuartCo
0.0%
25 - 2BR
1,008 - 1,233
N/A
N/A
walking/biking trail, dishwasher
2 - 3BR
1,233 - 1,344
N/A
N/A
Willow Wood Estates
1980
40
36 - 3BR
1,108
30% of AGI
n.m
No
On-site laundry facilities, patio/balcony, playground, clubhouse, storage
10850 South Shore Dr
0
4 - 4BR
1,283
30% of AGI
n.m
units, waiting list is closed and not accepting applications at time of
Dominium Management
0.0%
survey
At the Lake
1971
41
4 - Studio
490-500
N/A
N/A
Yes
Grill & picnic area, laundry facility, tanning salon, dishwasher, balcony,
2500 Nathan Ln N
0
22 - 1BR
750-750
N/A
N/A
fitness center, playground, pool, sauna, basketball & volleyball court
MN Apartment People
0.0%
11 - 2BR
950-1,050
N/A
N/A
4 - 3BR
1,200 - 1,200
N/A
N/A
Affordable Total
OW
366
0.0%
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 75
Page 87
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 76
Page 88
Continued
TABLE R-4
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Year
Units/
Monthly
Rent per
Accept
Property Name/Location
Built
Vacant
Unit Mix
Unit Size
Rent
Square Foot
Vouchers
Amenities/Comments
Market Rate
The Axis
2016
145
87 - 1BR
576-728
$1,275 - $1,495
$2.05 - $2.21
No
Bike storage & fix -it station, pet wash, tv room, sundeck, gas grills,
350 Nathan Ln N
9
54 - 2BR
1,130 - 1,292
$1,920 - $2,100
$1.63 - $1.70
surface parking & undergound parking garage, fitness center, pool, in -
Steven Scott Management
6.2%
4 - 2BR/D
1,540
$2,350
$1.53
unit washer & dryer, ping pong table & bocce ball court, tax credit &
market rate units offered
Stone Creek Apartments
2004
98
16 - Studio
517
$1,100 - $1,200
$2.13 - $2.32
No
Underground parking included, fitness center, car wash bay, gas grill,
1020 West Medicine Lake Dr
2
12 - IBR
794-827
$1,340 - $1,490
$1.69 - $1.88
playground, patio/terrace, dishwasher, kitchen pantry, in unit washer &
Dominium
2.0%
16 - 1BR/D
1,095 - 1,107
$1,515 - $1,695
$1.38 - $1.55
dryer, outdoor hot -tub with heated deck
34 - 2BR
1,074 - 1,536
$1,405 - $2,350
$1.31 - $1.53
20 - 3BR
1,355 - 1,644
$1,900 - $2,540
$1.40 - $1.87
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
2003
361
21 - Studio
530
$1,120
$2.11
No
9 foot ceilings, business center, fitness center, pool, basketball &
5200 Annapolis Ln N
4
211 - 1BR
720-1,016
$1,200 - $1,280
$1.26 - $1.67
racquetball courts, balcony, walk-in closets, car wash bay, DVD rental,
Weidner Apartment Homes
1.1%
42-1BR/D
1,033
$1,300
$1.26
heated parking garage, gas fireplces
63 - 2BR
1,092 - 1,158
$1,535 - $1,565
$1.35 - $1.41
24 - 2BR/D
1,376
$1,720
$1.25
Shadow Hills
2002
322
119 - 1BR
739-957
$1,156 -$1,326
$1.39 -$1.56
No
Outdoor pool, picnic area with grills, playground, hot tub, party room,
4540 Nathan Ln N
0
18 - 1BR/D
957
$1,280 -$1,305
$1.34 -$1.36
DVD rentals, bussiness center, fitness center, theater room,
Bigos Management
0.0%
130 - 2BR
1,069 - 1,223
$1,370 -$1,525
$1.25 -$1.28
undergound parking, in -unit washer & dryer, balcony, dishwasher, walk -
52 - 2BR/D
1,248 - 1,477
$1,500 -$1,629
$1.10 -$1.20
in closet, central air
3 - 3BR
1,525
$1,695 -$1,725
$1.11 -$1.13
The Quinn
2002
301
125 -1 BR
677-800
$1,084 -$2,805
$1.60 -$3.51
No
Dog park, fitness center, game room, playground, outdoor pool & hot
6110 Quinwood Ln N
6
136 - 2 BR
990-1,187
$1,243 -$3,000
$1.26 -$2.53
tub, clubhouse, central air, gas fireplaces, in -unit washer & dryers, walk-
GreyStor
2.0%
40 - 3 BR
1,417
$1,920 -$4,208
$1.35 -$2.97
in closets, patio/balconies, underground & surface parking
Creekside Estates
2000
204
45 - IBR
719-840
$1,130
$1.57 -$1.35
No
Picnic & BBQ area, additional storage units, walk-in closets, in -unit
200 Nathan Ln N
14
42 - 1BR/D
856-1,072
$1,460
$1.71 -$1.36
washer & dryer, car washing station, fitness center, business center,
Steven Scott Management
6.9%
117 - 2BR
1,064 - 1,122
$1,335 - $1,520
$1.25 -$1.35
central air
Shenandoah Woods
1998
18
6 - 1BR
598
$620 -$695
$1.04 -$1.16
Yes
On-site property manager, dishwasher, walk-in closets, heated
2205 Shenandoah Ln N
0
8 -2BR
851 -880
$745 -$905
$0.88 -$1.06
underground parking, BBQ area, subsidized, affordable, & market rate
Hornig Companies
0.0%
4 - 3BR
1,049 - 1,171
$970 - $1,130
$0.92 -$1.08
units offered
Fernbrook Townhomes
1993
72
1 -2BR
950
$1,295
$1.36
No
Pool, playground, gameroom, dishwasher, two car garage, balcony,
3900 Plymouth Boulevard
0
71 -3BR
1,200
$1,295
$1.08
near walking/bike trails, additional storage units
Equity Residential
0.0%
Lancaster Park
1991
50
6 - 1BR
825
$1,110 - $1,310
$1.35 - $1.59
No
Dishwasher, in -unit washer & dryer, garage parking, oversized closets,
4015 Lancaster Ln N
0
44 -2BR
995-1,260
$1,310 - $1,610
$1.28 - $1.32
grills available, picnic area, near walking/bike trails
Marathon Resources Inc
0.0%
Bass Lake Hills
1990
284
246 -2BR
1,007 - 1,212
1,495 - 1,565
$1.29 - $1.48
No
Playground, fitness center, lounge/community room, outdoor heated
5875 Teakwood Ln N
4
38 -3BR
1,487 - 1,780
1,800 - 1,930
$1.08 - $1.21
pool with sundeck, sport court, picnic area, attached garages,
CSM Corporation
1.4%
dishwasher, in -unit washer &dryer, patios
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 76
Page 88
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 77
Page 89
Continued
TABLE R-4
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Year
Units/
Monthly
Rent per
Accept
Property Name/Location
Built
Vacant
Unit Mix
Unit Size
Rent
Square Foot
Vouchers
Amenities/Comments
Market Rate
Vicksburg Village
1989
370
104 - 1BR
785 -822
$1,214 -$1,454
$1.55 -$1.77
No
In -unit washer & dryer, car wash area, clubhouse, conference room,
15730 Rockford Road
13
198 - 2BR
1,042
$1,367 -$1,742
$1.31 -$1.51
patio/balcony, fitness center, heated underground garage, outdoor
NA
3.5%
36 - 2BR/D
1,248 - 1,528
$2,229 -$2,294
$1.50 -$1.79
kitchen & firepit, sauna, flexible lease lengths, dog park
32 - 3611
1,367 - 1,521
$1,766 -$1,958
$1.29 -$1.29
Stonehill
1988
224
6 - Studio
540
$950 _$995
$1.76 -$1.84
No
Billiard room, fitness center, indoor whirlpool, outdoor pool, party
3501 Xenium Ln N
0
90 - 1611
781-893
$1,160 -$1,225
$1.37 -$1.49
room, theater room, underground heated parking, car wash station,
StuartCo
0.0%
110 - 2BR
1,084 - 1,260
$1,410 -$1,460
$1.16 -$1.30
balcony/patio, in -unit washer & dryer, central air
12 - 2BR/D
1,294
$1,595 -$1,665
$1.23 -$1.29
6 - 31311
1,447
$1,685 -$1,725
$1.16 - $1.19
Coachman Trails
1988
156
3 - Studio
545
$975 -$1,000
$1.79 -$1.83
No
BBQ & picnic area, billiards room, community room, business center,
1405 Olive Ln N
2
42 - 11311
832-979
$1,100 -$1,175
$1.20 -$1.32
outdoor pool with sundeck, playground, two fitness centers, heated
StuartCo
1.3%
6 - 1BR/D
1,159
$1,200 -$1,250
$1.04 -$1.08
underground parking, balcony
96 - 2BR
1,142 - 1,499
$1,310 - $1,560
$1.04 - $1.15
9 - 2BR/D
1,296
$1,495 -$1,550
$1.15 -$1.20
Parkers Lake Apartments
1988
248
74 - 1BR
870 -910
$1,318 -$1,569
$1.51 -$1.72
No
Attached garage, business center, clubhouse, fitness center, BBQ
15100 18th Ave N
6
144 - 2BR
1,000 - 1,150
$1,299 -$1,926
$1.30 -$1.67
plyground, outdoor pool with sundeck, on-site management,
Timberland Partners
2.4%
30 - 3BR
1,250
$1,784 -$2,389
$1.43 -$1.91
patio/balcony, dishwasher, fireplace, in -unit washer &dryer, walk-in
closet
Hummingbird Cove
1988
74
24 - 1BR
801
$950 - $1,000
$1.19 -$1.25
No
BBQ car wash with vacuum, community room, fitness center, heated
10405 45th Ave N
0
48 - 2611
1,112 - 1,194
$1,060 -$1,185
$0.95 _$0.99
underground parking, pool, dishwasher, in -unit washer & dryer,
Hornig Companies
0.0%
2 - 3BR
1,473
$1,500 - $1,600
$1.02 -$1.09
patio/balcony
Plymouth Square at 37th
1987
160
80 - IBR
752-857
$1,150 -$1,765
$1.53 -$2.06
No
Business center, fitness center, spa/hot tub, pool, tennis courts,
15300 37th Ave N
1
68 - 2611
1,003 - 1,238
$1,235 -$2,110
$1.23 -$1.70
dishwasher, additional storage, fireplace, in -unit washer & dryer
Weidner Apartment Homes
0.6%
12 - 3BR
1,231
$1,615 -$2,310
$1.31 -$1.88
Plymouth Ponds
1987
200
60 - 1BR
788
$1,080 -$1,250
$1.37 -$1.59
Yes
Outdoor pool, heated underground garage, car wash facility,
4545 Nathan Ln N
0
130 - 2BR
1,018 - 1,378
$1,090 -$1,575
$1.07 -$1.14
patio/balcony, BBQ in -unit washer &dryer, bicycle racks, flexible lease
Thies & Tolle Management
0.0%
10 - 31311
$1,435
$1,610 - $1,710
$1.12 -$1.19
lengths, picnic area, dishwasher
Parkside at Medicine Lake
1986
148
13 - Studio
560
$920
$1.64
No
Outdoor pol, sauna, lounge, underground parking, laundry facilities,
12102 41st Ave N
6
44 - 1611
770 -808
$1,095 -$1,135
$1.40 -$1.42
two fitness centers, additional storage space, picnic area with grill, near
StuortCo
4.1%
87 - 2BR
1,008 -1,233
$1,200 -$1,290
$1.19 -$1.28
walking/biking trail, dishwasher
4 - 3BR
1,233 - 1,344
$1,545 -$1,610
$1.20 - $1.25
Summer Creek
1985
72
21 - 1BR
742 -768
$1,000 -$1,145
$1.35 -$1.49
No
Fitness center, sauna, pool, tennis court, near walking/bike trails,
3900 Plymouth Boulevard
1
45 - 2BR
976 -1,076
$1,000 -$1,295
$1.02 -$1.20
patio/balcony, dishwasher, additional storage space, in -unit washer &
NA
1.4%
6 - 3BR
1,194 - 1,225
$1,245 -$1,495
$1.04 - $1.22
dryer, fireplace
Fox Forest Townhomes
1985
160
80 - 2BR
1,008 -1,382
$1,620 -$1,715
$1.24 -$1.61
No
Patio, in -unit washer & dryer, two -car garage, plyground, grill, boat
1798 Magnolia Ln N
5
80 - 3BR
1,434
$1,799 -$1,880
$1.25 -$1.31
docks, walk-in closet, dishwasher
Park Avenue of Wayzata
3.1%
Park Place Apartments
1985
500
120 - 1BR
958
$1,196 -$1,684
$1.25 -$1.76
No
Dishwasher, clubhouse, fitness center, walk-in closet, central air, horse
14550 34th Avenue N
11
380 - 2611
1,144 - 1,308
$1,356 -$1,767
$1.19 -$1.35
shoes, two pools with sun deck, covered parking, business center, near
Greystor
2.2%
walking/biking trails
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 77
Page 89
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
11210 12th Ave N
17600 14th Ave
Bigos Management
Medicine Lake Apartments
1300 W Medicine Lake Dr
Bigos Management
Willow Creek Apartments
135 Nathan Lane N
Bigos Management
Lancaster Village
3610 Lancaster Ln N
CSM Corporation
Wellington Apartments
17210 County Road 6
NA
Plymouth Commons
3301 Hwy 169 N
Gary Brummer Management
Currents
3205 Harbor Ln N
Miramar Inc
At the Lake
2500 Nathan Ln N
MN Apartment People
Manor Royal
3930 Lancaster Ln N
Real Estate Equities Inc
Granite Woods
3925 Landcaster Ln N
Main Street Companies
Year Units/
Built Vacant
1984 17
1
5.9%
1978 107
4
3.7%
1977 81
3
3.7%
1977 245
14
5.7%
1974 128
1
0.8%
1973 39
1
2.6%
1972 212
0
0.0%
1971 262
0
0.0%
1971 143
0
0.0%
1971 132
3
2.3%
1971 192
1
0.5%
Unit Mix
2 - 1BR
14 - 2BR
1 - 3BR
44 - 1BR
61 - 2BR
2 - 2BR/D
1 -Studio
55 - IBR
25 - 2BR
26 - Studio
84 - IBR
135 - 2BR
62 - 1BR
64 - 2BR
2 - 3BR
16 - 1BR
23 - 2BR
29 - Studio
83 - 1BR
3 - 1BR/D
97 - 2BR
196 - IBR
66 - 2BR
8 -Studio
76 - IBR
51 - 2BR
8 - 3BR
72 - 1BR
60 - 2BR
42 - 1BR
150 - 2BR
583
Continued
$1.29 -51.42 No
850
TABLE R-4
-$975
$1.00 - $1.15
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
$900
_$1,000
PLYMOUTH
1,034 - 1,227
$950
-$1,250
August 2017
518-818
$962
-$1,020
Monthly
Rent per
Accept
Unit Size
Rent
Square Foot
Vouchers
-$779
$1.49 -$1.56 Yes
750-750
$859
750
$950 _$995
$1.27 - $1.33
No
850
$1,095
$1.29
$1,149
1,100
$1,250
$1.14
$985
717-741
$980 -$1,095
$1.37 -$1.48
No
961-1,011
$1,070 -$1,295
$1.11 -$1.28
$929
1,100
$1,285 -$1,355
$1.17 -$1.23
$1,150
848
$1,065 -$1,115
$1.26 - $1.31
No
900
$1,150 -$1,200
$1.28 -$1.33
1,152 - 1,185
$1,130 -$1,524
$0.98 - $1.29
500 -674
$955 _$1,095
$1.62 -$1.91
No
700
$1,145 -$1,220
$1.64 - $1.74
800-1,000
$1,255 -$1,445
$1.45 -$1.57
700 -750
$885 -$970
$1.26 -$1.29
Yes
900 -950
$1,065 -$1,200
$1.18 - $1.26
1,100
$1,560
$1.42
840
$925 - $1,075
$1.10 - $1.28
No
1,000
$1,005 - $1,155
$1.01 - $1.16
583
$750-$825
$1.29 -51.42 No
850
$850
-$975
$1.00 - $1.15
900
$900
_$1,000
$1.00 - $1.11
1,034 - 1,227
$950
-$1,250
$0.92 -$1.02
518-818
$962
-$1,020
$1.25 -$1.86 Yes
1,150
$1,150
-$1,299
$1.00 - $1.13
490-500
$729
-$779
$1.49 -$1.56 Yes
750-750
$859
-$969
$1.15 -$1.29
950-1,050
$979
-$1,109
$1.03 -$1.06
1,200 - 1,200
$1,149
-$1,415
$0.96 -$1.18
800
$985
-$1,005
$1.23 -$1.26 No
1,130 - 1,200
$1,125
-$1,225
$1.00 - $1.02
786
$929
-$999
$1.18 - $1.27 No
980-1,080
$1,150
-$1,200
$1.11 - $1.17
Additional storage, patio, garage & surface parking, dishwasher, walk-in
closet
DVD library, outdoor pool, fitness center, BBQ & picninc area,
underground heated parking, playground, party room, laundry facilities,
patio/balcony, cenral air, dishwasher
Underground heated parking, boat docks, outhdoor pool, multi -sport
court, fitness center, party room, DVD library, sauna, dishwasher
Tennis & vollyball court, plyground, outdoor pool, tanning, business
center, fitness center, sauna, indoor pool, whirlpool, DVD library,
community room, underground & surface parking, patio/balcony,
dishwasher. central air
Clubhouse, fitness center, outdoor heated pool with sundeck, picnic
area with grills, playground, surface & garage parking
Dishwasher, patio/balcony, laundry facilities, BBQ, picnic area, fitness
center, playground, garage parking, near walking/biking trails
Walk-in closets, volleyball court, pool, sauna, laundry facilites, additianl
storage units, balcony, BBQ, garage and surface parking
Outdoor & indoor pool, dry sauna, fitness center, outdoor courtyard,
picnic area with BBQ stations, multi -sport court, dog park, playground,
tanning suite, coffee cafe, business center, DVD rentals, dry cleaning
service
Grill & picnic area, laundry facility, tanning salon, dishwasher, balcony,
fitness center, playground, pool, sauna, basketball & volleyball court
Flexible lease terms, dishwasher, laundry facilities, underground heated
parking, patio/balcony, indoor pool, community room, fitness center
Walk-in closet, tennis court, pool, sauna, fitness center, clubhouse,
additional storage space, dishwasher, underground & surface parking
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 78
Page 90
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 79
Page 91
Continued
TABLE R-4
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Year
Units/
Monthly
Rent per
Accept
Property Name/Location
Built
Vacant
Unit Mix
Unit Size
Rent
Square Foot
Vouchers
Amenities/Comments
Market Rate
Plymouth Pointe
1969
96
2 - Studio
650
$785 -$865
$1.21 - $1.33
No
Party room, laundry facilities, property manger on-site, dishwasher,
9630 37th PI N
2
40 - 1BR
800
$855 -$995
$1.07 - $1.24
sundeck, clubhouse, additional storage space, fitness center, pool
KMS Management Inc
2.1%
54 - 2BR
1,000 - 1,100
$996 - $1,165
$1.00 - $1.06
South Shore
1969
17
17 -2BR
1,000
$1,150
$1.15
No
Balcony, garage & surface parking, nearby parks & playground
10890 South Shore Dr
0
NA
0.0%
Countryside Estates
1968
72
35 - IBR
755
$860 -$925
$1.14 - $1.23
No
Additional storage space, balcony/patio, BBQ, surface & garage parking,
10101 State Highway 55
1
37 -2BR
855
$960 -$990
$1.12 - $1.16
dishwasher, picnic area
Steven Scott Management
1.4%
Four Seasons Estates
1968
96
56 - 1BR
860
$849 -$959
$0.99 - $1.12
No
Garage & surface parking, balcony, BBQ & picnic area, dishwasher,
9700 37th PI N
0
40 -2BR
1,100
$985 - $1,049
$0.90 - $0.95
fitness center, sauna, pool
MN Apartment People
0.0%
Four Seasons Villas
1967
240
18 - Studio
600
$779 -$799
$1.30 - $1.33
No
Additional storage units, housekeeping, clubhouse, fitness center, pool,
3651 Lancaster Ln N
0
144 - 1BR
900
$869
$0.97
volleyball court, walk-in closet, sundeck, courtyard, picnic area
Gary Brummer Management
0.0%
78 - 2BR
1,000 - 1,250
$969
$0.78 - $0.97
Plymouth Colony
1945
126
2 - Studio
525
$750
$1.43
Yes
Dishwasher, underground & surface parking, pet play area, additional
1805 County Road 101
0
22 - 1BR
832
$850 -$985
$1.02 - $1.18
storage units, balcony, fitness center, sauna, pool, playground, theatre
MN Apartment People
0.0%
102 -2BR
900-1,026
$950 - $1,085
$1.06 - $1.06
room
Market Rate Total
6,372
115 1.805%
Plymouth Market Area Totals*
6,972
115 1.649%
*Vacancy Rate excludes properties
that did participate in rental
survey.
Source: City of Plymouth; Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 79
Page 91
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
R-5
SURVEYED UNIT TYPE SUMMARY
SELECT GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Market RateMonthly
Total % of
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$729 -$1,200
$942
$1.67
Studio 145 2%
1BR 2299 36%
$620 - $2,805
$1,178
$1.46
1BR/D 127 2%
$900 $1,695
$1,378
$1.36
2BR 3,293 52%
$745 -$3,000
$1,411
$1.27
2BR/D 139 2%
$1,285 $2,350
$1,794
$1.32
3BR 367 6%
$970 - $4,208
$1,875
$1.36
Total: 6,372 100%
$620 - $4,208
$1,351
$1.34
Vacant: 1 115 1.8%
Affordable
Monthly
Rents
Total % of
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$764 -$764
$764
$0.80
1BR 4 3%
2BR 52 40%
$915 - $1,075
$958
$0.87
3BR 73 57%
$1,054 $1,238
$1,175
$0.86
Total: 129 100% 1
$764 - $1,238
1 1 $1,075
1 1 $0.86
Vacant: 0 0%
* This table includes data from rental developments that provided complete survey
information
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 80
Page 92
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Select general occupancy rental projects — Plymouth, MN
The Axis Apartments
350 Nathan Ln
Shenandoah Woods Apartments
2205 Shenandoah Ln N
Parkside Apartments
12105 41St Ave N
Stone Creek Apartments
1020 W Medicine Lake Dr
Vicksburg Village
15730 Rockford Rd
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
The Quinn Apartments
6110 Quinwood Ln N
81
Page 93
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
I
At the Lake Apartments
2500 Nathan Ln N
Hummingbird Cove Apartments
10405 451h Ave N
Lancaster Park
4015 Lancaster Ln N
Manor Royal Apartments
3930 Lancaster Ln N
Medicine Lake Apartments
1300 W Medicine Lake Dr
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
5200 Annapolis Ln N
82
Page 94
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
General Occupancy Rental Housing Developments - Plymouth, MN
I
$#*tu
i
l7kcPak
i
Can
Park
�}-11011 45
22
WNfxab
�<
0
a
32
v
Sch rnid[Carre Rd �
en
rrLipb -
leak
Park
E, r
_______________________ i
EagM �
Lake Golf
Gan let
f
I
I
Timber
Baas Lake Shales
Perri. Three
I
Fords I
z I
J I
I
I
� I
Turtle
$#*tu
l7kcPak
i
Can
Park
�}-11011 45
22
37
Ptv n outh
Franc h
Creek Park
31
Regwrml
20
Plymoutle
Park
Park
x
J
m
Gle_sw+ tkka�
4
Dbsrlln
%tk
r �12 y
L � -
2
U16S
Llnra aces: Esri, HERE, CeLornne,, UFC9, Internnap, INCREMENT P, r HRCen, E�ri
I . pen, M111ETI, EsriChina !Hong I{vngj, Esri Kcree, tri ;Thailendj, r,naprr+yln�ia,
$U ti Lj HCCC, Q 4penSriYE�apmntributors, and the ClS,'PIsa Community
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 83
Page 95
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAP KEY
GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
August 2017
1
At the Lake
2
Bass Lake Hills
3
Coachman Trails
4
Countryside Estates
5
Creekside Estates
6
Currents
7
Ellen Villa
8
Fernbrook Townhomes
9
Four Seasons Estates
10
Four Seasons Villas
11
Fox Forest Townhomes
12
Granite Woods
13
Hummingbird Cove
14
Lancaster Park
15
Lancaster Village
16
Manor Royal
17
Medicine Lake Apartments
18
Medicine Lake Woods
19
Oakwood
20
Park Place Apartments
21
Parkers Lake Apartments
22
Parkside at Medicine Lake
23
Plymouth Colony
24
Plymouth Commons
25
Plymouth Pointe
26
Plymouth Ponds
27
Plymouth Square at 37th
28
Shadow Hills
29
South Shore
30
Stone Creek Apartments
31
Stonehill
32
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
33
Summer Creek
34
Sun Valley Mobile Homes
35
The Quinn
36
Vicksburg Commons
37
Vicksburg Village
38
Wellington Apartments
39
Willow Creek
40
Lakeview Commons
41
Shenandoah Woods
42
The Axis
43
West View Estates
44
Kimberly Meadows
45
Mission Oaks
46
Willow Woods Estates
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 84
Page 96
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Natural Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e. Unsubsidized Affordable)
Although affordable housing is typically associated with an income -restricted property, there
are other housing units in communities that indirectly provide affordable housing. Housing
units that were not developed or designated with income guidelines (i.e. assisted) yet are more
affordable than other units in a community are considered "naturally -occurring" or "unsubsi-
dized affordable" units. This rental supply is available through the private market, versus as-
sisted housing programs through various governmental agencies. Property values on these
units are lower based on a combination of factors, such as: age of structure/housing stock, loca-
tion, condition, size, functionally obsolete, school district, etc.
According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the privately unsubsi-
dized housing stock supplies three times as many low-cost affordable units than assisted pro-
jects nationwide. Unlike assisted rental developments, most unsubsidized affordable units are
scattered across small properties (one to four unit structures) or in older multifamily structures.
Many of these older developments are vulnerable to redevelopment due to their age, modest
rents, and deferred maintenance.
Because many of these projects have affordable rents, project -based and private housing mar-
kets cannot be easily separated. Some household's income -qualify for both market rate and
project -based affordable housing. Therefore, it is important to recognize the naturally -occur-
ring affordable housing stock to quantify the proportion of renters that might be eligible for
housing assistance based on income. Table R-6 illustrates monthly rents by unit type and
household size as they relate to affordability. Table R-7 presents a breakdown of all market
rate general -occupancy rental projects by household size and area median income (AMI). Table
R-8 summarizes project data from Table R-7 based on unit type and affordability.
Among the over 5,952 market rate units that were inventoried by unit mix and monthly
rents, over 14% of the units are affordable to householders at 50% AMI. Together with 32%
of the units affordable at 60% AMI, over 46% of the market rate rental housing inventory is
affordable at 50% to 60% AMI.
• Over 47% of market rate one -bedroom units are affordable at 50% AMI. Comparatively,
two-bedroom units and three-bedroom units were 44% and 1%, respectively.
• About 53% of the inventoried market rate units have monthly rents that would be afforda-
ble to householders earning 80% to 120% of AMI. These households would qualify for
"workforce" housing. Comparatively, roughly 94% of the inventoried market rate units
have monthly rents that would be affordable to householders earning 50% to 80% of AMI.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 85
Page 97
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
TABLE R-6
MAXIMUM RENT BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND AREA MEDIAN INCOME
HENNEPIN COUNTY - 2017
Maximum
Rent d on Household
, of Income)
HHD Size 30%
50%
.0
:0
00
Min Max Min. Max. Min.
Studio 1 1 $451 -$451 $751
Max.
-$751
Min. Max.
$902 -$902
Min.
$1,202
Max.
-$1,202
Min.
$1,503
Max.
-$1,503
Min.
$1,803
Max.
-$1,803
113R 1 2 $451 -$515 $751
-$858
$902 -$1,029
$1,202
-$1,372
$1,503
-$1,715
$1,803
-$2,058
213R 2 4 $515 -$644 $858
-$1,073
$1,029 -$1,287
$1,372
-$1,716
$1,715
-$2,145
$2,058
-$2,574
313R 3 6 $579 -$746 $965
-$1,244
$1,158 -$1,493
$1,544
-$1,990
$1,930
-$2,488
$2,316
-$2,985
413R 4 8 $644 -$850 $1,073
-$1,416
$1,287 -$1,700
$1,716
-$2,266
$2,145
-$2,833
$2,574
-$3,399
1 One -bedroom plus den and two-bedroom plus den units
are classified as 113R and 213R units, respectively.
To be classified
as a
bedroom, a den must
have a
window and closet.
Note: 4 -person Hennepin County AMI is $85,800 (2016)
Sources: HUD, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 86
Page 98
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 87
Page 99
TABLE R-7
MULTIFAMILY MARKET
RATE RENTAL
DEVELOPMENTS
NATURALLY OCCURRING
AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
August
2017
Rent Range Min. Income Units that are Market Rate Affordability by AMI'
Min max Needed to Afford' 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Atthe Lake
8
$729
$779
$29,160
- $31,160
8
Coachman Trails
3
$975
$1,000
$39,000
- $40,000
3
Four Seasons Villas
18
$779
$799
$31,160
- $31,960
18
Medicine Lake Apartments
1
$1,065
$1,115
$42,600
- $44,600
1
Parkside at Medicine Lake
13
$920
$920
$36,800
- $36,800
13
Plymouth Colony
2
$750
$750
$30,000
- $30,000
2
Plymouth Commons
29
$750
$825
$30,000
- $33,000
29
Plymouth Pointe
2
$785
$865
$31,400
- $34,600
2
Stone Creek Apartments
16
$1,100
$1,200
$44,000
- $48,000
16
Stonehill
6
$950
$995
$38,000
- $39,800
-
6
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
21
$1,120
$1,120
$44,800
- $44,800
21
Willow Creek Apartments
26
$955
$1,095
$38,200
- $43,800
-
26
Total/ Average
60
50
37
O
0'.
:0 00
At the Lake
76
$859
$869
$34,360
-$34,760
76
Coachman Trails
42
$1,100
$1,175
$44,000
-$47,000
42
Countryside Estates
35
$860
$925
$34,400
-$37,000
45
Creekside Estates
45
$1,130
$1,130
$45,200
-$45,200
45
Currents
139
$962
$1,020
$38,480
-$40,800
139
Four Seasons Estates
56
$849
$959
$33,960
-$38,360
28
28
Four Seasons Villas
144
$869
$869
$34,760
-$34,760
144
Granite Woods
42
$929
$999
$37,160
-$39,960
42
Hummingbird Cove
24
$950
$1,000
$38,000
-$40,000
24
Lancaster Park
6
$1,110
$1,310
$44,400
-$52,400
3
3
Lancaster Village
62
$885
$970
$35,400
-$38,800
31
31
Manor Royal
72
$985
$1,005
$39,400
-$40,200
72
Medicine Lake Apartments
55
$1,150
$1,200
$46,000
-$48,000
55
Medicine Lake Woods
2
$950
$995
$38,000
-$39,800
2
Oakwood
44
$980
$1,095
$39,200
-$43,800
44
Park Place Apartments
120
$1,196
$1,684
$47,840
-$67,360
60 60
Parkers Lake Apartments
74
$1,318
$1,569
$52,720
-$62,760
74
Parkside at Medicine Lake
44
$1,095
$1,135
$43,800
-$45,400
44
Plymouth Colony
22
$850
$985
$34,000
-$39,400
11
11
Plymouth Commons
83
$850
$975
$34,000
-$39,000
42
41
Plymouth Pointe
40
$855
$995
$34,200
-$39,800
20
20
Plymouth Ponds
60
$1,018
$1,378
$40,720
-$55,120
30
30
Plymouth Square at 37th
80
$1,150
$1,765
$46,000
-$70,600
40 40
Shadow Hills
119
$1,156
$1,326
$46,240
-$53,040
119
Shenandoah Woods
6
$620
$695
$24,800
-$27,800
6
Stonehill
90
$1,160
$1,225
$46,400
-$49,000
45
45
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
211
$1,200
$1,280
$48,000
-$51,200
211
Summer Creek
21
$1,000
$1,145
$40,000
-$45,800
21
The Axis
87
$1,275
$1,495
$51,000
-$59,800
87
The Quinn
125
$1,084
$2,805
$43,360
-$112,200
43 41 41
Vicksburg Village
104
$1,214
$1,454
$48,560
- $58,160
104
Wellington Apartments
39
$925
$1,075
$37,000
-$43,000
39
Willow Creek Apartments
84
$1,145
$1,220
$45,800
-$48,800
42
42
Total/Average
2,253
403
721
957 141 41
One -Bedroom plus Den
30%
50%
60%
80% 100% 120%
Coachman Trails
6
$1,200
$1,250
$48,000
-$50,000
6
Creekside Estates
42
$1,460
$1,460
$58,400
-$58,400
42
Parkside at Medicine Lake
30
$1,200
$1,270
$48,000
-$50,800
30
Plymouth Commons
3
$900
$1,000
$36,000
-$40,000
3
Shadow Hills
18
$1,280
$1,305
$51,200
-$52,200
18
Stone Creek Apartments
16
$1,490
$2,005
$59,600
-$80,200
8 8
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
42
$1,300
$1,300
$52,000
-$52,000
42
Total/Average
157
3
138 8 8
Continued
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 87
Page 99
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
TABLE R-7 Continued
MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
NATURALLY OCCURRING RENTAL HOUSING
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
August 2017
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 88
Page 100
Rent
Min
Range
max
Min.
Needed
Income
to Afford'
Units that are
30% 50%
Market Rate
60%
Affordability
80%
by AMI'
100% 120%
At the Lake
51
$979
$1,109
$39,160
-$44,360
26
25
Bass Lake Hills
246
$1,495
$1,565
$59,800
-$62,600
246
Coachman Trails
95
$1,310
$1,365
$52,400
-$54,600
95
Countryside Estates
37
$960
$990
$38,400
-$39,600
37
Creekside Estates
117
$1,335
$1,520
$53,400
-$60,800
- -
22
95
Currents
171
$1,150
$1,299
$46,000
-$51,960
171
FernbrookTownhomes
1
$1,295
$1,295
$51,800
-$51,800
1
Four Seasons Estates
40
$985
$1,049
$39,400
-$41,960
40
Four Seasons Villas
78
$969
$969
$38,760
-$38,760
78
Fox Forest Townhomes
80
$1,620
$1,715
$64,800
-$68,600
80
Granite Woods
150
$1,150
$1,200
$46,000
-$48,000
150
Hummingbird Cove
48
$1,060
$1,185
$42,400
-$47,400
48
Lancaser Park
44
$1,310
$1,610
$52,400
-$64,400
44
Lancaster Village
64
$1,065
$1,200
$42,600
-$48,000
64
Manor Royal
60
$1,125
$1,225
$45,000
-$49,000
60
Medicine Lake Apartments
25
$1,130
$1,524
$45,200
-$60,960
20
5
Medicine Lake Woods
14
$1,095
$1,095
$43,800
-$43,800
14
Oakwood
61
$1,070
$1,295
$42,800
-$51,800
61
Park Place Apartments
380
$1,356
$1,767
$54,240
-$70,680
380
Parkers Lake Apartments
144
$1,299
$1,926
$51,960
-$77,040
144
Parkside at Medicine Lake
87
$1,235
$1,290
$49,400
-$51,600
87
Plymouth Colony
102
$950
$1,085
$38,000
-$43,400
102
Plymouth Commons
97
$950
$1,250
$38,000
-$50,000
97
Plymouth Pointe
54
$996
$1,165
$39,840
-$46,600
54
Plymouth Ponds
130
$1,090
$1,575
$43,600
-$63,000
110
20
Plymouth Square at 37th Shadow Hills
68
$1,235
$2,110
$49,400
-$84,400
22
23
23
Shadow Hills
130
$1,370
$1,525
$54,800
-$61,000
130
Shenandoah Woods
8
$745
$905
$29,800
-$36,200
8
South Shore
17
$1,150
$1,150
$46,000
-$46,000
17
Stone Creek Apartments
70
$1,750
$2,495
$70,000
-$99,800
35 35
Stonehill
110
$1,410
$1,460
$56,400
-$58,400
110
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
63
$1,535
$1,565
$61,400
-$62,600
63
Summer Creek
45
$1,000
$1,295
$40,000
-$51,800
45
The Axis
54
$1,920
$2,100
$76,800
-$84,000
54
The Quinn
136
$1,243
$3,000
$49,720
-$120,000
34
34
34 34
Vicksburg Village
198
$1,367
$1,742
$54,680
-$69,680
198
Wellington Apartments
23
$1,005
$1,155
$40,200
-$46,200
23
Willow Creek Apartments
135
$1,255
$1,445
$50,200
-$57,800
135
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 88
Page 100
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 89
Page 101
TABLE R-7 Continued
MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE
RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
NATURALLY OCCURRING
RENTAL HOUSING
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH
August
2017
Rent
Range
Min. Income Units that
are
Market Rate
Affordability
by AMI'
Coachman Trails
9
$1,495
$1,550
$59,800 -$62,000
9
Oakwood
2
$1,285
$1,355
$51,400 -$54,200
2
Shadow Hills
52
$1,500
$1,629
$60,000 -$65,160
52
Stonehill
12
$1,595
$1,665
$63,800 -$66,600
12
Stoneleigh at the Reserve
24
$1,720
$1,720
$68,800 -$68,800
-
24
The Axis
4
$2,350
$2,350
$94,000 -$94,000
4
Vicksburg Village
36
$2,229
$2,294
$89,160 -$91,760
36
Total/ Average
139
--
--
2
97
-- 40
mUnits
that
are
Market Rate
Affordability
by AMI'
Two -Bedroom - Penthouse
Coachman Trails
1
$1,560
$1,560
$62,400 -$62,400
1
Total/ Average
1
1
Three Bedroom
30%
50%
60%
80%
100% 120%
At the Lake
8
$1,149
$1,415
$45,960 -$56,600
4
4
Bass Lake Hills
38
$1,800
$1,930
$72,000 -$77,200
38
Currents
15
$1,850
$1,850
$74,000 -$74,000
-
15
Fernbrook Town homes
71
$1,295
$1,295
$51,800 -$51,800
71
Fox Forest Townhomes
80
$1,799
$1,880
$71,960 -$75,200
80
Hummingbird Cove
2
$1,500
$1,600
$60,000 -$64,000
2
Lancaster Village
2
$1,425
$1,625
$57,000 -$65,000
2
Medicine Lake Woods
1
$1,250
$1,250
$50,000 -$50,000
1
Parkers Lake Apartments
30
$1,784
$2,389
$71,360 -$95,560
15
15
Parkside at Medicine Lake
4
$1,545
$1,610
$61,800 -$64,400
4
Plymouth Ponds
10
$1,610
$1,710
$64,400 -$68,400
-
10
Plymouth Square at 37th
12
$1,615
$2,310
$64,600 -$92,400
6
6
Shadow Hills
3
$1,695
$1,725
$67,800 -$69,000
3
Shenandoah Woods
4
$970
$1,130
$38,800 -$45,200
4
Stone Creek Apartments
20
$2,100
$2,160
$84,000 -$86,400
22
Stonehill
6
$1,685
$1,725
$67,400 -$69,000
6
Summer Creek
6
$1,245
$1,495
$49,800 -$59,800
6
The Quinn
40
$1,920
$4,208
$76,800 -$168,320
14
13 13
Vicksburg Village
32
$1,766
$1,958
$70,640 -$78,320
32
9
Total/ Average
384
9
89
219
56 22
1 Based on a 30% allocation of income
to housing for
general -occupancy. Senior housing projects were excluded from the calculation.
Z Market rate housing that has rents that could be classified
as "unsubsidized
affordable" units based on the monthly rents
and adjusted for household
size.
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 89
Page 101
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
Licensed Rental Ordinance
The City of Plymouth has an ordinance that requires the licensing of all rental properties in the
community. The ordinance is designed to ensure all rental properties meet local building and
fire safety codes. The rental ordinance requires that all landlords or owners register all rental
housing units (from single-family homes to traditional multifamily apartment buildings) and ap-
ply for a rental dwelling license. The city requires a license renewal every three years for one
and two family dwellings and annual renewals for all other rental dwellings. In addition, initial
inspection and periodic inspections to ensure minimum code requirements.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 90
Page 102
TABLE R-8
MULTIFAMILY
MARKET RATE RENTAL
DEVELOPMENTS
NATURAL OCCURRING SUMMARY
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
August 2017
Unit Type 0'
Market Rate Affordability
0' 60%
80%
0'
0'
STUDIO --
60 50
37
--
--
1 BR --
403 721
957
141
--
1 BR + DEN --
-- 3
138
8
8
2 BR --
359 1,287
1,572
146
69
2 BR + DEN --
-- --
97
--
40
2 BR PH --
-- --
1
--
--
3 BR --
9 89
219
56
22
Subtotal --
831 2,150
3,021
351
139
Pct. Of Total 0.0%
12.8% 33.1%
46.5%
5.4%
2.1%
Pct. Of Affordability Category
STUDIO --
-- --
1.2%
--
--
1 BR --
48.5% 33.5%
31.7%
40.2%
--
1 BR + DEN --
-- --
4.6%
2.3%
5.8%
2 BR --
43.2% 59.9%
52.0%
41.6%
49.6%
2 BR + DEN --
-- --
3.2%
--
28.8%
3 BR --
1.1% --
7.2%
--
15.8%
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
Licensed Rental Ordinance
The City of Plymouth has an ordinance that requires the licensing of all rental properties in the
community. The ordinance is designed to ensure all rental properties meet local building and
fire safety codes. The rental ordinance requires that all landlords or owners register all rental
housing units (from single-family homes to traditional multifamily apartment buildings) and ap-
ply for a rental dwelling license. The city requires a license renewal every three years for one
and two family dwellings and annual renewals for all other rental dwellings. In addition, initial
inspection and periodic inspections to ensure minimum code requirements.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 90
Page 102
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
General Occupancy Multifamily Rental Housing Units by Census Tract -2017
P1 is
b
V
i�'
`x'44 ��O ❑49
4
4¢
2
�
�oea
iay
n Rk
Soirees: ESFi. HERE. CeLc nne, U �ititerrrrep INcFT--mEHT R 1 Cen, Esri
J n,METI,EsriChinak Hong Yng'j Vsri Rasa. Esri Thailan ptlf
€i Open5treetMap vontri6vta . and the
Legend
QA Research & Cowsul in
0 1 2
M i iss
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 91
Page 103
V
i�'
`x'44 ��O ❑49
4
4¢
QA Research & Cowsul in
0 1 2
M i iss
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 91
Page 103
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Senior Housing Defined
The term "senior housing" refers to any housing development that is restricted to people age
55 or older. Today, senior housing includes an entire spectrum of housing alternatives, which
occasionally overlap, thus making the differences somewhat ambiguous. However, the level of
support services offered best distinguishes them. Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC classi-
fies senior housing projects into five categories based on the level of support services offered:
Adult/Few Services; where few, if any, support services are provided, and rents tend to be mod-
est;
Congregate/Optional-Services; where support services such as meals and light housekeeping
are available for an additional fee;
Congregate/Service-Intensive; where support services such as meals and light housekeeping are
included in the monthly rents;
Assisted Living; where two or three daily meals as well as basic support services such as trans-
portation, housekeeping and/or linen changes are included in the fees. Personal care services
such as assistance with bathing, grooming and dressing is included in the fees or is available ei-
ther for an additional fee.
Memory Care; where more rigorous and service -intensive personal care is required for people
with dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Typically, support services and meal plans are similar
to those found at assisted living facilities, but the heightened levels of personalized care de-
mand more staffing and higher rental fees.
These five senior housing products tend to share several characteristics. First, they usually offer
individual living apartments with living areas, bathrooms, and kitchens or kitchenettes. Second,
they generally have an emergency response system with pull -cords or pendants to promote se-
curity. Third, they often have a community room and other common space to encourage social-
ization. Finally, they are age -restricted and offer conveniences desired by seniors, although as-
sisted living projects sometimes serve non -elderly people with special health considerations.
The five senior housing products offered today form a continuum of care (see the graphic on
the following page), from a low level to a fairly intensive one; often the service offerings at one
type overlap with those at another. In general, however, adult/few services projects tend to
attract younger, more independent seniors, while assisted living and memory care projects
tend to attract older, frailer seniors.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 92
Page 104
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Senior Housing in Plymouth
As of September 2017, Maxfield Research identified nine senior housing developments in Plym-
outh. These properties contain a total of 914 units. There are 23 vacancies resulting in an over-
all vacancy rate of 2.5% for senior housing developments. The equilibrium vacancy rate for sen-
ior housing is considered to be between 5% and 7%.
Table S-1 provides information on the senior market rate and properties with public assistance.
Information in the table includes year built, number of units, unit mix, number of vacant units,
rents, and general comments about each project.
The following are key points from our survey of the senior housing supply.
Market Rate Active Adult (Rental)
Vicksburg Crossing is the only active adult rental project in Plymouth. As of September
2017, there was no vacancy. There are 61 units in this 55+ community.
• Market rate units at Vicksburg Crossing have rents from $1,090 for a one -bedroom, $1,250
for a one -bedroom plus den, and range from $1,325 to $1,445 for a two-bedroom unit.
Subsidized/Affordable Active Adult (Rental)
Subsidized active adult senior housing offers affordable rents to qualified low income sen-
iors and handicapped/disabled persons. Typically, incomes are restricted to 30% of the area
median income adjusted for household size. For those households meeting the age and in-
come qualifications, subsidized senior housing is usually the most affordable rental option
available. Affordable projects are typically tax -credit projects that are limited to households
earning less than 60% of Hennepin County's area median income.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 93
Page 105
CONTINUUM OF HOUSING AND SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Single -Family Home
Townhome or
Congregate Apartments w/ Optional
Assisted Living
Nursing Facilities
Apartment
Services
Memory Care
Townhomes, Apartments, Condomini
J"A
Congregate Service Intensive -
Age -Restricted Independent Single -Fa
(Alzheimer's and
Cooperatives
isted Living with Light Services
Dementia Units)
Fully Independent
Fully or Highly
Lifestyle
Dependent on Core
Senior Housing Product Type
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
Senior Housing in Plymouth
As of September 2017, Maxfield Research identified nine senior housing developments in Plym-
outh. These properties contain a total of 914 units. There are 23 vacancies resulting in an over-
all vacancy rate of 2.5% for senior housing developments. The equilibrium vacancy rate for sen-
ior housing is considered to be between 5% and 7%.
Table S-1 provides information on the senior market rate and properties with public assistance.
Information in the table includes year built, number of units, unit mix, number of vacant units,
rents, and general comments about each project.
The following are key points from our survey of the senior housing supply.
Market Rate Active Adult (Rental)
Vicksburg Crossing is the only active adult rental project in Plymouth. As of September
2017, there was no vacancy. There are 61 units in this 55+ community.
• Market rate units at Vicksburg Crossing have rents from $1,090 for a one -bedroom, $1,250
for a one -bedroom plus den, and range from $1,325 to $1,445 for a two-bedroom unit.
Subsidized/Affordable Active Adult (Rental)
Subsidized active adult senior housing offers affordable rents to qualified low income sen-
iors and handicapped/disabled persons. Typically, incomes are restricted to 30% of the area
median income adjusted for household size. For those households meeting the age and in-
come qualifications, subsidized senior housing is usually the most affordable rental option
available. Affordable projects are typically tax -credit projects that are limited to households
earning less than 60% of Hennepin County's area median income.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 93
Page 105
Memory Care
Townhomes, Apartments, Condomini
J"A
Congregate Service Intensive -
(Alzheimer's and
Cooperatives
isted Living with Light Services
Dementia Units)
Senior Housing in Plymouth
As of September 2017, Maxfield Research identified nine senior housing developments in Plym-
outh. These properties contain a total of 914 units. There are 23 vacancies resulting in an over-
all vacancy rate of 2.5% for senior housing developments. The equilibrium vacancy rate for sen-
ior housing is considered to be between 5% and 7%.
Table S-1 provides information on the senior market rate and properties with public assistance.
Information in the table includes year built, number of units, unit mix, number of vacant units,
rents, and general comments about each project.
The following are key points from our survey of the senior housing supply.
Market Rate Active Adult (Rental)
Vicksburg Crossing is the only active adult rental project in Plymouth. As of September
2017, there was no vacancy. There are 61 units in this 55+ community.
• Market rate units at Vicksburg Crossing have rents from $1,090 for a one -bedroom, $1,250
for a one -bedroom plus den, and range from $1,325 to $1,445 for a two-bedroom unit.
Subsidized/Affordable Active Adult (Rental)
Subsidized active adult senior housing offers affordable rents to qualified low income sen-
iors and handicapped/disabled persons. Typically, incomes are restricted to 30% of the area
median income adjusted for household size. For those households meeting the age and in-
come qualifications, subsidized senior housing is usually the most affordable rental option
available. Affordable projects are typically tax -credit projects that are limited to households
earning less than 60% of Hennepin County's area median income.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 93
Page 105
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
• There are three subsidized/affordable active adult developments in Plymouth. As of Sep-
tember 2017, there were two vacancies, for an overall vacancy rate of 1.1%. Equilibrium for
senior subsidized housing projects is usually around 3%, allowing for optimal housing availa-
bility for potential residents. Unit sizes at these senior properties are often smaller than
many of the market rate senior rental projects. Some of these senior apartments also main-
tain waiting lists for units.
Active Adult (Owner)
• There are three cooperative/owner active adult facilities in Plymouth. As of September
2017, there were no vacancies across 210 total owner occupied units.
• Tenants purchase their own one -bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-bedroom unit. The cur-
rent listing prices range from $42,000 to $61,299 for a one -bedroom unit, $52,000 to
$75,824 for a two-bedroom unit, and $81,000 to $112,745 for a three-bedroom unit. In ad-
dition, buyers pay a monthly fee.
Congregate
• There are two congregate facilities in Plymouth. As of September 2017, there were no va-
cancies across 99 total congregate units.
• Unit types offered are one -bedroom, one -bedroom plus den, and two-bedroom units
among congregate facilities in Plymouth. Monthly base rents range from $2,045 for a one -
bedroom at Summer Wood of Plymouth to $3,995 for a two bedroom at the Waters of
Plymouth.
Assisted Living
• There are three facilities offering assisted living services in Plymouth. As of September
2017, there were five vacancies across 124 total assisted living units, for a vacancy rate of
2.5%.
Market rate basic service rents range from $3,745 for a studio apartment at Cornerstone
Commons to $5,195 for a two-bedroom apartment at Waters of Plymouth. Additional cost
is based on service level needed. Some common features include kitchenettes, private
bathrooms, meals, laundry, and light housekeeping.
• Trillium Woods is a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) and offers independent
living, assisted living, and memory care units. CCRC commonly have a buy in to the facility
or prepay for units and offer services with monthly fees.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 94
Page 106
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Memory Care
• There are four facilities offering memory care services in Plymouth. As of September 2017,
there were 16 vacant units across 122 total memory care units, for a vacancy rate of 13.1%.
• Basic market rate rents for memory care range from $2,855 for a studio at Summer Wood
of Plymouth to $7,075 for a one -bedroom at Cornerstone Commons. There is additional
cost based on service level needed. Some features include daily exercise and programs, din-
ing, and common areas for recreation.
250 F__
200
150
100
50
0
Senior Housing Summary Chart
Active Adult - Sub/Aff Active Adult - Congregate Assisted Memory Care CC RC
Rental Active Adult Owner Living
� No. Units —.*--Vacancy Rate
Note: Vacancies were not ava ila ble for the only CCRC property.
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
v
Y
8.0% C2
U
C
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 95
Page 107
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 96
Page 108
TABLE 5-1
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS
PLYMOUTH
September 2017
Year
No. of
No.
Monthly Rent/
Rent/Sales price/PSF
Project Name/City
Built
Units
Vacant
No. Type
Sizes
Sale Price
Min - Max
Services/Amenities/Comments
Market Rate Active Adult
Vicksburg Crossing
2006
61
0
31 - 1BR
852
$1,090
$1.28
In -unit washer & dryer, additional storage, dishwasher, fitness
3155 Vicksburg Ln N
0.0%
8 - 1BR/D
950
$1,250
$1.32
center, heated underground parking, library/computer room, 55+
22 - 21313
1174
$1,325 - $1,445
$1.13 - $1.23
Sub/Aff Active Adult
Vicksburg Crossing
2006
33
0
33 - 1 BR
852
$795
$0.93
In -unit washer & dryer, additional storage, dishwasher, fitness
3155 Vicksburg Ln N
0.0%
center, heated underground parking, library/computer room, 55+
Bassett Creek Commons
1998
46
0
45 - 1 BR
535
$492
$0.92
Clubhouse, usiness center, laundry facilities, 62+
10505 8th Ave N
0.0%
1 - 2 BR
N/A
$630
N/A
Plymouth Town Square
1994
99
2
60 - 1 BR
585
37% of Income
N/A
Surface & undergroud parking, Iribrary, activity room with kitchen,
15500 37th Ave N
2.0%
39 - 2 BR
938
37% of Income
N/A
55+
Cooperative/Ownership Active Adult
Cornerstone Cooperative
2001
77
0
17 - 1BR
779
$42,000
$53.92
Variety of social events, in -unit washer & dryer, car wash bay,
3790 Lawndale Ln N
0.0%
58 - 2BR
1,083 - 1,368
$52,000 - $70,000
$48.01 - $51.17
heated garage, library, craft room, fitness center, balcony, 54
2 - 3BR
1,561
$81,000
$51.89
people on the waiting list, 55+
Gramercy Park Cooperative Northwest
2001
77
0
7 - 1BR
840 - 998
$51,870 - $61,299
$61.42 - $61.75
Social activities, guest suite, craft room, fitness center,
6195 Northwest Blvd
0.0%
61 - 2BR
992 - 1,237
$60,879 - $75,824
$61.30 - $61.37
library/computer center, underground heated parking, workshop,
9 - 3BR
1,778 - 1,832
$106,536 - $112,745
$59.92 - $61.54
outdoor deck with grills, 55+
Gramercy Park of Plymouth
N/A
56
0
7 - 1BR
840 - 1,075
$42,872 - $57,461
$51.04 - $53.45
10400 45th Ave N
0.0%
49 - 2BR
992 - 1,257
$54,467 - $65,488
$52.10 - $54.91
Congregate
The Waters of Plymouth
2013
31
0
19 - 1BR
582 - 918
$2,600 - $3,550
$3.87 - $4.47
Spa & salon, housekeeping, laundry, dining, various health &
11305 Highway 55
0.0%
8 - 1BR/D
868 - 1,173
$3,500 - $3,995
$3.41 - $4.03
wellbeing programs, cable, wi-fi, in -unit washer and dryer
4 - 2BR
1,134
$3,995
$3.52
SummerWood of Plymouth
2003
68
0
45 - 1BR
805 - 995
$2,045 - $2,320
$2.33 - $2.54
Salon, billiard parlor, community room, conveience store, game
16205 36th Ave N
0.0%
23 - 2BR
945 - 1,094
$2,740 - $3,050
$2.79 - $2.90
room, garage, in-home care, library, message therapy, scheduled
transportaion, theatre, private storage unit, emergency call
equipment
Trillium Woods
2014
120
N/A
Pool, fitness center, library, auditorium, covered parking, wellness
5855 Cheshire Parkway N
programs, all services available
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 96
Page 108
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 97
Page 109
Continued
TABLE S-1
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS
PLYMOUTH
September 2017
Year
No. of
No.
Monthly Rent/
Rent fee/PSF
Project Name/City
Built
Units
Vacant
No. Type
Sizes
Sale Price
Min - Max
Comments
Assisted Living
The Waters of Plymouth
2013
30
0
18 - 1BR
582 - 918
$3,800 - $4,750
$5.17 - $6.53
Spa & salon, housekeeping, laundry, dining, various health &
11305 Highway 55
0.0%
8 - 1BR/D
868 - 1,173
$4,700 - $5,195
$4.43 - $5.41
wellbeing programs, cable, wi-fi, in -unit washer and dryer
4 - 2BR
1,134
$5,195
$4.58
Cornerstone Commons
2004
66
5
4 - Studio
453
$3,745
$8.27
Walk-in showers, central air, weekly houskeeping, scheduled social
3750 Lawndale Ln N
7.6%
55 - 1BR
547- 667
$4,070 - $4,615
$6.92 - $7.44
events, transportation, spiritual services
7 - 2BR
737
$5,295
$7.18
Summerwood of Plymouth
2002
28
0
22 - 1BR
600 - 803
$3,170 - $3,890
$4.84 - $5.28
Salon, billiard parlor, community room, conveience store, game
16205 36th Ave N
0.0%
6 - 2BR
890 - 896
$4,345 - $4,470
$4.88 - $4.99
room, garage, in-home care, library, message therapy, scheduled
transportaion, theatre, private storage unit, emergency call
equipment
Memory Care
Brookdale Plymouth
1999
52
15
52 - Studio
300 - 700
$4,050
$13.50 - $5.79
24 hour emergency response, library, beauty/barber shop, daily
15855 22nd Ave N
28.8%
meals, on-site & off-site activies
Cornerstone Commons
2004
18
0
16 - Studio
779
$6,220 - $6,605
$7.98 - $8.48
Walk-in showers, central air, weekly houskeeping, scheduled social
3750 Lawndale Ln N
0.0%
2 - 1BR
1,083 - 1,368
$7,075
$6.53 - $5.17
events, transportation, spiritual services
SummerWood of Plymouth
2003
24
1
24 - Studio
394 - 469
$2,855 - $2,925
$6.09 - $7.25
Salon, billiard parlor, community room, conveience store, game
16205 36th Ave N
4.2%
room, garage, in-home care, library, message therapy, scheduled
transportaion, theatre, private storage unit, emergency call
equipment
The Waters of Plymouth
2013
28
0
24 - Studio
414 - 479
$4,750 - $4,850
$10.13 - $11.47
Spa & salon, housekeeping, laundry, dining, various health &
11305 Highway 55
0.0%
4 - 1BR
493
$4,825
$9,79
wellbeing programs, cable, wi-fi, in -unit washer and dryer
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 97
Page 109
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
S-2
AVALABLE SURVEYED UNIT TYPE SUMMARY
SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
September 2017
Active Adult MR RentalPurchase
Range
Price Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Total % of
Avg.
Unit Type
Units Total
Size
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
852
$1,090
$1,090
$1.28
16R
31 51%
1BR/D
8 13%
9S0
$1,250
$1,250
$1.32
26R
22 36%
1,174
$1,325 - $1,445
$1,385
$1.18
Total:
61 100%
992
$1,090 - $1,445
$1,242
Vacancy Rate: 0.0%
Active Adult Aff. Rental
Monthly
Rents
Total % of Avg.
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$492 -$795
$644
$0.98
1611 138 78% 657
26R 40 22% 938
$630
$630
$0.67
Total:
178 100%
798
$492 -$795
$637
$0.83
Vacancy Rate: 1.1%
Active Adult OwnerMonthly
Rents
Total % of Avg.
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$42,000 $61,299
$51,100
$56.38
1611 31 15% 906
26R 168 80% 736
$52,000 $75,824
$63,110
$85.75
36R 11 5% 1,724
$81,000 $112,745
$100,094
$58.07
Total:
210 100%
1,122
$42,000 - $112,745 11
$71,435
$66.73
Vacancy Rate: 0.0%
CongregateBase
Monthly
Rents
Total % of Avg.
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$2,045 - $3,550
$2,629
$3.19
1611 64 65% 825
16R/D 8 8% 1,021
$3,500 - $3,995
$3,748
$3.67
26R 27 27% 1,058
$2,740 - $3,995
$3,262
$3.08
Total:
99 100%
968tt
$2,045 - $3,995
$3,213
$3.31
Vacancy Rate: 0.0%
Assisted LivingBase
Monthly
Rents
Total % of Avg.
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$3,745
$3,745
$8.27
Studio 4 3% 453
16R 95 77% 686
$3,170 - $4,750
$4,049
$5.90
1BR/D 8 6% 1,021
$4,700 $5,195
$4,948
$4.85
2BR 17 14% 11 914
$4,345 - $5,295 11
$4,826
Total:
124 100%
11 768 11
$3,170 - $5,295
$4,392
Vacancy Rate: 4.0%
Memory CareBase
Monthly
Rents
Total %of Avg.
Range
Avg.
Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size
Low - High
Rent
Sq. Ft.
$2,855 - $6,605
$4,608
$11.78
Studio 116 95% 391
1611 6 5% 601
$4,825 - $7,075
$5,950
$9.89
Total: 122 100%
458
$2,855 - $7,075
$5,279
$10.84
Vacancy Rate: 13.1%
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 98
Page 110
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Select Senior Housing Projects — Plymouth, MN
mniIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4
Summer Wood of Plymouth
16205 36th Ave N
Trillium Woods
5855 Cheshire Pkwy
Iq
The Waters of Plymouth
Plymouth Town Square
1530037 th Ave N
Vicksburg Crossing
3155 Vicksburg Ln N
Gramercy Park Cooperative Northwest
6195 Northwest Blvd
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 99
Page 111
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
19
Bassett Creek Commons
105058 th Ave N
Brookdale Plymouth
15855 22nd Ave N
Cornerstone Commons
3750 Lawndale Ln N
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Cherrywood Pointe of Plymouth — Expected
2018
18405 Old Rockford Rd
100
Page 112
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
w ■ ■
.■ aMar
Qt!111U1 P9Uublll 1JeVe1Up[11e11Lb - rlylilumll, IVIN
F: y--.I---------------------tom---
I 1
I �
I n
I �
1 �
0
I
I
$clinkidlL
HoIFldale
I Turtle
� �L1 ke PaM � Qr"RockkudRd
. Plymouth
I Plymouth Towne Square
Su mmEr•r`; _ z of Plymouth
I Plymouth
Cornerstone Cooperatrve Cornerstone Co,-^---. --
0
Trillium
0
I
I
1
12�
Maxfield
Re -search & Consultinr
'.lrk
MAS burg 0�cS Si -y
x
a
r
Clare Bridge {Brookdak=j
Pa I kora
Lake
Park
x
sp
e„
J �
�
qq
4`
Y it
O J
'-- YID------------1aba----------
m
I
F: y--.I---------------------tom---
I 1
I �
I n
I �
1 �
0
I
I
$clinkidlL
HoIFldale
I Turtle
� �L1 ke PaM � Qr"RockkudRd
. Plymouth
I Plymouth Towne Square
Su mmEr•r`; _ z of Plymouth
I Plymouth
Cornerstone Cooperatrve Cornerstone Co,-^---. --
0
Trillium
0
I
I
1
12�
Maxfield
Re -search & Consultinr
'.lrk
MAS burg 0�cS Si -y
x
a
r
Clare Bridge {Brookdak=j
Pa I kora
Lake
Park
v
x
sp
e„
Regional Park
�.
Peke
v
eagle Lake
sp
e„
Regional Park
�.
Peke
'-- YID------------1aba----------
I
Eag4
I
Lake GoH
j
Lerlpr
I
od�
I
Tm bar
8dc9 Lala
Shores
park Three
Wide
�
J
I
I
I
y
m
4
�
I
I
e
�
I
#
Oouth
I
:yPark {+oaperative of Plym
I•
Gramercy Par[ Z----p&raVv- Na.th'.vC
t
R�
go�y,taid
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Flr rimer
I
I
I
ParkI
Suis
r
I
I
I
Mledicine Lake
I
I
I
Weal
I
kded is lFK-
uth
J
I
I
r� h4�tidneLaka
�
X .'."'
�3 6
O
li
I
O
The W Eters
of Plymouth
e4 M Bassett uree{ w3mrn Dns
o I
.I
GL,l tib''°` I.
Park
s: ESri, HERE, CeLarmer JJOPS. Intermap, 114GREMENT P. FlRGa n,
M ET I, ESri China f Hoo lypngj, Esri Korea, ES ri {Thailand}, Mapmyl
Q OpenStreetMapcontributm. and the 015 User Community
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 101
Page 113
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Senior Housing Comparison
Table S-3 & S-4 provide a comparison on senior housing units broken down by service level in
Plymouth compared to neighboring peer cities in the Metro Area.
Table S-3
SENIOR HOUSING COMPARISION
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
•
65+ Pop. Pct. of Total Pop. (2017)
65+ Penetration Rate (2017)
•
15.6%
7.7%
Eden Prairie
12.0%
12.4%
•
24.2%
17.9%
Golden Valley
23.4%
19.4%
Maple Grove
11.0%
13.3%
•
15.6%
0.0%
Minnetonka
21.3%
13.5%
•
15.2%
13.4%
Note: Penetration Rate equals the number of senior housing units divided by senior population
Source: ESRI; Twin Cities Senior Housing Guide; Maxfield Research, Inc.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 102
Page 114
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
TABLE S-4
SENIOR HOUSING COMPARISION
PLYMOUTH ANALYSIS AREA
Senior Housing Summary
Total Population (2017)
64,545
51,476
..-
21,536
69,340
6,259
52,664
48,973
UNEW
76,150
65+ Population (2017)
11,852
7,763
12,440
5,040
7,647
976
11,219
7,429
65+ Pop. Percent of Total Pop.
15.6%
12.0%
24.2%
23.4%
11.0%
15.6%
21.3%
15.2%
MR Active Adult Units (Rental)
61
56
188
0
158
0
73
58
Sub/Aff Active Adult Units (Rental)
178
60
391
202
138
0
314
196
Active Adult/Coop. Units (Owner)
210
337
337
119
176
0
89
106
Congregate Units
99
273
343
225
94
0
485
403
Assisted Living Units
124
188
759
146
293
0
405
149
Memory Care Units
122
51
214
89
157
0
149
80
CCRC Units
120
0
0
199
0
0
0
0
Total Senior Units
914
965
21232
980
1,016
0
1,515
992
65+ Penetration Rate
7.7%
12.4%
17.9%
19.4%
13.3%
0.0%
13.5%
13.4%
Source: ESRI; Twin Cities Senior Housing Guide;
Maxfield
Research, Inc.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 103
Page 115
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Previous sections of this study analyzed the existing housing supply and the growth and demo-
graphic characteristics of the population and household base in Plymouth. This section of the
report presents our estimates of housing demand in Plymouth from 2017 through 2030.
Demographic Profile and Housing Demand
The demographic profile of a community affects housing demand and the types of housing that
are needed. The housing life -cycle stages are:
1. Entry-level householders
• Often prefer to rent basic, inexpensive apartments
• Usually singles or couples in their early 20's without children
• Will often "double -up" with roommates in apartment setting
2. First-time homebuyers and move -up renters
• Often prefer to purchase modestly -priced single-family homes or rent
more upscale apartments
• Usually married or cohabiting couples, in their mid -20's or 30's, some
with children, but most are without children
3. Move -up homebuyers
• Typically prefer to purchase newer, larger, and therefore more expen-
sive single-family homes
• Typically, families with children where householders are in their late
30's to 40's
4. Empty -nesters (persons whose children have grown and left home) and
never -nesters (persons who never have children)
• Prefer owning but will consider renting their housing
• Some will move to alternative lower -maintenance housing products
• Generally, couples in their 50's or 60's
5. Younger independent seniors
• Prefer owning but will consider renting their housing
• Will often move (at least part of the year) to retirement havens in the
Sunbelt and desire to reduce their responsibilities for upkeep and
maintenance
• Generally, in their late 60's or 70's
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 104
Page 116
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
6. Older seniors
• May need to move out of their single-family home due to physical
and/or health constraints or a desire to reduce their responsibilities
for upkeep and maintenance
• Generally single females (widows) in their mid -70's or older
Demand for housing can come from several sources including: household growth, changes in
housing preferences, and replacement need. Household growth necessitates building new
housing unless there is enough desirable vacant housing available to absorb the increase in
households. Demand is also affected by shifting demographic factors such as the aging of the
population, which dictates the type of housing preferred. New housing to meet replacement
need is required, even in the absence of household growth, when existing units no longer meet
the needs of the population and when renovation is not feasible because the structure is physi-
cally or functionally obsolete.
Rural areas tend to have higher proportions of younger households that own their housing than
in the larger growth centers or metropolitan areas such as the Twin Cities Metro Area. In addi-
tion, senior households tend to move to alternative housing at an older age. These conditions
are a result of housing market dynamics, which typically provide more affordable single-family
housing for young households and a scarcity of senior housing alternatives for older house-
holds.
The graphic on the following page provides greater detail of various housing types supported
within each housing life cycle. Information on square footage, average bedrooms/bathrooms,
and lot size is provided on the subsequent graphic.
Housing Demand Overview
The previous sections of this assessment focused on demographic and economic factors driving
demand for housing in Plymouth. In this section, we utilize findings from the economic and de-
mographic analysis to calculate demand for new general occupancy housing units in Plymouth.
Housing markets are driven by a range of supply and demand factors that vary by location and
submarket. The following points outline several of the key variables driving housing demand.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 105
Page 117
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
DEMOGRAPHICS & HOUSING DEMAND
18-24 18 - 24
25-29 18-34
30-34 25-39
35-39 30-49
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74 65-79
75-79
80-84
85+
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
40-64
55-74
55+ & 65+
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 106
Page 118
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
TYPICAL HOUSING TYPE CHARACTERISTICS
Entry-level single-family
First-time buyers: Families,
1,200 to 2,200 sq. ft.
80'+ wide lot
couples w/no children, some
2-4 BR 1 2 BA
2.5-3.0 DU/Acre
singles
Move -up single-family
Step-up buyers: Families,
2,000 sq. ft.+
80'+ wide lot
couples w/no children
3-4 BR 12-3 BA
2.5-3.0 DU/Acre
Executive single-family
Step-up buyers: Families,
2,500 sq. ft.+
100'+ wide lot
couples w/no children
3-4 BR 1 2-3 BA
1.5-2.0 DU/Acre
Small -lot single-family
First-time & move -down buyers:
1,700 to 2,500 sq. ft.
40' to 60' wide lot
Families, couples w/no children,
3-4 BR 1 2-3 BA
5.0-8.0 DU/Acre
empty nesters, retirees
Entry-level townhomes
First-time buyers: Singles,
1,200 to 1,600 sq. ft.
6.0-12.0 DU/Acre
couples w/no children
2-3 BR 11.SBA+
Move -up townhomes
First-time & step-up buyers:
1,400 to 2,000 sq. ft.
6.0-8.0. DU/Acre
Singles, couples, some families,
2-3 BR 12BA+
empty -nesters
Executive townhomes/twinhomes
Step-up buyers: Empty -nesters,
2,000+ sq. ft.
4.0-6.0 DU/Acre
retirees
3 BR+ 12BA+
Detached Townhome
Step-up buyers: Empty -nesters,
2,000+ sq. ft.
4.0-6.0 DU/Acre
retirees, some families
3 BR+ 12BA+
Condominums
First-time & step-up buyers:
800 to 1,700 sq. ft.
Low-rise: 18.0-24.0 DU/Acre
Singles, couples, empty -nesters,
1-2 BR 1 1-2 BA
Mid -rise: 25.0+ DU/Acre
retirees
Hi -rise: 75.0+ DU/Acre
Apartment -style rental housing
Singles, couples, single -parents,
675 to 1,250 sq. ft.
Low-rise: 18.0-24.0 DU/Acre
some families, seniors
1-3 BR 1 1-2 BA
Mid -rise: 25.0+ DU/Acre
Hi -rise: 75.0+ DU/Acre
Townhome-style rental housing
Single -parents, families
900 to 1,700 sq. ft.
8.0-12.0 DU/Acre
w/children, empty nesters
2-4 BR I 213
Student rental housing
College students, mostly
550 to 1,400 sq. ft.
Low-rise: 18.0-24.0 DU/Acre
undergraduates
1-4BR 1 1-2 BA
Mid -rise: 25.0+DU/Acre
Hi -rise: 50.0+ DU/Acre
Senior housing
Retirees, Seniors
550 to 1,500 sq. ft.
Varies considerably based on
Suites - 2BR 1 1-2 BA
senior product type
1 Dwelling units(DU) per acre expressed in net acreage (minus right-of-way)
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
Demographics
Demographics are major influences that drive housing demand. Household growth and for-
mations are critical (natural growth, immigration, etc.), as well as household types, size, age of
householders, incomes, etc.
Economy & lob Growth
The economy and housing market are intertwined; the health of the housing market affects the
broader economy and vice versa. Housing market growth depends on job growth (or the pro-
spect of); jobs generate income growth which results in the formation of more households and
can stimulate household turnover. Historically low unemployment rates have driven both exist-
ing home purchases and new -home purchases. Lack of job growth leads to slow or diminishing
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 107
Page 119
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
household growth, which in -turn relates to reduced housing demand. Additionally, low income
growth results in fewer move -up buyers which results in diminished housing turnover across all
income brackets.
Consumer Choice/Preferences
A variety of factors contribute to consumer choice and preferences. Many times a change in
family status is the primary factor for a change in housing type (i.e. growing families, empty -
nest families, etc.). However, housing demand is also generated from the turnover of existing
households who decide to move for a range of reasons. Some households may want to move -
up, downsize, change their tenure status (i.e. owner to renter or vice versa), or simply move to
a new location.
Supply (Existing Housing Stock)
The stock of existing housing plays a crucial component in the demand for new housing. There
are a variety of unique household types and styles, not all of which are desirable to today's con-
sumers. The age of the housing stock is an important component for housing demand, as com-
munities with aging housing stocks have higher demand for remodeling services, replacement
new construction, or new home construction as the current inventory does not provide the
supply that consumers seek. Plymouth and suburbs like it have an older housing that results in
higher demand for remodeling services and infill redevelopment.
Pent-up demand may also exist if supply is unavailable as householders postpone a move until
new housing product becomes available.
Housing Finance
Household income is the fundamental measure that dictates what a householder can afford to
pay for housing costs. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30% of its annual
income on housing (including utilities). Families who pay more than 30% of their income for
housing (either rent or mortgage) are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty afford-
ing necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.
After the Great Recession lenders "tightened the belts" on mortgage lending and it was difficult
for many buyers to obtain financing. The ability of buyers to obtain mortgage financing has re-
cently lightened as lenders have eased restrictions that had been in place since the recession.
However, lenders are still requiring substantially higher credit scores and equity than last dec-
ade.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 108
Page 120
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Mobility
It is important to note that demand is somewhat fluid between other west/northwest Twin Cit-
ies Metro Area communities and will be impacted by development activity in nearby areas.
Estimated Demand for General -Occupancy Rental Housing
Table HD-1 presents our calculation of general -occupancy rental housing demand in Plymouth.
This analysis identifies potential demand for rental housing that is generated from both new
households and turnover households. A portion of the demand will be drawn from existing
households in Plymouth that want to upgrade their housing situations.
The 65 and older cohort is typically not a target market for new general occupancy rental hous-
ing, therefore, we limit demand from household growth to only those households under the
age of 65. According to our projections, Plymouth is expected to add 3,300 new households be-
tween 2017 and 2030 (651 households non -senior households). We estimate that 32% will be
renting their housing, which produces demand for 208 new general occupancy rental housing
units between 2017 and 2030.
Demand is also forecast to emerge from existing Market Area householders through turnover.
An estimated 7,592 renter -occupied households under the age of 65 are located in Plymouth in
2017. Based on mobility data from the Census Bureau, an estimated 85% of renter households
will turnover in a 15 -year period, resulting in 6,453 existing households projected to turnover.
Finally, we estimate 15% of the existing renter households will seek new rental housing,
resulting in demand for 968 rental units through 2030.
Next, we estimate that 25% of the total demand for new rental units in Plymouth will come
from people currently living outside of the City of Plymouth. Adding demand from outside
Plymouth to the existing demand potential, results in a total estimated demand for 1,568 rental
housing units by 2030.
Based on a review of rental household incomes and sizes and monthly rents at existing projects,
we estimate that approximately 12% of the total demand will be for subsidized housing (30%
AMI), 26% will be for affordable housing (40% to 60% AMI), and 62% will be for market rate
housing (non -income restricted).
As of September 2017, there are no pending or under construction market rate rental housing
projects that will satisfy the calculated rental housing demand, which results in an overall de-
mand for 188 subsidized units, 408 affordable units, and 972 market rate units.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 109
Page 121
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
TABLE HD-1
RENTAL HOUSING DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 to 2030
Demand from Projected Household Growth
Projected HH growth under age 65 in Plymouth 2017 to 2030'
651
(times) Estimated %to be renting their housingZ x
32%
(equals) Projected demand from new HH growth =
208
Demand from Existing Renter Households
Number of renter HHs (age 64 and younger) in Plymouth (2017 )3
7,592
(times) Estimated percent of renter turnover° x
85%
(equals) Total existing households projected to turnover =
6,453
(times) Estimated percent desiring new rental housing x
15%
(equals) Demand from existing households
968
(equals) Total demand from HH growth and existing HHs 2017 to 2030 =
1,176
(times) Demand from outside Plymouth
25%
(equals) Total demand potential for rental housing, 2017 to 2030
1,568
Deep Shallow
Market
Subsidy
Subsidy
Rate
(times) Percent of rental demand by product types x 12%
26%
62%
(equals) Total demand potential for general -occupancy rental housing units = 188
408
972
(minus) Units under construction or pending 0
0
0
(equals) Excess demand for new general occupancy rental housing = 188
408
972
1 Estimated household growth based on projections as adjusted by Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
2 Pct. of renter households under the age of 65 (ACS - 2015, ESRI, Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC).
3 Estimate based on 2015 ACS renter households and new renter household growth 2010 to 2017 (under age 65)
° Based on on turnover from 2015 American Community Survey for households moving over 15 -year period.
5 Based on the combination of current rental product and household incomes of area renters (non -senior households)
6 Pending/proposed/under construction at 95% occupancy.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 110
Page 122
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Estimated Demand for Independent Adult/Few Service Senior Housing
Table HD -2 presents our demand calculations for market rate independent senior housing in
Plymouth in 2017 and 2022.
In order to determine demand for independent senior housing, the potential market is reduced
to those households that are both age and income qualified. The age -qualified market is de-
fined as seniors age 55 and older, although independent living projects will primarily attract
seniors age 65 and older.
We calculate that the minimum income needed to afford monthly rents is $35,000 or more plus
homeowner households with incomes between $25,000 and $34,999 who would be able to
supplement their incomes with the proceeds from a home sale. We estimate the number of
age/income-qualified senior households in the Plymouth in 2017 to be 12,077 households.
Adjusting to include appropriate long-term capture rates for each age cohort (0.5% of house-
holds age 55 to 64, about 5.5% of households age 65 to 74, and 16.5% of households age 75
and over) results in a market rate demand potential for 620 independent senior rental units in
2017.
Some additional demand will come from outside the Plymouth. We estimate that 25% of the
long-term demand for independent senior housing will be generated by seniors currently resid-
ing outside the Plymouth. This demand will consist primarily of parents of adult children living
in the Plymouth area, individuals who live just outside of Plymouth and have an orientation to
the area, as well as former residents who desire to return. Together, the demand from Plym-
outh seniors and demand from seniors who would relocate to Plymouth results in a demand for
827 market rate active adult units in 2017.
Independent demand in Plymouth is apportioned between ownership and rental housing.
Based on the age distribution, homeownership rates and current product available in Plymouth,
we project that 50% of Plymouth's demand will be for adult ownership housing (413 units) and
50% will be for rental housing (413 units).
Next, we subtract existing competitive market rate units (minus a vacancy factor of 5% to allow
for sufficient consumer choice and turnover) from the owner and rental demand. Subtracting
the existing competitive market rate units results in total demand potential for 214 adult
owner -occupied units and 261 active adult rental units.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 111
Page 123
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Adjusting for inflation, we have estimated that households with incomes of $45,000 or more
and homeowners with incomes of $35,000 to $44,999 would income qualify for market rate in-
dependent senior housing in 2030. Considering the growth in the older adult base, the income
distribution of the older adult population in 2030, and planned and under construction units at
Cherrywood Pointe and Agora the methodology projected that demand will be 308 adult
owner -occupied units and 262 adult rental units in the City of Plymouth.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 112
Page 124
TABLE HD -2
MARKET RATE
ACTIVE ADULT HOUSING DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 and 2030
2017
2030
Age of Householder
Age of Householder
55-64
65-74
75+
55-64
65-74
75+
# of Households w/ Incomes of >$35,000'
5,725
3,639
2,024
5,816
4,594
2,462
# of Households w/ Incomes of $25,000 to $34,999'
+ 240
234
358
+ 227
300
458
(times ) Homeownership Rate
x 87%
89%
76%
x 87%
89%
76%
= 5,934
3,847
2,296
(equals) Total Potential Market Base
= 6,013
4,861
2,810
(times) Potential Capture Rate
x 0.5%
5.5%
16.5%
x 0.5%
5.5%
16.5%
(equals) Demand Potential
= 30
212
379
= 30
267
464
Potential Demand from Residents
=
620
=
761
(plus) Demand from Outside Plymouth (25%)
+
207
+
254
(equals) Total Demand Potential
=
827
=
1,015
Owner-
Renter-
Owner-
Renter -
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
(times) % by Product Type
x 50%
x
50%
x 50%
x
50%
(equals) Demand Potential by Product Type
= 413
=
413
= 507
=
507
(minus) Existing and Pending MR Active Adult Unitsz
200
152
200
245
(equals) Excess Demand for MR Active Adult Units
= 214
=
261
= 308
=
262
' 2030 calculations define income -qualified households as all households with incomes greater than $45,000 and homeowner households with incomes between $35,000 and
$44,999.
' Existing and pending are deducted at market equilibrium 195% occupancy).
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
Adjusting for inflation, we have estimated that households with incomes of $45,000 or more
and homeowners with incomes of $35,000 to $44,999 would income qualify for market rate in-
dependent senior housing in 2030. Considering the growth in the older adult base, the income
distribution of the older adult population in 2030, and planned and under construction units at
Cherrywood Pointe and Agora the methodology projected that demand will be 308 adult
owner -occupied units and 262 adult rental units in the City of Plymouth.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 112
Page 124
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Estimated Demand for Subsidized/ Affordable Independent Senior Housing
Table HD -3 presents our demand calculations for subsidized/affordable independent senior
housing in the City of Plymouth in 2017 and 2030.
In order to arrive at the potential age and income qualified base for low income and affordable
housing, we exclude all senior (65+) households with incomes more than $40,000. We exclude
homeowner households with incomes between $35,000 and $39,999, as these households
would have additional equity that could be converted to monthly income following the sales of
their single-family homes.
Households in a need -based situation (either requiring services or financial assistance) more
readily move to housing alternatives than those in non -need based situations. Hence, the cap-
ture rate among each age group is higher than for market rate housing. Capture rates are em-
ployed at 2.0% for households age 55 to 64, 10.0% for households age 65 to 74 and 20.0% for
households age 75 and older.
Seniors in need -based situations are less selective when securing housing than those in non -
need based situations. We estimate that a high-quality site would capture a greater proportion
of total demand for financially -assisted housing than for market rate housing.
Using the methodology described above results in a demand potential for 463 total subsidized
or affordable senior units. However, after adjusted for household incomes demand results for
236 subsidized units and 227 affordable units.
Next we subtract existing competitive units from the overall demand. There are 96 existing
subsidized independent units and 77 affordable independent units in Plymouth (minus a va-
cancy factor of 3% to allow for sufficient consumer choice and turnover). After we subtract the
existing units, there is 140 units demand for subsidized units and demand for 150 affordable
units in 2017.
Adjusting for inflation, we estimate that households with incomes up to $45,000 would be can-
didates for financially -assisted independent housing in 2030. We reduce the potential market
by homeowner households earning between $40,000 and $44,999 that would exceed income -
restrictions once equity from their home sales is converted to monthly income.
Following the same methodology, we project demand in Plymouth for 227 subsidized units and
234 affordable units in 2030.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 113
Page 125
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Estimated Demand for Congregate Senior Housing
Table HD -4 presents our demand calculations for congregate housing in Plymouth in 2017 and
2030.
The potential age- and income -qualified base for congregate senior housing includes all senior
(65+) households with incomes of $35,000 as well as homeowner households with incomes be-
tween $30,000 and $34,999 who would qualify with the proceeds from the sales of their
homes. The proportion of eligible homeowners is based on the 2010 Census homeownership
rates of the Plymouth seniors. The number of age, income, and asset -qualified households in
Plymouth is estimated to be 5,903 households in 2017.
Demand for congregate housing is need -drive, which reduces the qualified market to only the
portion of seniors who need some assistance. Adjusting to include appropriate capture rates
for each age cohort (1.5% of households age 65 to 74 and 13.0% of households age 75 and
older) results in a local demand potential for 337 congregate units in 2017.
We estimate that seniors currently residing outside of the Plymouth will generate 25% of the
demand for congregate senior housing. Together, the demand from Plymouth seniors and de-
mand from seniors who are willing to locate to the Plymouth totals 449 congregate units in
2017.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 114
Page 126
TABLE HD -3
DEEP-SUBSIDY/SHALLOW
SUBSIDY INDEPENDENT
HOUSING DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 and 2030
2017
2030
Age of Householder
Age of Householder
55-64 65-74
75+
55-64
65-74
75+
839 884
1,315
# of Households w/ Incomes of <$40,000'
834
1,134
1,819
Less Households w/ Incomes of $35,000 to $39,999'
- 135 139
195
-
114
150
229
(times ) Homeownership Rate
x 87% 89%
76%
x
87%
89%
76%
= 722 760
1,167
=
735
1,001
1,645
(equals) Total Potential Market Base
(times) Potential Capture Rate
x 2.0% 10.0%
20.0%
x
2.0%
10.0%
20.0%
(equals) Demand Potential
- 14 76
233
-
15
100
329
= 324
=
444
(equals) Potential Demand from Residents
(plus) Demand from outside Plymouth (30%)
+ 139
+
190
(equals) Total Demand Potential
= 463
=
634
Deep -Subsidy
Shallow -Subsidy
Deep -Subsidy
Shallow -Subsidy
(times) % by Product Type
x 51% x
49%
x
51%
x
49%
(equals) Demand Potential by Product Type
=
323
=
311
= 236 = 227
(minus) Existing and Pending Independent Units'
96
77
96
77
(equals) Excess Demand for Aff/Sub Units
- 140 -
150
-
227
-
234
' 2030 calculations define income -qualified households as all households with
incomes less than $45,000. Homeowner households with incomes between $40,000 and $44,999 are excluded from the market
potential for financially -assisted housing.
' Existing units are deducted at market equilibrium, or 97% occupancy.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
Estimated Demand for Congregate Senior Housing
Table HD -4 presents our demand calculations for congregate housing in Plymouth in 2017 and
2030.
The potential age- and income -qualified base for congregate senior housing includes all senior
(65+) households with incomes of $35,000 as well as homeowner households with incomes be-
tween $30,000 and $34,999 who would qualify with the proceeds from the sales of their
homes. The proportion of eligible homeowners is based on the 2010 Census homeownership
rates of the Plymouth seniors. The number of age, income, and asset -qualified households in
Plymouth is estimated to be 5,903 households in 2017.
Demand for congregate housing is need -drive, which reduces the qualified market to only the
portion of seniors who need some assistance. Adjusting to include appropriate capture rates
for each age cohort (1.5% of households age 65 to 74 and 13.0% of households age 75 and
older) results in a local demand potential for 337 congregate units in 2017.
We estimate that seniors currently residing outside of the Plymouth will generate 25% of the
demand for congregate senior housing. Together, the demand from Plymouth seniors and de-
mand from seniors who are willing to locate to the Plymouth totals 449 congregate units in
2017.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 114
Page 126
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
As of September 2017, there are no pending or under construction senior housing projects with
congregate units. This results in an overall demand for 355 congregate units.
Adjusting for inflation, we estimate that households with incomes of $45,000 or more and sen-
ior homeowners with incomes between $40,000 and $44,999 would qualify for congregate
housing in 2030. Following the same methodology, demand is calculated to increase to 457
units through 2030.
TABLE HD -4
MARKET RATE CONGREGATE RENTAL HOUSING DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 and 2030
2017
2030
Age of Householder
Age of Householder
65-74 75+
65-74 75+
# of Households w/ Incomes of >$35,000'
3,639 2,024
4,594 2,462
# of Households w/ Incomes of $30,000 to $34,999'
+ 117 179
+ 150 229
(times) Homeownership Rate
x 89% 76%
x 89% 76%
(equals) Total Potential Market Base
= 3,743 2,160
= 4,728 2,636
(times) Potential Capture Rate
x 1.5% 13.0%
x 1.5% 13.0%
(equals) Potential Demand
= 56 + 281
= 71 + 343
Potential Demand from Plymouth Residents
= 337
= 414
(plus) Demand from Outside Plymouth (25%)
+ 112
+ 138
(equals) Total Demand Potential
= 449
= 551
(minus) Existing and Pending Congregate Units3
94
94
(equals) Total Congregate Demand Potential
= 355
= 457
' 2030 calculations define income -qualified households as all households with incomes greater than $45,000 and homeowner
households with incomes between $40,000 and $44,999.
2The potential capture rate is derived from data from the Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Population: National Health
Interview Survey, 2008 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The capture rate used is the percentage of seniors
needing assistance with IADLs, but not ADLs (seniors needing assistance with ADLs typcially need assistance with multiple IADLs
and are primary candidates for service -intensive assisted living).
3 Competitive units include congregate units at 95% occupancy (market equilibrium).
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 115
Page 127
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Estimated Demand for Assisted Living Housing
Table HD -5 presents our demand calculations for assisted living senior housing in Plymouth in
2017 and 2030. This analysis focuses on the potential private pay/market rate demand for
assisted living units.
The availability of more intensive support services such as meals, housekeeping and personal
care at assisted living facilities usually attracts older, frailer seniors. According to the 2009
Overview of Assisted Living (which is a collaborative research project by the American
Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the American Seniors Housing Association,
National Center for Assisted Living, and National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing and
Care Industry), the average age of residents in freestanding assisted living facilities was 87 years
in 2008. Hence, the age -qualified market for assisted living is defined as seniors ages 75 and
over, as we estimate that of the half of demand from seniors under age 87, almost all would be
from seniors over age 75. In 2017, there are a projected 4,052 seniors age 75 and older in
Plymouth.
Demand for assisted living housing is need -driven, which reduces the qualified market to only
the portion of seniors who need assistance. According to a study completed by the U.S. Census
Bureau (1999 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) files), 30% of
seniors needed assistance with everyday activities (from 25.5% of 75 -to -79 -year-olds, to 33.6%
of 80 -to -84 -year-olds and 51.6% of 85+ year olds). Applying these percentages to the senior
population yields a potential assisted living market of 1,658 seniors in Plymouth.
Due to the supportive nature of assisted living housing, most daily essentials are included in
monthly rental fees, which allow seniors to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on
housing with basic services. Therefore, the second step in determining the potential demand
for assisted living housing in Plymouth is to identify the income -qualified market based on a
senior's ability to pay the monthly rent. We consider seniors in households with incomes of
$40,000 or greater to be income -qualified for assisted living senior housing in Plymouth.
Households with incomes of $40,000 could afford monthly assisted living fees of $3,000 by
allocating 90% of their income toward the fees.
According to the 2009 Overview of Assisted Living, the average arrival income of assisted living
residents in 2008 was $27,260, while the average annual assisted living fee was $37,281
($3,107/month). This data highlights that seniors are spending down assets to live in assisted
living and avoid institutional care. Thus, in addition to households with incomes of $40,000 or
greater, there is a substantial base of senior households with lower incomes who income -qual-
ify based on assets —their homes, in particular.
Seventy-one percent of the age 75+ households in the Plymouth are homeowners, and the me-
dian resale price of homes through 2016 in Plymouth was $325,000. Seniors selling their
homes for the median resale price would generate about $302,250 in proceeds after selling
costs. With an average monthly fee of $3,000, these proceeds would last about 101 months in
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 116
Page 128
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
an assisted living facility, which is higher than the average length of stay in assisted living (27
months according to the 2009 Overview of Assisted Living). For each age group in Table HD -5,
we estimate the income -qualified percentage to be all seniors in households with incomes
above $40,000 (who could afford monthly rents of $3,000+ per month) plus 40% of the esti-
mated seniors in homeowner households with incomes below $40,000 (who will spend down
assets, including home -equity, in order to live in assisted living housing). This results in a total
potential market of 1,177 units in 2017.
Because the vast majority of assisted living residents are single (88% according to the 2009
Overview of Assisted Living), our demand methodology multiplies the total potential market by
the percentage of seniors age 75+ in Plymouth living alone. Based on 2010 Census data, only
47% of age 75+ households in Plymouth lived alone. Applying this percentage results in a total
base of 554 age/income-qualified singles. The 2009 Overview of Assisted Living found that 12%
of residents in assisted living were couples. There are a total of 629 age/income-qualified
seniors needing assistance in Plymouth including both couples and singles.
We estimate that roughly 60% of the qualified market needing significant assistance with
Activities of Daily Living ("ADLs") would either remain in their homes or less service -intensive
senior housing with the assistance of a family member or home health care, or would need
greater care provided in a skilled care facility. The remaining 40% could be served by assisted
living housing. Applying this potential market penetration rate of 40% results in demand for
252 assisted living units in 2017.
We estimate that a portion of demand for assisted living units (25%) will come from outside of
the Plymouth. Applying this figure results in total potential demand for 336 market rate
assisted living units in Plymouth.
There are a total of 115 assisted living units in Plymouth. After deducting these competitive
units (minus a 93% occupancy rate) from the total demand potential, we calculate that there is
a demand for 220 assisted living units in the Plymouth in 2017.
While incorporating 83 under construction or pending assisted living units, the same
calculations are applied to the age/income-qualified base in 2030, resulting in demand for 234
units.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 117
Page 129
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
TABLE HD -5
MARKET RATE ASSISTED LIVING DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 and 2030
2017 2030
Percent Number Percent
Number
Needing Needing Needing
Needing
Age group People Assistance' Assistance' People Assistance'
Assistance'
75-79 2,067 25.5% 527 3,178 25.5%
810
80-84 1,365 33.6% 459 1,948 33.6%
655
85+ 1,302 51.6% 672 1,726 51.6%
891
Total 4,734 1,658 6,852
2,356
Percent Income-Qualified2 71%
61%
Total potential market 1,177
1,437
(times) Percent living alone x 47%
49%
(equals) Age/income-qualified singles needing assistance = 554
704
(plus) Proportion of demand from couples (12%)3 + 76
96
(equals) Total age/income-qualified market needing assistance = 629
800
(times) Potential penetration rate x 40%
40%
(equals) Potential demand from Plymouth residents = 252
320
(plus) Proportion from outside Plymouth (25%) + 84
107
(equals) Total potential assisted living demand = 336
427
(minus) Existing market rate assisted living units5 115
193
(equals) Total excess market rate assisted living demand = 220
234
' The percentage of seniors unable to perform or having difficulting with ADLs, based on the publication Health, United States, 1999 Health and
Aging Chartbook, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Health Statistics.
Z Includes households with incomes of $40,000 or more (who could afford monthly rents of $3,000+ per month) plus 40% of estimated owner
households with incomes below $40,000 (who will spend down assets, including home -equity, in order to live in assisted living housing).
3 The 2009 Overview of Assisted Living (a collaborative project of AAHSA, ASHA, ALFA, NCAL & NIC) found that 12% of assisted living
residents are
couples.
4 We estimate that 60% of the qualified market needing assistance with ADLs could either remain in their homes or reside at less advanced
senior housing with the assistance of a family member or home health care, or would need greater care provided in a skilled care facility.
S Existing and pending units at 93% occupancy.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 118
Page 130
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Additional demand could come from seniors that will need to receive supplemental income in
order to afford assisted living or memory care housing. While some of these seniors will re-
ceive income from the sales of their homes, others will need to rely on other sources of public
aid. The Elderly Waiver program has provided public funding for seniors who wish to receive
"alternative" care that allows them to stay in the community as opposed to receiving similar
care at a nursing home.
Most assisted living developments require residents to have lived in their facility for a certain
amount of time before they can use a waiver, and many try to limit the amount of waivers ac-
cepted within the community to around roughly 10% to 20%. Some facilities accept higher
amounts of residents on waivers and many newer facilities do not accept any waivers.
Estimated Demand for Memory Care Housing
Table HD -6 presents our demand calculations for market rate memory care senior housing in
Plymouth in 2017 and 2030.
Demand is calculated by starting with the estimated Plymouth senior (age 65+) population in
2017 and multiplying by the incidence rate of Alzheimer's/dementia among this population's
age cohorts. According to the Alzheimer's Association (Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures,
2007), 2% of seniors ages 65 to 74, 19% of seniors ages 75 to 84, and 42% of seniors ages 85+
are inflicted with Alzheimer's Disease. This yields a potential market of 1,320 seniors in Plym-
outh in 2017.
Because of the staff -intensive nature of dementia care, typical monthly fees for this type of
housing are at least $4,000 and range upwards of $5,000 to $6,000 when including service
packages. Based on our review of senior household incomes in Plymouth, homeownership
rates and home sale data, we estimate that 65% of seniors in Plymouth would have incomes
and/or assets to sufficiently cover the costs of memory care housing. This figure takes into ac-
count married couple households where one spouse may have memory care needs and allows
for a sufficient income for the other spouse to live independently. Multiplying the number of
seniors with Alzheimer's/dementia (1,320 seniors) by the income -qualified percentage results
in a total of 858 age/income-qualified seniors in the Plymouth in 2017.
According to data from the National Institute of Aging, about 25% of all individuals with
memory care impairments comprise the market for memory care housing units. This figure
considers that seniors in the early stages of dementia will be able to live independently with the
care of a spouse or other family member, while those in the later stages of dementia will re-
quire intensive medical care that would only be available in skilled care facilities. Applying this
figure to the estimated population with memory impairments yields a potential market of
about 215 seniors in the Plymouth.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 119
Page 131
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
We estimate that 25% of the overall demand for memory care housing would come from out-
side of Plymouth. Together, demand totals 286 memory care units in 2017.
TABLE HD -6
MARKET RATE MEMORY CARE DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 and 2030
2017
2030
65 to 74 Population
7,208
9,985
(times) Dementia Incidence Rate'
x 2%
x 2%
(equals) Estimated Age 65 to 74 Pop. with Dementia
= 144
= 200
75 to 84 Population
3,367
5,126
(times) Dementia Incidence Rate'
x 19%
x 19%
(equals) Estimated Age 75 to 84 Pop. with Dementia
= 640
= 974
85+ Population
1,277
1,726
(times) Dementia Incidence Rate'
x 42%
x 42%
(equals) Estimated Age 85+ Pop. with Dementia
= 536
= 725
(equals) Total Senior Population with Dementia
= 1,320
= 1,899
(times) Percent Income/Asset-Qualified2
x 65%
x 69%
(equals) Total Income -Qualified Market Base
= 858
= 1,310
(times) Percent Needing Specialized Memory Care Assistance
x 25%
x 25%
(equals) Total Need for Dementia Care
= 215
= 328
(plus) Demand from Outside the City of Plymouth (25%)
+ 72
+ 109
Total Demand for Memory Care Units
= 286
437
(minus) Existing and Pending Memory Care Units3
113
1
1 157
(equals) Excess Demand Potential
= 173
= 279
' Alzheimer's Association: Alzheimer's Disease Facts & Figures (2007)
2 Includes seniors with income at $60,000 or above ($75,000 in 2030) plus 40% of homeowners with incomes below this threshold
(who will spend down assets, including home -equity), in order to live in memory care housing.
3 Existing memory care units at 7% vacancy rate.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC
We reduce the demand potential by accounting for the existing memory care product in Plym-
outh. There are a total of 122 units; however, we reduce the competitive units to include
memory care units at a 7% vacancy rate. Subtracting these competitive units results in a de-
mand for 173 units.
The same calculations are applied to the age/income-qualified base in 2030, while
incorporating 47 units at a 7% vacancy rate that are under construction or pending. Following
the same methodology, potential demand for market rate memory care units is expected to
increase to 279 units in Plymouth through 2030.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 120
Page 132
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction/Overall Housing Recommendations
This section summarizes demand calculated for specific housing products in Plymouth and rec-
ommends development concepts to meet the housing needs forecast for the City. All recom-
mendations are based on findings of the Comprehensive Rental Housing Market Study. The fol-
lowing table and charts illustrate calculated demand by product type. It is important to recog-
nize that housing demand is highly contingent on projected household growth and land availa-
bility; household growth could be higher if additional acreage was available for housing devel-
opment/redevelopment.
TABLE CR -1
SUMMARY OF HOUSING DEMAND
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
September 2017
of Use
Rental Units - Market Rate
972
Rental Units - Shallow -Subsidy
408
Rental Units - Deep -Subsidy
188
Total General Occupancy Supportable
1,568
Age -Restricted (Senior)
Market Rate
Adult Few Services (Active Adult)
475
570
Ownership
214
308
Rental
261
262
Congregate
355
457
Assisted Living
220
234
Memory Care
173
279
Total Market Rate Senior Supportable
1,223
1,541
Sh allo w-Subsidy/Deep-Subsid y
Active Adult - Shallow -Subsidy 150 234
Active Adult - Deep -Subsidy 140 227
Total Shallow/Deep-Subsidy Senior Supportable 290 461
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 121
Page 133
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Rental - Subs.
Rental - Aff.
Rental - Market
General -Occupancy Demand by Type, Plymouth MN
2017 to 2030
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Units
Senior Housing Demand by Service Level: 2017 & 2030, Plymouth MN
Adult - Owner
Adult - Rental
Congregate
Assisted Living
Memory Care
Deep -Subsidy
Shallow -
Subsidy
0 100 200 300 400 S00
Units
Based on the finding of our analysis and demand calculations, Table CR -2 provides a summary
of the recommended development concepts by product type for the City of Plymouth. It is im-
portant to note that these proposed concepts are intended to act as a development guide to
most effectively meet the housing needs of existing and future households in Plymouth. The
recommended development types do not directly coincide with total demand as illustrated in
Table CR -1.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 122
Page 134
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Recommended Housing Product Types
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Our competitive inventory identified that the vacancy rates for all types of general occupancy
rental product is below market equilibrium (1.6% vacancy rate) indicating pent-up demand for
rental housing.
Due to the age and positioning of the existing rental supply (pre -1990 construction), a signifi-
cant portion of units are priced at or below guidelines for affordable housing, which indirectly
satisfies demand from some households that income -qualify for financially assisted housing.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 123
Page 13 5
TABLE CR -2
RECOMMENDED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2017 to 2030
No. of
No. of
No. of
Purchase Price/
Units
Units
Units
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Monthly Rent Range'
2017-2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
Total
Market Rate Rental Housing
Apartment -style
$1,000/1BR - $2,800/3BR
280 -300
180 -200
350 -400
810-900
Townhomes
$2,300/2BR - $2,700/3BR
50 -60
40 -50
30-40
120-150
Total
330-360
220 -250
380-440
930-1,050
Affordable Rental Housing
Apartment -style
Moderate Income
130-140
100 -120
130 -140
360-400
Subsidized
30% of Income
50 -60
50 -60
50 -60
150-180
Total
180-200
150-180
180-200
510-580
Total Renter -Occupied
510 -560
370 -430
560-640
1,440 - 1,630
Senior Housing Age Restricted)
(i.e.
Senior Coop./Ownership Active Adult
$50,000 - $200,000+
60 -70
80 -90
90 -100
230-260
Active Adult Market Rate Rentals
$1,400/1BR - $2,700/2BR
70 -80
90 -100
80-90
240-270
Active Adult Affordable Rentals
Moderate Income'
80 -90
60 -70
80 -90
220-250
Active Adult Subsidized Rentals
30% of Income
50 -60
50 -60
80-90
180-210
Independent Living/Congregate
$2,050/1BR - $4,000/2BR
120 -130
140 -150
150-160
410-440
Assisted Living
$3,750/EFF - $5,300/2BR
50 -60
70 -80
100 -110
220-250
Memory Care
$2,900/EFF - $6,000/2BR
60 -70
70 -80
90-100
220-250
Total Senior Units
490-560
560 -630
670-740
1,720 - 1,930
Total -All Units
1,000 - 1,120
930- 1,060
1,230 - 1,380
3,160 - 3,560
Pricing in 2017 dollars. Pricing can be adjusted to account
for inflation.
z Replacement need, infill, and redevelopment.
3 Affordablity subject to income guidelines per Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). See
Table HA -1 for Hennepin
County Income limits.
4Subsized housing will be difficult to develop financially
5Alternative development concept is to combine active adult affordable and market rate active adult into mixed -income senior community
Note - Recommended development does not coincide with
total demand. Plymouth may not
be able to accommodate all recommended housing types based on land
availability and development constraints.
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
Recommended Housing Product Types
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Our competitive inventory identified that the vacancy rates for all types of general occupancy
rental product is below market equilibrium (1.6% vacancy rate) indicating pent-up demand for
rental housing.
Due to the age and positioning of the existing rental supply (pre -1990 construction), a signifi-
cant portion of units are priced at or below guidelines for affordable housing, which indirectly
satisfies demand from some households that income -qualify for financially assisted housing.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 123
Page 13 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
However, the growing renter base is seeking newer rental properties with additional and up-
dated amenities that are not offered in older developments. As a result, there are numerous
new market rate apartments buildings with vacancies near or below market equilibrium.
Market Rate Rental — Currently, there are no general -occupancy units under construction or
planned in the short-term; and there is substantial demand (972 units) found through 2030.
As of September 2017, there were only 115 vacancies found among market rate properties
for a total vacancy of 1.7% which is well below market equilibrium and suggest the demand
for more market rate rental units. Plymouth can accommodate a variety of development
types; from higher -density suburban five -story buildings to lower -density townhome rent-
als. Because the land supply is dwindling fast in Plymouth, the majority of new construction
will likely be multifamily style with densities of at least 12 - 20 units per acre.
Affordable General Occupancy Multifamily Housing— There are five affordable rental pro-
jects in Plymouth; these developments have been very successful and are all 100% occu-
pied as of September 2017. The existing products target households between 50% and
60% of area median income. However, new affordable projects would have income -re-
strictions established by HUD and could target households with incomes between 50% to
80% of area median income; however, some could be workforce units with affordability up
to 120% AM I.
We find that demand exists for about 408 affordable units through 2030. Affordable hous-
ing attracts households that cannot afford market rate housing units but do not income -
qualify for deep subsidy housing. One -bedroom units target singles and couples, whereas
two and three-bedroom units target families. Some retired seniors would also be attracted
to an affordable concept. We recommend an affordable concept that would target resi-
dents at 50% to 60% AMI.
Demand is strong for both stand-alone tax credit projects and for mixed -income market
rate developments that have a small proportion of units at 50% to 60% AMI. Similar to
market rate general -occupancy rental housing, new affordable development will likely oc-
cur in multifamily development with higher densities.
Subsidized General Occupancy Multifamily Housing— There are four subsidized rental pro-
jects in Plymouth; these developments also are all 100% occupied as of September 2017.
The existing products target households at 30% Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). These prop-
erties should consist of the standard one- & two-bedroom unit types but should also in-
clude some three- & four-bedroom units for families with children. However, because of
lack of funding sources for subsidized housing it will be exceptionally challenging to de-
velop future deep subsidy projects.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 124
Page 136
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Senior Housing
As illustrated in Table CR -1, demand exists for all types of senior housing product types in Plym-
outh. Over the course of the next decade, there is demand for roughly 2,000 new senior units
through 2030. The unmet of additional senior housing is recommended in order to provide
housing opportunity to these aging residents in their stages of later life. The development of
additional senior housing serves a two -fold purpose in meeting the housing needs in Plymouth:
older adult and senior residents are able to relocate to new age -restricted housing in Plymouth,
and existing homes and rental units that were occupied by seniors become available to other
new households. Hence, development of additional senior housing does not mean the housing
needs of younger households are neglected; it simply means that a greater percentage of hous-
ing need is satisfied by housing unit turnover. The types of housing products needed to accom-
modate the aging population base are discussed individually in the following section.
Active Adult Rental — Demand was projected for about 262 market rate active adult rental
units in Plymouth through 2030. Currently, there is only one market rate rental active adult
products in Plymouth; Vicksburg Crossing which has 61 market rate units.
Development of this product could be in a separate stand-alone facility or in a mixed -in-
come project. A mixed -income building could include a portion of units that would be af-
fordable to seniors with incomes established the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
We recommend a new project of about 70 to 80 units later this decade. The project modest
rents with base monthly rents starting at $1,400 per month for one -bedroom units and
from $2,700 or more for two-bedroom units. The project should offer transportation, activ-
ities, and optional services for housekeeping, etc.
Active Adult Senior Cooperative/Owner— There are three senior age -restricted for -sale de-
velopments in Plymouth at this time — Cornerstone Cooperative which has 77 units, Gra-
mercy Park Cooperative Northwest also with 77 units, and Gramercy Park of Plymouth with
56 units. Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC projected demand for 308 active adult
ownership units through 2030. The cooperative model, in particular, appeals to a larger
base of potential residents in that it has characteristics of both rental and ownership hous-
ing. Cooperative developments allow prospective residents an ownership option and
homestead tax benefits without a substantial upfront investment as would be true in a
condominium development or life care option. Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC has
found the cooperative model to be very well -accepted in suburban communities in the
Twin Cities Metro Area and across the Midwest. As such, we recommend a 60 to 70 -unit
senior cooperative later this decade with sliding scale share costs starting at about
$50,000.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 125
Page 137
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Affordable/Subsidized Active Adult Rental —Plymouth's demand for affordable and subsi-
dized senior housing is approximately 234 affordable units and 227 subsidized units through
2030. Although this product would be well received by seniors in and near the Plymouth
area; it can be difficult to develop given financing challenges and development costs. Af-
fordable senior housing will likely be a low-income tax credit project through the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). MHFA recently started to consider affordable senior
housing projects under the tax credit program and is slowly starting to expand financing for
this product type. Affordable/subsidized senior housing products can also be incorporated
into a mixed -income building which may increase the projects financial feasibility.
Independent Living/Congregate — There are two designated congregate units (meals and
limited support service) in Plymouth, The Waters of Plymouth with 31 units and Summer
Wood of Plymouth with 68 units. Demand was calculated for upwards of 457 congregate
units through 2030. Based on this demand, multiple projects could be supported in the
community to meet this forthcoming demand. The approved Agora senior project would
meet a portion of this demand if the project moves forward. We recommend a mix of one -
bedroom, one -bedroom plus den, and two-bedroom units. Base monthly rents should
range from $2,000 for one -bedroom units to $4,000 for two-bedroom units. The monthly
fees should include all utilities (except telephone and basic cable/satellite television) and
the following services:
• I'm OK program;
• Daily noon meal;
• Regularly scheduled van transportation;
• Social, health, wellness and educational programs;
• 24-hour emergency call system; and
• Complimentary use of laundry facilities.
In addition, meals and other support and personal care services will be available to congre-
gate residents on a fee-for-service basis, such as laundry, housekeeping, etc. When their
care needs increase, residents also have the option of receiving assisted living packages in
their existing units.
New independent housing could be developed adjacent to an existing senior project or in a
stand-alone development.
Assisted Living and Memory Care Senior Housing — Based on our analysis, there is substan-
tial demand for assisted living and memory care in Plymouth through 2030. We project de-
mand to support an additional 234 assisted living units and 279 memory care units through
2030. Although we find strong demand today, the demand will grow with each subsequent
year as the baby boomers start to desire services next decade. Demand will be strongest
after 2020.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 126
Page 138
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
We recommend assisted living units include a mix of studio, and one -bedroom, and a few
two-bedroom units with base monthly rents ranging from $3,750 to $5,300. Memory care
unit mix should be mostly studios and one -bedroom units with a few two-bedroom units
for couples with base monthly rents ranging from $2,900 to $6,000. Memory care units
should be located in a secured, self-contained wing located on the first floor of a building
and should feature its own dining and common area amenities including a secured outdoor
patio and wandering area.
The base monthly fees should include all utilities (except telephone and basic cable/satel-
lite television) and the following services:
• Three meals per day;
• Weekly housekeeping and linen service;
• Two loads of laundry per week;
• Weekly health and wellness clinics;
• Meal assistance;
• Regularly scheduled transportation;
• Professional activity programs and scheduled outings;
• Nursing care management;
• I'm OK program;
• 24-hour on site staffing;
• Personal alert pendant with emergency response; and
• Nurse visit every other month.
Additional personal care packages should also be available for an extra monthly charge
above the required base care package. A care needs assessment is recommended to be
conducted to determine the appropriate level of services for prospective residents.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 127
Page 139
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Challenges and Opportunities
Table CR -2 identified and recommended housing types that would satisfy the housing needs in
Plymouth over the next thirteen years. The following were identified as the greatest challenges
and opportunities for developing the recommended housing types (in no particular order - al-
phabetically).
Age of Housing Stock. As illustrated in the Housing Characteristics Section of the report (Ta-
ble HC -3, the median year built for a home in Plymouth is 1965 and about 35% of the hous-
ing stock was built prior to 1980. Although the housing stock is newer compared to other
inner -ring suburban communities, a portion of the housing stock in Plymouth may be in
need of remodeling programs that reinvestment into the city's owner and renter housing
stock.
Affordability. As illustrated in Table HA -5, most householders (84%) can afford the average
market rate rent for a one -bedroom at an existing rental project ($950) in Plymouth. How-
ever, when adjusted for rental household incomes the affordability decreases as 65% of
renters could afford a one -bedroom rent of $1,300. Because of the higher rent structures
at the new market rental buildings being constructed in Plymouth, the minimum incomes
needed to afford a luxury rental are significantly higher than that of the existing rental
housing stock in Plymouth. The new rental housing development target "lifestyle renters"
or those with higher incomes who have enough money to buy a house but choose to rent
for the convenience and lifestyle. Many of these renters may be cost burdened, but they
choose so for the location, amenities, and proximity to transit.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 128
Page 140
All Housing Units Built by Decade
City of Plymouth
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000 Ln
�
A
o
<1940s
1940s
1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010+
Decade of Construction
Affordability. As illustrated in Table HA -5, most householders (84%) can afford the average
market rate rent for a one -bedroom at an existing rental project ($950) in Plymouth. How-
ever, when adjusted for rental household incomes the affordability decreases as 65% of
renters could afford a one -bedroom rent of $1,300. Because of the higher rent structures
at the new market rental buildings being constructed in Plymouth, the minimum incomes
needed to afford a luxury rental are significantly higher than that of the existing rental
housing stock in Plymouth. The new rental housing development target "lifestyle renters"
or those with higher incomes who have enough money to buy a house but choose to rent
for the convenience and lifestyle. Many of these renters may be cost burdened, but they
choose so for the location, amenities, and proximity to transit.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 128
Page 140
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
• Aging Population/City Services. As illustrated in Table D-2, there is significant growth in the
Plymouth senior population, especially among ages 75 to 84 (+32% growth through 2022).
In addition, Table D-6 shows the Plymouth homeownership rates among seniors 65+ is ap-
proximately 83%. High homeownership rates among seniors indicate there could be lack of
senior housing options, or simply that many seniors prefer to live in their home and age in
place. Because of the rising population of older adults, demand for alternative mainte-
nance -free housing products should be rising. In addition, demand for home health care
services and home remodeling programs to assist seniors with retrofitting their existing
homes should also increase.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 129
Page 141
Senior Home Ownership Rate: 2015
Plymouth, MN
100.0%
-
89.0
90.0%
81.4%
y
80.0%
70.0%
°
CL
s
N
60.0%
=
50.0%
0
40.0%
£
30.0%
0
=
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
65-74 75-84 85+
Age Range
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 129
Page 141
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The following chart illustrates the historic and projected growth rates of the senior (ages
65+) population in the seven -county Metro Area. At present, seniors account for about
13.5% of the Twin Cities population in 2017 which is projected to double over the next two
decades. By 2040, 27% of the population in the Twin Cities (993,000+) will be 65 and nearly
75% of all seniors in the State of Minnesota will be residing in the Metro Area.
Metro Area 65+ Population
J
30.0%
The vast majority of older adults desire to stay in their home as they age. Because many
seniors will remain in their homes, these households will desire various services such as re-
modeling/home modifications, snow removal, lawn care, transportation, home health care,
etc. Many of these older adults and boomers will also desire to "down size or right size"
from single-family homes into maintenance -free options with fewer stair and upkeep. At
the same time, there is a growing demand for seniors residing with relatives (primarily chil-
dren) increasing the demand for multi -generational households.
Because of the anticipated increase in multi -generational households, the demand for ac-
cessory dwelling units (ADU) will increase; more commonly termed "granny flats" or "in-law
apartments." Granny flats are designed for 1-2 persons and are a separate structure from
the single-family home and are receiving more attention today in part because of the tiny
house trend on home improvement shows. Granny flats provide affordability and inde-
pendence for seniors and allow many seniors to age in place.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 130
Page 142
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
CL
0
CL
600,000
Ln
400,000
200,000
1
0
1980 1990
Metro Area 65+ Population
J
30.0%
The vast majority of older adults desire to stay in their home as they age. Because many
seniors will remain in their homes, these households will desire various services such as re-
modeling/home modifications, snow removal, lawn care, transportation, home health care,
etc. Many of these older adults and boomers will also desire to "down size or right size"
from single-family homes into maintenance -free options with fewer stair and upkeep. At
the same time, there is a growing demand for seniors residing with relatives (primarily chil-
dren) increasing the demand for multi -generational households.
Because of the anticipated increase in multi -generational households, the demand for ac-
cessory dwelling units (ADU) will increase; more commonly termed "granny flats" or "in-law
apartments." Granny flats are designed for 1-2 persons and are a separate structure from
the single-family home and are receiving more attention today in part because of the tiny
house trend on home improvement shows. Granny flats provide affordability and inde-
pendence for seniors and allow many seniors to age in place.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 130
Page 142
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The demand for senior services will increase and today's boomers will have higher expecta-
tions. Senior programming was historically tied to a senior center; however, today's active
seniors want to walk, run, bike, play tennis or pickleball, and want proximity to cultural
amenities and transit. As people age, they generally drive less and rely more on transit and
walking. Many seniors will eventually decide to own only one car and will seek walkable
neighborhoods and convenient access to transit, commercial goods and services, health
care, and cultural and recreational activities. Finally, seniors desire to live in close proximity
to their adult children and grandchildren. Plymouth has a large population of adult children
and vibrant schools, which will aid future senior housing growth in Plymouth.
Although service needs change as people age; seniors can be a fiscal plus to cities as they
generate tax revenue but not students attending public school. Seniors are typically less de-
pendent on automobiles, and rely more on walking, biking and on public transit. At the
same time, seniors will desire other services such as library usage, community center/fit-
ness centers, and first responder calls. Generally, service -intensive senior housing buildings
generate a higher volume of emergency calls than other residential land uses. On average,
it is estimated a senior housing building will generate 1 call per unit per year. We recom-
mend Plymouth consider policies that will assist the housing and service needs of seniors in
the future.
• Housing Resources & Programs. Many communities and local Housing and Redevelopment
Authorities (HRAs) offer programs to promote and preserve the existing housing stock. In
addition, there are various regional and state organizations that assist local communities
enhance their housing stock. The City of Plymouth utilizes numerous housing programs, in-
cluding Architectural Design Service, Community Fix Up Loans, Emergency Repair Grant
Fund, First—Time Homebuyer, Foreclosure Prevention, Home Improvement Deferred Loan,
Rehabilitation Loans, and Reverse Mortgage Assistance, among other housing programs and
services. The following is a sampling of potential programs that could be explored to aid and
improve Plymouth's housing stock.
o Construction Management Services — Assist homeowners regarding local building codes,
reviewing contractor bids, etc. Typically provided as a service by the building depart-
ment. This type of service could also be rolled into various remodeling related pro-
grams.
o Corridor Housing Program - Program where city provides a funding source to acquire
sites for multifamily housing development on or near community, commercial, or transit
corridors. Funds can also be utilized to assemble larger redevelopment sites for new
mixed -income and ownership multifamily housing. At least 20% of the units need to be
affordable. Typically located near a TOD or BRTOD location.
o Density Bonuses — Since the cost of land is a significant barrier to housing affordability,
increasing densities can result in lower housing costs by reducing the land costs per unit.
The City of Plymouth can offer density bonuses as a way to encourage higher -density
residential development while also promoting an affordable housing component.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 131
Page 143
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
o Fast Track Permitting — Program designed to reduce delays during the development
process that ultimately add to the total costs of housing development. By expediting
the permitting process costs can be reduced to developers while providing certainty into
the development process. Typically, no -cost to the local government jurisdiction.
o Home Improvement Area (HIA) - HIAs allow a townhome or condo association low inter-
est loans to finance improvements to common areas. Unit owners repay the loan
through fees imposed on the property, usually through property taxes. Typically, a "last
resort" financing tool when associations are unable to obtain traditional financing due
to the loss of equity from the real estate market or deferred maintenance on older
properties.
o Inclusionary Housing — Inclusionary housing policies and programs rely on private sector
housing developers to create affordable housing as they develop market rate projects.
Inclusionary zoning encourages or mandates the inclusion of a set proportion of afforda-
ble housing units in each new market rate housing development above a certain size.
These programs are popular approaches for local and state governments, in high cost
urban areas to encourage the development of affordable housing.
o Infill Lots — The City or HRA purchase blighted or substandard housing units from willing
sellers. After the home has been removed, the vacant land is placed into the program
for future housing redevelopment. Future purchasers can be builders or the future
owner -occupant who has a contract with a builder. Typically, all construction must be
completed within an allocated time -frame (one year in most cases).
o Land Banking — Land Banking is a program of acquiring land with the purpose of devel-
oping at a later date. After a holding period, the land can be sold to a developer (often
at a price lower than market) with the purpose of developing affordable housing.
o Live Where You Work - Program designed to promote homeownership in the same
community where employees work. City provides a grant to eligible employees to pur-
chase a home near their workplace. Employers can also contribute or match the city's
contribution. Participants must obtain a first mortgage through participating lenders.
The grant can be allocated towards down payment assistance, closing costs, and gap fi-
nancing. Some restrictions apply (i.e. length of employment, income, home buyer edu-
cation, etc.)
o Realtor Forum - Typically administered by City with partnership by local school board,
Inform local Realtors about school district news, current development projects, and
other marketing factors related to real estate in the community. In addition, Realtors
usually receive CE credits.
o Remodeling Tours - City -driven home remodeling tour intended to promote the en-
hancement of the housing stock through home renovations/additions. Homeowners
open their homes to the public to showcase home improvements.
o Rent to Own - Income -eligible families rent for a specified length of time with the end -
goal of buying a home. The HRA saves a portion of the monthly rent that will be allo-
cated for a down payment on a future house.
o Shallow Rent Subsidy: The HRA funds a shallow rent subsidy program to provide pro-
gram participants living in market rate rentals a rent subsidy (typically about $100 to
$300 per month).
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 132
Page 144
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
o Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Program that offers communities a flexible financing tool
to assist housing projects and related infrastructure. TIF enables communities to dedi-
cate the incremental tax revenues from new housing development to help make the
housing more affordable or pay for related costs. TIF funds can be used to provide a di-
rect subsidy to a particular housing project or they can also be used to promote afforda-
ble housing by setting aside a portion of TIF proceeds into a dedicated fund from other
developments receiving TIF.
o Transfer of Development Rights — Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a program
that shifts the development potential of one site to another site or different location,
even a different community. TDR programs allow landowners to sever development
rights from properties in government -designated low-density areas, and sell them to
purchasers who want to increase the density of development in areas that local govern-
ments have selected as higher density areas.
o Waiver or Reduction of Development Fees —There are several fees developers must pay
including impact fees, utility and connection fees, park land dedication fees, etc. To
help facilitate affordable housing, some fees could be waived or reduced to pass the
cost savings onto the housing consumer.
• Job Growth/Employment/Inflow. Historically, low unemployment rates have driven both
existing home purchases and new -home purchases. Lack of job growth leads to slow or di-
minishing household growth, which in -turn relates to reduced housing demand. Like most
areas across the Twin Cities and Minnesota, the unemployment rate peaked in 2009 during
the Great Recession at 9.1%. However, over the past 8 years the unemployment rate has
decreased annually and is presently at only 3.1% in Plymouth through 2016. Although the
low unemployment rate is positive, if the unemployment rate continues to decline it could
be difficult for Plymouth businesses to find enough labor to fill job openings.
In addition, Plymouth is home to many large companies that are job generators in the Twin
Cities. Nearly 90% of the jobs in Plymouth are filled by non-residents of the community. As
a result, there is a tremendous opportunity to capture these workers as residents and em-
ployees in the City of Plymouth.
• Land Supply (Dwindling). The City of Plymouth continues to develop and with each passing
year has fewer areas that can accommodate single-family and multifamily residential devel-
opment. Most of the vacant land is located in the northwest sector of Plymouth and most
this land will be developed over the next decade. As a result, many of the housing concepts
identified on Table CR -1 may have to seek out infill or redevelopment sites. As the land sup-
ply dwindles upward pressure on land costs will likely ensue resulting in higher acquisition
costs for development that may drive up the consumer's price on housing.
Lender -mediated Properties. Lender -mediated properties in Plymouth have declined sub-
stantially since the housing downturn and Great Recession of last decade. Lender mediated
properties (i.e. foreclosures and short sales) accounted for 20% to 30% of transactions in
between 2009 and 2012 before declining annually since and comprising about 4.4% of
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 133
Page 145
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
transactions in 2016. Plymouth experienced far fewer foreclosures than many communities
across the Metro Area that experienced much higher rates of short sales and foreclosures.
The continued decline in lender -mediated properties will enhance the overall real estate
market and pricing will continue to gain from all the losses of last decade. As most home-
owners have regained lost equity, the Plymouth housing market should continue to experi-
ence stronger velocity as existing homeowners who were unable to move now may have
the equity to pursue a trade -up home.
Plymouth Lender -Mediated Sales: 2005-2016
300 35.0%
250 — 30.0%
25.0%
200
20.0%
150
15.0%
100
— 10.0%
50 5.0%
0 W. 0.0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
■ Lender Med. Resales Pct.
• Mortgage Rates. Mortgage rates play a crucial part in housing affordability. Lower mort-
gage rates result in a lower monthly mortgage payment and buyers receiving more home
for their dollar. Rising interest rates often require homebuyers to raise their down payment
in order to maintain the same housing costs. Mortgage rates have remained at historic lows
over the past several years coming out of the Great Recession. The Federal Reserve has
raised the short-term interest rate only twice since the recession; however, they have
hinted at rates increasing in 2017. However, at this time it is unknown if the central bank
will raise rates to head off inflation. A significant increase in rates (+1% or more; over 5% in
the short term) would greatly affect the housing market and would slow projected for -sale
housing demand.
The following chart illustrates historical mortgage rate averages as compiled by Freddie
Mac. The Freddie Mac Market Survey (PMMS) has been tracking mortgage rates since 1971
and is the most relied upon benchmark for evaluating mortgage interest market conditions.
The Freddie Mac survey is based on 30 -year mortgages with a loan -to -value of 80%.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 134
Page 146
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
18.00%
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Historic 30 -year Mortgage Rates 1972 to 2017 YTD
r1r1r1°r° W W W W 0000 M M M M M 0 0 0 0-1-1-1 `-1
m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ri ri rl ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri
-1 N N N N N N N N N
• Millennials. The Millennials (generally defined as persons born in the 1980 and 1990s) are
now bigger than the Baby Boom generation and have begun impacting real estate develop-
ment. The 80 million Millennials have begun to influence real estate as they formed new
households. However, many Millennials' are delaying home ownership due to high student
loan debt and social changes (i.e. delayed marriage, delayed childbearing, delayed careers,
etc.). The median first-time home buyer is now age 32 (an older Millennial) which is up
from age 30 about a decade ago. Increasing monthly rents for rental housing in the Twin
Cities has also affected the ability of Millennial's to save for a down payment and qualify for
a mortgage.
Although Millennial's have favored more urban locations and are typically renters today,
survey's show they are not that different in their preferences from other generations.
Many millennials' have indicated they still desire to live in the suburbs, however they desire
communities with amenities such as parks, walking trails, shopping, proximity to jobs, and
entertainment. Once Millennial's start having kids, many will begin households that will
shift from renters to buyers.
Because Plymouth has strong employment and relatively affordable older housing stock
compared to other inner -ring suburban areas, we believe there is an opportunity to capture
the Millennials in Plymouth from households currently residing in other inner -ring areas
seeking more housing value for their dollar.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 135
Page 147
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing/Preservation. As illustrated in Table R-8 in the
Rental Market Analysis section, about 46% of the market rate rental housing stock in Plym-
outh is affordable at 50% to 60% of area median incomes. According to the Harvard's Joint
Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) unsubsidized rentals account for more than 75% of the
affordable housing stock in the United States. It is estimated that over one-third of the nat-
urally occurring affordable housing stock is composed of smaller multifamily buildings from
5 to 49 units. Within the Twin Cities Metro Area, it is estimated that about 60% of the
rental stock is unsubsidized rentals affordable to households at or below 50% AMI.
Because the unsubsidized housing market is unregulated and is fluid, there is the chance
some affordable market rate units could be lost. New construction costs for apartments in
Plymouth will likely exceed $200,000 per unit; whereas an older Class B or Class C rental
building may be acquired for under $100,000 per unit. Therefore, it is typically more eco-
nomical to rehabilitate an existing property than build a new one. Because of the high cost
of new construction, we recommend the City monitor and maintain the unsubsidized rental
market as an effort to maintain the affordable housing product type.
• Shadow Rental Inventory. Shadow rentals are generally considered nontraditional rentals
that were previously owner -occupied single-family homes, townhomes, or condominiums.
The shadow market has originally particularly fueled by homeowners who lost their home
to foreclosure after the recession who opt to not rent in a traditional rental complex. Typi-
cally, short sales and foreclosures between 2009 and 2012 resulted in substantial price re-
ductions which allowed buyers or investors to charge rents below market while still main-
taining a profit. Although the shadow market rentals tend to be more affordable, renters
run the risk of evictions if the owner does not pay the mortgage.
Because the City of Plymouth enforces rental licenses, the City has been able to monitor the
number of non-traditional rental units in the community. According to Table HC -4, there
are about 1,915 one- and two -unit homes in Plymouth serving as rental properties (22% of
rental housing stock). As the housing market continues to rebound, many of these proper-
ties will likely transition back to the for -sale market. Plymouth should continue to monitor
the shadow rental market to mitigate any problem properties and improve the overall
rental housing stock.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 136
Page 148
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 137
Page 149
APPENDIX
Definitions
Absorption Period — The period of time necessary for newly constructed or renovated proper-
ties to achieve the stabilized level of occupancy. The absorption period begins when the first
certificate of occupancy is issued and ends when the last unit to reach the stabilized level of oc-
cupancy has signed a lease.
Absorption Rate — The average number of units rented each month during the absorption pe-
riod.
Active adult (or independent living without services available) — Active Adult properties are
similar to a general -occupancy apartment building, in that they offer virtually no services but
have age -restrictions (typically 55 or 62 or older). Organized activities and occasionally a trans-
portation program are usually all that are available at these properties. Because of the lack of
services, active adult properties typically do not command the rent premiums of more service -
enriched senior housing.
Adjusted Gross Income "AGI" — Income from taxable sources (including wages, interest, capital
gains, income from retirement accounts, etc.) adjusted to account for specific deductions (i.e.
contributions to retirement accounts, unreimbursed business and medical expenses, alimony,
etc.).
Affordable housing — Housing that is income -restricted to households earning at or below 80%
AMI, though individual properties can have income -restrictions set at 40%, 50%, 60% or 80%
AMI. Rent is not based on income but instead is a contract amount that is affordable to house-
holds within the specific income restriction segment. It is essentially housing affordable to low
or very low-income tenants.
Amenity — Tangible or intangible benefits offered to a tenant in the form of common area
amenities or in -unit amenities. Typical in -unit amenities include dishwashers, washer/dryers,
walk-in showers and closets and upgraded kitchen finishes. Typical common area amenities in-
clude detached or attached garage parking, community room, fitness center and an outdoor pa-
tio or grill/picnic area.
Area Median Income "AMI" — AMI is the midpoint in the income distribution within a specific
geographic area. By definition, 50% of households earn less than the median income and 50%
earn more. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates AMI an-
nually and adjustments are made for family size.
Assisted Living — Assisted Living properties come in a variety of forms, but the target market for
most is generally the same: very frail seniors, typically age 80 or older (but can be much
younger, depending on their particular health situation), who are in need of extensive support
services and personal care assistance. Absent an assisted living option, these seniors would
otherwise need to move to a nursing facility. At a minimum, assisted living properties include
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 138
Page 150
APPENDIX
two meals per day and weekly housekeeping in the monthly fee, with the availability of a third
meal and personal care (either included in the monthly fee or for an additional cost). Assisted
living properties also have either staff on duty 24 hours per day or at least 24-hour emergency
response.
Building Permit — Building permits track housing starts and the number of housing units author-
ized to be built by the local governing authority. Most jurisdictions require building permits for
new construction, major renovations, as well as other building improvements. Building permits
ensure that all the work meets applicable building and safety rules and is typically required to
be completed by a licensed professional. Once the building is complete and meets the inspec-
tor's satisfaction, the jurisdiction will issue a "CO" or "Certificate of Occupancy." Building per-
mits are a key barometer for the health of the housing market and are often a leading indicator
in the rest of the economy as it has a major impact on consumer spending.
Capture Rate —The percentage of age, size, and income -qualified renter households in a given
area or "Market Area" that the property must capture to fill the units. The capture rate is cal-
culated by dividing the total number of units at the property by the total number of age, size
and income -qualified renter households in the designated area.
Comparable Property — A property that is representative of the rental housing choices of the
designated area or "Market Area" that is similar in construction, size, amenities, location and/or
age.
Concession — Discount or incentives given to a prospective tenant to induce signature of a
lease. Concessions typically are in the form of reduced rent or free rent for a specific lease
term, or free amenities, which are normally charged separately, such as parking.
Congregate (or independent living with services available) — Congregate properties offer sup-
port services such as meals and/or housekeeping, either on an optional basis or a limited
amount included in the rents. These properties typically dedicate a larger share of the overall
building area to common areas, in part, because the units are smaller than in adult housing and
in part to encourage socialization among residents. Congregate properties attract a slightly
older target market than adult housing, typically seniors age 75 or older. Rents are also above
those of the active adult buildings, even excluding the services.
Contract Rent — The actual monthly rent payable by the tenant, including any rent subsidy paid
on behalf of the tenant, to the owner, inclusive of all terms of the lease.
Demand —The total number of households that would potentially move into a proposed new or
renovated housing project. These households must be of appropriate age, income, tenure and
size for a specific proposed development. Components vary and can include, but are not lim-
ited to: turnover, people living in substandard conditions, rent over -burdened households, in-
come -qualified households and age of householder. Demand is project specific.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 139
Page 151
APPENDIX
Density— Number of units in a given area. Density is typically measured in dwelling units (DU)
per acre — the larger the number of units permitted per acre the higher the density; the fewer
units permitted results in lower density. Density is often presented in a gross and net format:
• Gross Density — The number of dwelling units per acre based on the gross site acreage.
Gross Density = Total residential units/total development area
• Net Density - The number of dwelling units per acre located on the site, but excludes
public right-of-way (ROW) such as streets, alleys, easements, open spaces, etc.
Net Density = Total residential units/total residential land area (excluding ROWS)
Detached housing — a freestanding dwelling unit, most often single-family homes, situated on
its own lot.
Effective Rents — Contract rent less applicable concessions.
Elderly or Senior Housing — Housing where all the units in the property are restricted for occu-
pancy by persons age 62 years or better, or at least 80% of the units in each building are re-
stricted for occupancy by households where at least one household member is 55 years of age
or better and the housing is designed with amenities, facilities and services to meet the needs
of senior citizens.
Extremely low-income — person or household with incomes below 30% of Area Median In-
come, adjusted for respective household size.
Fair Market Rent — Estimates established by HUD of the Gross Rents needed to obtain modest
rental units in acceptable conditions in a specific geographic area. The amount of rental income
a given property would command if it were open for leasing at any given moment and/or the
amount derived based on market conditions that is needed to pay gross monthly rent at mod-
est rental housing in a given area. This figure is used as a basis for determining the payment
standard amount used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for families on at financially
assisted housing.
Fair Market Rent — Hennepin County 2017
Fair Market Rent
EFF 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR
Fair Market Rent $699 $862 $1,086 $1,538 $1,799
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Ratio of the floor area of a building to area of the lot on which the build-
ing is located.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 140
Page 152
APPENDIX
Foreclosure — A legal process in which a lender or financial institute attempts to recover the
balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by using
the sale of the house as collateral for the loan.
Gross Rent — The monthly housing cost to a tenant which equals the Contract Rent provided for
in the lease, plus the estimated cost of all utilities paid by tenants. Maximum Gross Rents for
Hennepin County in 2016 are as follows:
Gross Rent
Hennepin County — 2017
Household — All persons who occupy a housing unit, including occupants of a single-family, one
person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unre-
lated persons who share living arrangements.
Household Trends — Changes in the number of households for any particular areas over a
measurable period of time, which is a function of new household's formations, changes in aver-
age household size, and met migration.
Housing Choice Voucher Program — The federal government's major program for assisting very
low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing
in the private market. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suit-
able housing unit of the family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program.
Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies. They receive fed-
eral funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer
the voucher program. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the public housing
agency on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the
actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.
Housing unit — House, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms used as a separate living
quarters by a single household.
HUD Project -Based Section 8 — A federal government program that provides rental housing for
very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in privately owned and managed rental
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 141
Page 153
Maximum Gross Rent
1BR
2BR
77_1EFF
36R
46R
30% of median
$474
$543
$610
$678
$732
50% of median
$791
$905
$1,017
$1,130
$1,221
60% of median
$949
$1,086
$1,221
$1,356
$1,465
80% of median
$1,266
$1,448
$1,628
$1,808
$1,954
100% of median
$1,582
$1,810
$2,035
$2,260
$2,442
120% of median
$1,899
$2,172
$2,442
$2,712
$2,931
Household — All persons who occupy a housing unit, including occupants of a single-family, one
person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unre-
lated persons who share living arrangements.
Household Trends — Changes in the number of households for any particular areas over a
measurable period of time, which is a function of new household's formations, changes in aver-
age household size, and met migration.
Housing Choice Voucher Program — The federal government's major program for assisting very
low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing
in the private market. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suit-
able housing unit of the family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program.
Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies. They receive fed-
eral funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer
the voucher program. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the public housing
agency on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the
actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.
Housing unit — House, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms used as a separate living
quarters by a single household.
HUD Project -Based Section 8 — A federal government program that provides rental housing for
very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in privately owned and managed rental
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 141
Page 153
APPENDIX
units. The owner reserves some or all of the units in a building in return for a Federal govern-
ment guarantee to make up the difference between the tenant's contribution and the rent. A
tenant who leaves a subsidized project will lose access to the project -based subsidy.
HUD Section 202 Program - Federal program that provides direct capital assistance and operat-
ing or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy by elder household who
have incomes not exceeding 50% of Area Median Income.
HUD Section 811 Program - Federal program that provides direct capital assistance and operat-
ing or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy of persons with disabilities
who have incomes not exceeding 50% Area Median Income.
HUD Section 236 Program - Federal program that provides interest reduction payments for
loans which finance housing targeted to households with income not exceeding 80% Area Me-
dian Income who pay rent equal to the greater or market rate or 30% of their adjusted income.
Income limits - Maximum household's income by a designed geographic area, adjusted for
household size and expressed as a percentage of the Area Median Income, for the purpose of
establishing an upper limit for eligibility for a specific housing program.
Income Limits by Household Size
1 pph 2 pph 3 pph 4 pph 5 pph 6 pph 7 pph 8 pph
30% of median $18,990 $21,720 $24,420 $27,120 $29,310 $31,470 $33,630 $35,820
50% of median $31,650 $36,200 $40,700 $45,200 $48,850 $52,450 $56,050 $59,700
60% of median $37,980 $43,440 $48,840 $54,240 $58,620 $62,940 $67,260 $71,640
80% of median $50,640 $57,920 $65,120 $72,320 $78,160 $83,920 $89,680 $95,520
100% of median $63,300 $72,400 $81,400 $90,400 $97,700 $104,900 $112,100 $119,400
120% of median $75,960 $86,880 $97,680 $108,480 $117,240 $125,880 $134,520 $143,280
Inflow/Outflow - The Inflow/Outflow Analysis generates results showing the count and charac-
teristics of worker flows in to, out of, and within the defined geographic area.
Low -Income - Person or household with gross household incomes below 80% of Area Median
Income, adjusted for household size.
Low -Income Housing Tax Credit - A program aimed to generate equity for investment in af-
fordable rental housing authorized pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The
program requires that a certain percentage of units built be restricted for occupancy to house-
holds earning 60% or less of Area Median Income, and rents on these units be restricted ac-
cordingly.
Market analysis - The study of real estate market conditions for a specific type of property, ge-
ographic area or proposed (re)development.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 142
Page 154
APPENDIX
Market rent —The rent that an apartment, without rent or income restrictions or rent subsi-
dies, would command in a given area or "Market Area" considering its location, features and
amenities.
Market study —A comprehensive study of a specific proposal including a review of the housing
market in a defined market or geography. Project specific market studies are often used by de-
velopers, property managers or government entities to determine the appropriateness of a pro-
posed development, whereas market specific market studies are used to determine what house
needs, if any, existing within a specific geography.
Market rate rental housing — Housing that does not have any income -restrictions. Some prop-
erties will have income guidelines, which are minimum annual incomes required in order to re-
side at the property.
Memory Care — Memory Care properties, designed specifically for persons suffering from Alz-
heimer's disease or other dementias, is one of the newest trends in senior housing. Properties
consist mostly of suite -style or studio units or occasionally one -bedroom apartment -style units,
and large amounts of communal areas for activities and programming. In addition, staff typi-
cally undergoes specialized training in the care of this population. Because of the greater
amount of individualized personal care required by residents, staffing ratios are much higher
than traditional assisted living and thus, the costs of care are also higher. Unlike conventional
assisted living, however, which deals almost exclusively with widows or widowers, a higher pro-
portion of persons afflicted with Alzheimer's disease are in two -person households. That
means the decision to move a spouse into a memory care facility involves the caregiver's con-
cern of incurring the costs of health care at a special facility while continuing to maintain their
home.
Migration — The movement of households and/or people into or out of an area.
Mixed -income property—An apartment property contained either both income -restricted and
unrestricted units or units restricted at two or more income limits.
Mobility — The ease at which people move from one location to another.
Moderate Income — Person or household with gross household income between 80% and 120%
of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size.
Multifamily — Properties and structures that contain more than two housing units.
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing— Although affordable housing is typically associated
with an income -restricted property, there are other housing units in communities that indi-
rectly provide affordable housing. Housing units that were not developed or designated with
income guidelines (i.e. assisted) yet are more affordable than other units in a community are
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 143
Page 155
APPENDIX
considered "naturally -occurring' or "unsubsidized affordable" units. This rental supply is avail-
able through the private market, versus assisted housing programs through various governmen-
tal agencies. Property values on these units are lower based on a combination of factors, such
as: age of structure/housing stock, location, condition, size, functionally obsolete, school dis-
trict, etc.
Net Income — Income earned after payroll withholdings such as state and federal income taxes,
social security, as well as retirement savings and health insurance.
Net Worth —The difference between assets and liabilities, or the total value of assets after the
debt is subtracted.
Pent-up demand — A market in which there is a scarcity of supply and as such, vacancy rates are
very low or non-existent.
Population — All people living in a geographic area.
Population Density —The population of an area divided by the number of square miles of land
area.
Population Trends — Changes in population levels for a particular geographic area over a spe-
cific period of time — a function of the level of births, deaths, and in/out migration.
Project -Based rent assistance — Rental assistance from any source that is allocated to the prop-
erty or a specific number of units in the property and is available to each income eligible tenant
of the property or an assisted unit.
Redevelopment —The redesign, rehabilitation or expansion of existing properties.
Rent burden — gross rent divided by adjusted monthly household income.
Restricted rent — The rent charged under the restriction of a specific housing program or sub-
sidy.
Saturation — The point at which there is no longer demand to support additional market rate,
affordable/subsidized, rental, for -sale, or senior housing units. Saturation usually refers to a
particular segment of a specific market.
Senior Housing — The term "senior housing" refers to any housing development that is re-
stricted to people age 55 or older. Today, senior housing includes an entire spectrum of hous-
ing alternatives. Maxfield Research Inc. classifies senior housing into four categories based on
the level of support services. The four categories are: Active Adult, Congregate, Assisted Living
and Memory Care.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 144
Page 156
APPENDIX
Short Sale — A sale of real estate in which the net proceeds from selling the property do not
cover the sellers' mortgage obligations. The difference is forgiven by the lender, or other ar-
rangements are made with the lender to settle the remainder of the debt.
Single-family home — A dwelling unit, either attached or detached, designed for use by one
household and with direct street access. It does not share heating facilities or other essential
electrical, mechanical or building facilities with another dwelling.
Stabilized level of occupancy—The underwritten or actual number of occupied units that a
property is expected to maintain after the initial lease -up period.
Subsidized housing — Housing that is income -restricted to households earning at or below 30%
AMI. Rent is generally based on income, with the household contributing 30% of their adjusted
gross income toward rent. Also referred to as extremely low income housing.
Subsidy_— Monthly income received by a tenant or by an owner on behalf of a tenant to pay the
difference between the apartment's contract/market rate rent and the amount paid by the ten-
ant toward rent.
Substandard conditions — Housing conditions that are conventionally considered unacceptable
and can be defined in terms of lacking plumbing facilities, one or more major mechanical or
electrical system malfunctions, or overcrowded conditions.
TarLret population — The market segment or segments of the given population a development
would appeal or cater to.
Tenant — One who rents real property from another individual or rental company.
Tenant -paid utilities — The cost of utilities, excluding cable, telephone, or internet necessary for
the habitation of a dwelling unit, which are paid by said tenant.
Tenure — The distinction between owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing units.
Turnover—A measure of movement of residents into and out of a geographic location.
Turnover period — An estimate of the number of housing units in a geographic location as a per-
centage of the total house units that will likely change occupants in any one year.
Unrestricted units — Units that are not subject to any income or rent restrictions.
Vacancy period — The amount of time an apartment remains vacant and is available on the
market for rent.
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 145
Page 157
APPENDIX
Workforce housing — Housing that is income -restricted to households earning between 80%
and 120% AMI. Also referred to as moderate -income housing.
Zoning — Classification and regulation of land use by local governments according to use catego-
ries (zones); often also includes density designations and limitations
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 146
Page 158
rp
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
SPECIAL
COUNCIL/PLANNING
COMMISSION/HRA
To:
Prepared by:
MEETING Reviewed by:
April 24, 2018 Item:
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Agenda 2B
Number:
Dave Callister, City Manager
James Barnes, HRA Manager
Steve Juetten, Community Development Director
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority Senior Building
Long Range Forecasts and Reserve Accounts
Staff will present an overview of the HRA's long range forecasts and replacement reserve accounts.
2. BACKGROUND:
For the past 10 years, staff has monitored the long term cash flow of the senior buildings (Plymouth
Towne Square and Vicksburg Crossing) with the use of an Excel spreadsheet cash flow model and a
rough maintenance schedule for each building. The cash flow models provide a high level product that
allows staff to track revenues and expenses to help during the budget process and to identify any
potential future cash flow issues. Over the years, the maintenance/replacement information provided
some insight, but it became clear that a more robust schedule was necessary which allows data input
and outcome to be more accurately predicted (understanding that maintenance schedules cannot be
100% predicted). In 2017, staff (CD and Finance) created a new maintenance schedule that allows staff
to track all major components of each building and allows staff to enter when work was completed
(both partial and full replacements).
In early 2018, the two spreadsheets (cash flow and maintenance) were linked to allow the update of
one to be reflected in the other without having to update both spreadsheets separately.
Page 1
CASH RESERVES
Total Expense
451,076
490,069
Green = n0 escalator
530,437
52205
540,962
$56,917
572,975
589,507
606,529
624,055
642,101
680,680
679,811
699,508
719,789
740,672
762,174
784,314
807,110
830,584
854,754
8794642
Income
205,119
128,811
-10%
9%
6%
2%
-2%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Plymouth Towne Square
Escalator
1%
(84,000)
Actuals
426,073
411,521
379,778
374,526
416,339
415,697
406,349
396,965
387,173
376,959
356,308
355,208
343,642
331,596
319,053
305,998
292,414
278,284
263,590
248,313
232,434
Expense
198,795
180,993
Investment Income
-
(14,676)
31,958
164505
10,004
10,812
10,000
960
699
89
(281)
(1,956)
(2,147
(1,678)
1,368
4,208
4,998
7,762
10,217
11,529
14,335
Escalator
3%
17,210
Budget
Interest Expense
(1,085)
94,512
87,068
794548
71,805
63,649
54,650
46,025
37,100
27,837
18,200
8,166
21,781
23,333
24,728
Actual End of Year Operational Cash Balance 74,882 43,554 215,373
62,488 2,969 7,092
T'
59,757
1071426
161,190
226,397
193,248
Projected
707,031
Depreciation
1,180,811
202,127
197,407
189,115
1924602
183,863
225,000
170,882
175,109
175,417
190,598
189,923
192,158
187,145
187,117
190,670
190,670
190,670
190,670
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2818
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2831
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Actual
Actual
Actuat
Actual
Actual
Budget
Projection
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
projection
Projection
Projection
REVENUE
154,821
145,848
132,591
120,327
109,507
97,831
84,849
74,226
63.856
70,353
165,882
149047
-
Apartment Rental Revenue
622,659
637,185
636,402
631,785
633,635
650,124
656,625
663,191
669,823
676,522
683,287
690,120
697,021
703,991
711,031
718,141
725,323
732,576
739,902
747,301
754,774
762,322
M.945
777,644
Apartment Rental Revenue -County
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
(0)l
(0
0
0
0
0
Rent Concession
-
-
-
-
fGarage Rental
35,721
34,159
32,959
34,129
36,842
35,600
36,600
38,600
36,600
36,600
36.600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36,600
36.600
36.600
MAO
36,600
Guest Suite Revenue
11870
3,135
1,556
3,055
715
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,954
1,954
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,950
1,95U
1,950
1,950
f. -95 -0 -
, 50Laundry
LaundryRevenue
10,344
9,987
9,445
10,222
10,638
10,620
10,726
15.951
10.942
11,051
11,162
11,273
11,386
11,500
11,615
11,731
11,848
11,967
1 Z987
12,207
12,329
12,453
12,577
12-76-3
Late Fee Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Applicatlon Fee Revenue
325
415
560
245
685
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
665
865
665
655
Transfer Fee Revenue
-
500
500
71500
1,000
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
Smoker's Fee Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MlsceYeneous Revenue
216
1,205
1,797
615
4,929
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
TIF
-
-
80,000
73,412
80,000
80,000
80,000
HRA Subsidy
206,004
215,004
138,000
150,000
1704000
175,000
175,000
255,000
255,000
255.000
255.000255,000
255,000
255,000
255,000
255,000
255.000
255,000
255,000
255,000
255,000
255,000
255,000
255,000
Total Revenue 877,149
901,590
901,219
904,963
938,423
956,659
963,266
969,940
976,680
983,488
990,364
997,308
1,004,322
1,011,498
1,018,561
1,025,787
1,033,086
1,040,458
1,047,903
1,055,423
1,063,018
1,078,689
1,078,437
1,086,262
-2%
3%
0%
0%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1°%
1%
1°%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
EXPENSES
Property Administration
155,472
183,625
192,057
193,349
198,336
213,268
219,666
228,256
233,044
240,035
247,236
254,653
262,293
270,162
278,266
286,614
295,213
304,069
313,191
322,587
332,265
342,233
352,500
363,074
Resident Services
5,557
4,212
4,115
4,287
6,453
6,025
6,206
6,392
6,584
6,781
61985
7,194
7,410
7,632
7,861
8,097
8,340
8,590
8,848
9,113
9,387
9,668
9,958
10,257
Marketing & Leasing
84
-
-
-
-
120
124
127
131
135
139
143
148
152
157
161
166
171
176
182
187
193
198
204
Housekeeping
18,830
19,037
18,553
19,378
19,013
20,340
_213,950
21,579
22,226
22,893
23,W
24,287
25,016
25,760
26,539
27,335
28,155
29,000
29,870
30,766
31.689
32,640
33,619
34,627
8uiWings & Grounds
210,006
220,413
243,655
250,495
235,980
239,822
247,017
254,427
262,060
269,922
278,019
286,360
294,951
303,799
312,913
322,301
331,970
341,929
352,187
362,752
373,635
354,844
396,389
408,281
Property & Liability Insurance
2%742
30,923
31,041
31,339
30,621
29,562
30,449
31,362
32,303
33,272
34,270
35,299
36,358
37,448
38,572
39,729
44,921
42,148
43,413
44,715
46,057
47,438
48,861
50,327
Payment in Lieu of Taxes
31,385
31,859
31,820
31,589
31,682
31_K5_
_ 32,506
32,831
. 33,160.
33,491
33,826
34,164
34,506
34,851
35,200
35,552
35,907
36,266 _
_ 36,629_
36,995
37,365
37,739
38,119
38,497
CASH RESERVES
Total Expense
451,076
490,069
521,441
530,437
52205
540,962
$56,917
572,975
589,507
606,529
624,055
642,101
680,680
679,811
699,508
719,789
740,672
762,174
784,314
807,110
830,584
854,754
8794642
905,269
205,119
128,811
-10%
9%
6%
2%
-2%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
(84,000)
Net Operating Income (Lass)
426,073
411,521
379,778
374,526
416,339
415,697
406,349
396,965
387,173
376,959
356,308
355,208
343,642
331,596
319,053
305,998
292,414
278,284
263,590
248,313
232,434
2154935
198,795
180,993
Investment Income
-
(14,676)
31,958
164505
10,004
10,812
10,000
960
699
89
(281)
(1,956)
(2,147
(1,678)
1,368
4,208
4,998
7,762
10,217
11,529
14,335
14,959
15,253
17,210
18,176
Interest Expense
(1,085)
94,512
87,068
794548
71,805
63,649
54,650
46,025
37,100
27,837
18,200
8,166
21,781
23,333
24,728
Actual End of Year Operational Cash Balance 74,882 43,554 215,373
62,488 2,969 7,092
T'
59,757
1071426
161,190
226,397
193,248
454,842
707,031
Depreciation
1,180,811
202,127
197,407
189,115
1924602
183,863
225,000
170,882
175,109
175,417
190,598
189,923
192,158
187,145
187,117
190,670
190,670
190,670
190,670
190,670
188,422
183,537
160,835
50,123
_
50,123
Amortization
(64319)
(6,318)
(6,319)
(6,319)
(6,319)
(6,320)
6,320
6,320
6,320
6,320
4,730
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfers - To Operations
Net Incorne(Loss)
121,077
185,320
133,939
126,442
185,958
152.367
196,722
191,775
190,149
174.200
170.994
160,903
154,821
145,848
132,591
120,327
109,507
97,831
84,849
74,226
63.856
70,353
165,882
149047
CASH RESERVES
_
Operational Cash (Last year+ Net Operating Income (Lo8s))
418,666
399,257
368,913
_
327,41$
269,533
205,119
128,811
536,890
786,437
1,026,084
1,255,223
1,473,225
1,679,435
1,873,177
2,053,746
2,220,415
2,372,429
2,509,005
2,629,331
Transfer to Replacement Reserve
(84,000)
(84,000)
(844(00}
(84,000)
(64,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
(84,000)
Transfer to Debt Service
(341,788)
(343,238)
(344,38B)
(350,238)
(345,638)
(345,880)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer from Debt Service
150,724
Interest
30
(72)
(283)
(604)
(1,085)
(1,628)
(2,287)
1,952
4,594
7,141
9,587
11,926
14,152
16,257
18,235
20,079
21,781
23,333
24,728
Actual End of Year Operational Cash Balance 74,882 43,554 215,373
62,488 2,969 7,092
28,052
59,757
1071426
161,190
226,397
193,248
454,842
707,031
949,225
1,180,811
1,401,151
1,509,587
1,505,433
1,987,981
2,158,494
2,310,210
2,448,338
2,570,060
Debt Service
Transfers - from Operations (Debt Service)
341,788
343,238
344,388
350,238
345,638
345,888
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfers - To Operations
(150,724)
Interest Income
1,419
1,433
11448
1,462
11477
1,492
1,507
-
Principsll Interest Payments
341,788
343,238
344,388
350,238
345,638
345,888
End of Year Reserve Balance 108,647 111,744 90,171
70,855 140,485 141,904
143,338
144,785
146,248
147,725
149,217
0
e}
(od
f0d0
0
0
(0)l
(0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL Operational Cash + Debt Service Cash RESERVES 183,529 155,298 125,202 133,373 143,454 134,813 115,286 85,028 38,622 (13,465) (77,180) 193,248 454,841 707,031 949,225 1,180,810 1,401,151 1,609,587 1,805,433 1,987,987 2,156,494 2,310,209 2,448,338 2,570,059
Replacement Reserves
Transfer from Operational Cash Account 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 8000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000
Interest Income 2,184 (402) (466) (948) (673) (1,820) (1,367) (3,628) (3,226) (2,933) (4,589) (4,164) (3,935) (4,326) (3,900) (5,120) (6,528) {6,123} (6,552)
Replacement LlsefMlsc. Invoices 342,248 89,894 737,376 55,764 19fi,924 37,324 306,534 40,516 51,824 245,014 37,324 57,124 178,980 37,3x4 200,924 218,264 37 324 120,416 120,720
End afYear Reserve Balance 858,682 987,584 983,700 914,709 218,288 39,795 46,091 93,872 66,585 780,782 135,328 359,227 319,371 290,421 454,368 472,281 389,569 428,484 386,138 508,980 648,344 608,196 548,735 892,007
TOTAL CASH RESERVES 1,042,211 1,122,882 1,108,902 1,048,081 359,722 95,017 69,195 8,845 27,763 193,647 212,506 165,979 135,471 416,610 494,857 768,530 1,011,582 1,181,103 1,419,297 1,481,421 7,510,750 1,704,014 1,799,603 1,878,053
gt
' - Crossover refundings are reflected in the Debt Servlee interest
balances
Vicksburg Crossings
REVENUE
Apartment Rental Revenue
Apartment Rental Revenue -County
Rent Concession
Garage Rental
Guest Suite Revenue
Late Fee Revenue
Application Fee Revenue
Transfer Fee Revenue
Smoker's Fee Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue
HRA Subsidy
EXPENSES
Property Administration
Resident Services
Marketing & Leasing
Housekeeping
Buildings & Grounds
Property & Liability Insurance
Payment in Lieu of TaXes
Investment Income
Interest Expense
Depreciation
Amortixatlon
CASH RESERVES
Green = no escatalor
Operational Cash (Last year+ Profit)
1,367,670
1,360,859
Income
14336,171
1,318,263
1,294,638
1,265,070
1,229,922
1,190,166
1,146,199
1,092,870
1,035,613
989,926
895,663
813,381
718,715
616,543
502,558
377,491
Transfer to Replacement Reserve
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,006)
(72,000)
(72,000)
Escalator
1 %
(72,000)
Acluals
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
Transfer to Debt Service Reserve
(661,550)
(662,950)
(659,200)
(660,300)
(661,200)
(661,900)
(661,800)
(660,275)
(857,900)
(660,213)
Expense
(656,913)
(65$,856)
(655,675)
(658,275)
(655,350)
(656,119)
(655.481)
-
Transfer from Debt Service
Escalator
3%
Budget
52045&1
Interest
6,501
6,470
6,385
6,300
6,163
5,971
5,724
5,424
5,081
4,7,00
4,229
3,722
3,135
2,468
1,722
857
79
1,128
2,283
End of Year 0 PERATI 0 NA L Cash Be lance
500,140 501,247 587,146 652,004 643,618
Projected
632,179
623,757
610,171
591,226
566,709
536,994
503,070
465,347
418,687
368,542
310,423
244,204
170,455
84,826
7,779
111.684
22 6,,050
823,789
Debt Service
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
661,200
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
Projection
1,099,672
1,116,706
1,145,575
1,148,466
1,165,706 1
1,161,944 1
1,173,563 1
1,185,299 1
1,197,152 1
1,209,124 1
1,221,215 1
1,233,427 1
1,245,761 1
1,258,219 J1,270,801
1
1,283,509 1
1,296,344 1
1,309,308
1,322,401
1,335,625
1,348,981
1,362,471
1,376,095 1
1,389,658
4,901
25,653
24,395
19,352
25,983
22,877
23,376
23,376
23,375
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
23,376
856,119
0
-
-
(29)
434,439
438,827
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
35,482
35,925
35,904
36,118
36,570
39,600
39,800
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,6130
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
39,600
72,000
3,580
3,020
3,356
2,920
3,140
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,620
1,820
1,820
1,620
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
1,820
3,847
390
600
30
-
-
-
(1,985)
(1,898)
-
-
-
Replacement UselMlsc. Invoices
311,690
170,008
-
-
-
-
119,770
119,520
-
-
-
44,000
770
525
350
420
560
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
426
171,213
2,600
1,000
-
1,540
540
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
SOQ
500
500
500
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,834
4,110
3,372
4,091
4,822
3,420
3,400
3,400
3,400 1
3,400
3,400
3,490 1
3,400
3,400
3,400
7,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
30,000
50,004
60,000
48,000
76,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
36,000
30,000
30,000
Total RUvenue
1,201,981
1,238,285
1,267,938
1,267,469
1,254,175
1,261,080
1,272,679
1,284,416
1,296,270
1,308,243
1,320,335
1,332,548
1,344,883
1,357,342
1,369,925
11,362,634
1,395,470
1,408,435
1,421,529
1,434,754
1,448,311
1,461,602
1,475,227
1,488,989
3%
3%
3%
0%
-1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
I%
1%
I%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
I%
1%
165,251
180,822
188,358
194,499
192,503
202,039
208,100
214,343
220,773
227,397
234,219
241,245
2484482
256,937
263,615
271,524
279,689
288,059
296,701
305,602
314,770
324,213
333,940
343,958
5,137
4,655
4,830
5,262
6,735
5,800
5,974
6,153
6,338
6.528
6,724
6,926
7,133
7,347
7,568
7,795
8,029
8,269
8,517
8,773
9,036
%307
9,587
9,874
1,945
6,712
1,108
375
11025
1,200
1,236
1,273
1,311
1,351
1,391
1,433
1,476
1,520
10566
1,613
1,661
1,711
1,762
1,815
11870
1,926
7.983
2,043
12,944
124687
13,005
15,063
14,565
15,720
16,192
16,677
17,178
17,693
18,224
18,771
19,334
19,914
20,511
21,126
21,760
22,413
23,085
23,778
24,491
25,226
25,983
26.762-
210o628
207,429
174,762
185,742
224,946
223,480
230,184
237,090
244,203
251,529
259,075
266,847
274,852
283,098
291,591
300,338
309,349
318,629
328188
338,034
348,175
358,620
369,378
384,460
31,303
32,197
32,204
32,516
31,801
30,766
31,689
32,640
33,819
34,627
35,666
36,736
37,838
38,973
46,143
41,347
42,587
43,865
45,181
46,536
47,932
49,370
50,852
52,377
54,984
57,055
58,246
58,723
59,429
56,023
59,266
59,847
60,434
61,026
61,625
62,230
62,540
63,457
64,080
64,709
65,344
65,986
66,634
67,289
67,950
68,618
69,292
69,974
Total Expense
482,092
501,557
472513
492,180
530,005
537,028
552,641
568,023
563,655
600,151
616,923
634,167
651,956
670,246
689,073
7080452
726,399
748,933
770,069
79147
814,224
637,280
861,015
885,448
12%
4%
-6%
4%
8%
19A
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Net Operating Income (loss)
719,889
734.728
795,425
775.269
724,170
724,052
720,038
716,393
712,415
708,092
703,412
698,361
692,927
687,096
680.852
674.183
667,071
659.502
651,459
642,927
633,887
624,321
614,213
603.542
57,966
58,678
8,237
6,864
(30316)
7,000
16,849
15,879
16,172 1
15,026
14,503
14,624
13,932
13,195
13,170
7,923
7,373
7,106
6,440
4,737
4,010
3,294 1
2,500
1,664
720,516
688,828
298,709
250,677
242,103
233,008
224,325
215,533
2064550
197,367
187,983
177,300
165,171
152,692
139,848
125,547
110,725
95,497
78,550
600900
42,786
22,655
1,747
367,667
365,245
340,184
337,220
304,735
310,000
310,412
311,212
3184366
309,296
310,096
314,190
319,524
312,229
244,498
245,298
2464098
246,898
245,558
222,789
223,589
224,389
225,189
222,873
2,494
2,494
2,494
25,177
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
1,240
7,240
1,240
1,240
100
Not Income(Lass)
-312,822
(272,961)
162,275
169.079
172,774
185,604
200,910
204,286
202,431
215,215
218,596_
220,255
220,924
234,130
308,437
310,026
316,381
322,973
332,553
362.734
370,280
379,331
389,677
382,333
CASH RESERVES
Operational Cash (Last year+ Profit)
1,367,670
1,360,859
1,348,572
14336,171
1,318,263
1,294,638
1,265,070
1,229,922
1,190,166
1,146,199
1,092,870
1,035,613
989,926
895,663
813,381
718,715
616,543
502,558
377,491
Transfer to Replacement Reserve
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,006)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
(72,000)
Transfer to Debt Service Reserve
(661,550)
(662,950)
(659,200)
(660,300)
(661,200)
(661,900)
(661,800)
(660,275)
(857,900)
(660,213)
(656,556)
(656,913)
(65$,856)
(655,675)
(658,275)
(655,350)
(656,119)
(655.481)
-
Transfer from Debt Service
52045&1
Interest
6,501
6,470
6,385
6,300
6,163
5,971
5,724
5,424
5,081
4,7,00
4,229
3,722
3,135
2,468
1,722
857
79
1,128
2,283
End of Year 0 PERATI 0 NA L Cash Be lance
500,140 501,247 587,146 652,004 643,618
640,621
632,179
623,757
610,171
591,226
566,709
536,994
503,070
465,347
418,687
368,542
310,423
244,204
170,455
84,826
7,779
111.684
22 6,,050
823,789
Debt Service
Transfers - From Operations (Principal)
661,550
662,950
659,200
660,300
661,200
661,900
661,800
660,275
657,900
660,213
656.556
656,913
656.856
655,675
658,275
655,350
656,119
655,481
-
Tra nsfers - To Operati ons
(520,581)
IMerest Income
4,344
4,388
4,432
4,477
4,522
4,568
4,614
4,661
4,708
4,755
4,803
4,852
4,901
4.950
5,000
6,051
5,102
5,153
5,205
Principal 1 interest Payments
(661,550)
662 950
(659,200)
(660,300)
561,200
661.900
661.800
(660,275)
657,900
560.213
656,556
656,913
656,858
655,675
658,275
655,350
856,119
(655,481)
End of Year 0EBT SERVICE Reserve Balance
9,883,177 9,687,540 441,699 437,917 430,095
434,439
438,827
443,259
447,736
452,258
456,826
461,440
466,101
470,808
475,554
48,0,367
485,218
490,119
495,069
500,970
505,120
510,222
515,375
0
Replacement Reserves
Transfers - from operations
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,000
7200
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,GW
72,000
7200
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,400
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,000
interest
6,328
5,991
5,061
5,395
4,341
3,964
4,287
3,847
3,406
3,715
(1,109)
(1,201)
(930)
(977)
(1,985)
(1,898)
(1,729)
(1,526)
(1,258)
Replacement UselMlsc. Invoices
311,690
170,008
44,000
187,780
113,699
44.000
119,770
119,520
44,849
553 340
Bo QQo
44,000
75,690
170,848
61,33,0
53,440
50 .10,0
44,000
181,780
End of Year REPLACEMENT Reserve Balance
362,516 421,944 487,960 553,987 626,508
593,145
501,128
534,189
429,805
392,446
424,410
380,927
337,254
367,820
109,815
118,914
92,115
96,735
196,56,0
187,075
171,213
151,042
124,b 18
238,606
TOTAL CASH RESERVES
10,745,833 10,610,731 1,516,804 1,643,908 1,709,221
1,668,205
1,572,134
1,601,246
1,487,712
1,435,931
1,447,945
1,379,361
1,306,425
1.303,976
784,446
729,995
703,526
637,588
468,964
397,022
326,129
247,525
164,757
588,183
HRA General Fund Cash Reserves
$3,500,000
$3,000,000 x $2,907,085
$2,500,000 ----$2,120,084 �$2,235,967
$2,272,709
$2,000,000 $2,120,084
$1,500,000
$1, 000,000
$500,000
2014
2015 2016 2017 2018
$1,518,535
$913,535
2019
Replacement Reserve Schedule
Plymouth Towne Square
2018
Item
Construction/
Replacement
Year
Original
Projected
Replacement
Year
Adjusted
Projected
Replacement Year
Unit of
Measure
Q /Area
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Lifetime
Years
Min Lifetime
Years
12131/2017
Accumulated
Reserve Balance
2018 Annual
Reserve
12131/2018
2018 Replacement Accumulated
Disbursements Reserve Balance2
Asphalt (seal/stripe)
2015
2018
Square Feet
16,000
$ 0.59
$ 9,440
3 to 5
3
$ 6,293
$ 3,147
$ 9,440
Boiler Circ. Pumps #1
2012
2022
Unit
1
7,800.00
1 7,800
10 to 15
10
3,900
780
4,680
Boiler Circ. Pumps #2
2012
2022
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
10 to 15
10
3,900
780
4,680
Car et Stairwells
2016
2038
Square Yard
200
47.00
9,400
22 to 25
22
427
427
855
arpet eva ors ntryway
uare ar
76
42.00
3,192
5 to 7
5
1,277
1,915
Carpet Resident Corridors
2004
2024
Square Yard
1,760
40.00
70,400
20 to 22
20
45,760
3,520
49,280
Carpet - Offices & Computer Room
2004
2018
Square Yard
72
37.00
2,664
12 to 15
12
2,474
190
2,664
Carpet Lobby/Dining/Fireplace Room etc
2004
2018
Square Yard
562
42.00
23,604
12 to 15
12
21,918
1,686
23,604
Carpet - Activity-PuzzJe-Exercise-Library
2004
2018
Square Yard
238
37.00
8,806
12 to 15
12
8,177
629
8,806
Flooring trash rooms/Janitor rooms
2004
2018
Square yard
50
47.00
2,350
12 to 15
12
2,182
168
2,350
Common Area Furniture - Dining Room
2004
2020
Unit
1
48,400.00
1 48,400
16 to 20
1 16
39,325
3,025
42,350
Common Area Furniture - Fireplace
Room
2004
2020
Unit
1
51900.00
5,900
16 to 20
16
4,794
369
5,163
Common Area Furniture - Sun Room
2016
2032
Unit
1
4,000.00
4,000
16 to 20
16
250
250
500
Common Area Furniture - Activity Room
2011
2027
Unit
1
8,800.00
8,800
16 to 20
16
3,300
550
3,850
Common Area Furniture - Puzzle Room
1994
2018
Unit
1
2,300.00
2,300
20 to 22
20
2,204
96
2,300
Common Area Furniture - Craft Room
2016
2036
Unit
1
4,100.00
4,100
20 to 22
20
205
205
410
Common Area Furniture - Lobby
2004
2018
Unit
1
6,700.00
6,700
9 to 12
9
6,221
479
6,700
Common Area Furniture - 2nd/3rd floor
1994
2018
Unit
1
51000.00
5,000
20 to 22
20
4,792
208
5,000
Common Area Furniture - outdoor
2006
2018
Unit
1
7,600.00
7,600
12 to 15
12
6,967
633
7,600
Garage Floor Sealer
2011
2019
Square Feet
30,000
0.38
11.400
8 to 12
8
8,550
1,425
9,975
Heating Zone Valves
2010
2020
Unit
120
200.00
24,000
10 to 15
10
16,800
2,400
19,200
Lighting Fixture Wall Sconces (common
areas)
2017
2037
Unit
100
33.00
3,300
20 to 25
20
165
165
Lighting fixtures Ceiling (common areas)
1994
2018
Unit
110
36.00
3,960
20 to 25
20
3,795
165
3,960
Lighting fixtures (garage)
2016
2036
Unit
318
17.00
5,406
20 to 25
1 20
270
270
541
Paint Stairwells
2016
2036
Unit
3
1,150.00
3,450
20 to 25
20
173
173
345
Paint Common Areas
2004
2024
Square Feet
34,868 1
2.50
87,170
20 to 22
20
56,661
4,359
61,019
Fire Lane Replacement
1994
2019
Square Feet
11,872
1.80
21,370
25 to 30
25
19,660
855
20,515
Parking Lot Replacement
2015
2035
Square Feet
16,000
3.50
56,000
20 to 25
20
5,600
2,800
8,400
Elevator Modernization
1994
2024
Unit
1
70,000.00
70,000
30 to 35
30
53,667
2,333
56,000
Generator major overhaul)
1994
2024
Unit
1
25 000.00
25,000
30 to 35
30
19,167
833
20,000
KN HW Boiler #1
2012
2022
Unit
1
48,000.00
48,000
10 to 15
10
24,000
4,800
28,800
KN HW Boiler #2
2012
2022
Unit
1
48,000.00
48,000
10 to 15
10
24,000
4,800
28,800
KN HW Boiler #3
2012
2022
Unit
1
48 000.00
48,000
30 to 15
10 1
24,000
4,800
28,800
Roof (asphalt)
2007
2027
Square Feet
1 43,000
2.95 1
126,850
20 to 25
20
63,425
6,343
69,768
Siding removal & reinstall
2017
2042
Square Feet
210
738.00
154,980
25 to 30
25
6,199
6,199
Trim, Fascia, & Soffit
2017
2042
Linear Feet
1,800
19.00
34,200
25 to 30
25
1,368
1,368
Water Softener
2009
2021
Unit
1
9,000.00
9,000
12 to 15
12
6,000
750
6,750
Window Replacement
2017
2042
Unit
346
1,000.00
346,000
25 to 30
25
13,840
13,840
Lennox AHU #1 3rd Floor East Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
10,500.00
10,500
15 to 20
15
9,800
700
10,500
Win
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,200.00
7,200
15 to 20
15
6,900
300
7,200
Lennox AHU #2 3rd Floor North Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
10 500.00
10,500
15 to 20
15
9,800
700
10,500
Lennox CU #2 (Ground Level North
Wing)
1994
2018
Unit
1 1
7,200.00 1
7,200
15 to 20
15
6,900
300
7,200
Lennox AHU #3 (3rd Floor West Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
10,500.00
10.500
15 to 20
15
9,800
700
10,500
Lennox CU #3 (Ground Level West
Wing)
2009
2024
Unit
1
7,200.00
7,200
15 to 20
15
3,840
480
4,320
Lennox AHU #4 (3rd Floor Central
Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
13,200.00
13,200
15 to 20
15
12,320
880
13,200
Lennox CU #4 (Heat Pump - Garage)
1994
2018
Unit
1
10,500.00
10,500
15 to 20
15
10,063
438
10,500
Carrier AHU #5 (Garage West Wing
Maint Room)
2011
2026
Unit
1
14,500.00
14,500
15 to 20
15
5,800
967
6,767
Carrier CU #5 (Ground Level Front of
Building)
2012
2027
Unit
1
13,000.00 1
13,000
15 to 20
15
4,333
867
5,200
Lennox AHU #6 (Garage Storage Area)
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,000.00
7,000
15 to 20
15
6,708
292
7,000
Thermal Zone CU #6 (Garage Storage
Area)
1994
2.018
Unit
1
5,500.00
5,500
15 to 20
15
5,271
229
5,500
Carrier AHU #7 (2nd Floor Activity
Room
2005
2020
Unit
1
7,000.00
7.000
15 to 20
15
5,600
467
6,067
Carrier CU #7 (Ground Level Front of
Building East)
2005
2020
Unit
1
5,500.00
5,500
15 to 20
15
4,400
367
4,767
Titan MUA(Rooftop)
1994
2018
Unit
1
58 000.00
58,000
20 to 25
20
55,583
2,417
58,000
Greenheck EF (Garage)
1994
2018
Unit
1
12 000.00
12,000
20 to 25
20
11,500
500
12,000
Bell & Gossett Loop Pumps#1
1994
2018
Unit
1
9,000.00
9,000
15 to 20
15
8,625
375
9,000
Bell & Gossett Loop Pumps #2
1994
2018
Unit
1
9,000.00
9,000
15 to 20
15
8,625
375
9,000
Unit Heaters (Garage)#1
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #2
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #3
1994
2018
Unit
1
7800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,476
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #4
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #5
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #6
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #7
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #8
1994
2018
Unit
1
7,800.00
7,800
15 to 20
15
7,475
325
7,800
American HW Heater #1 (Garage)
2017
2027
Unit
1
10 500.00
10,500
10 to 12
10
1,050
1,050
American HW Heater #2 (Garage)
2017
2027
Unit
1
10 500.00
10,500
10 to 12
10
1,050
1,050
American HW Heater #3 (Garage)
2017
2027
Unit
1
30 500.00
10,500
10 to 12
10
-
1,050
1,050
Washing Machines #1
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #2
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #3
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #4
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,200.00 1
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120 1
1,080
Washing Machines #5
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #6
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200 1
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #7
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #8
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Washing Machines #9
2009
2019
Unit
1
1200.00
1,200
10 to 12
10
960
120
1,080
Clothes Dryers #1
2009
2019
Unit
1
1000.00
1,000
30 to 12
10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #2
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,000.00
1,000
10 to 12
.10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #3
2009
2019
1
Unit
1
11000.00
1,000
10 to 12
10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #4
2009
2019
Unit
1
11000.00
1,000
10 to 12
30
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #5
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,000.00
1,000
10 to 12
10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #6
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,000.00
1,000
10 to 12
10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #7
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,000.00
1,000
10 to 12
10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #8
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,000.00
1,000
10 to 12
10
800
100
900
Clothes Dryers #9
2009
2019
Unit
1
1,000.00
1,000
10 to 12
10
800
100
900
Subtotal
$ 751,641
$ 95,539
$ - $ 847,180
Annual Replacements:
Concrete Sidewalk (10% per year)
1994
2018
Square Feet
590
9.00
5,310 1
1
1
5,310
5,310
10,620
Replace Concrete Curb/Gutter (10% per
year)
1994
2018
Lineal Feet
1 259
46.00
11,914
1
1
11,914
11,914
23,828
Apartment Refrigerators
1994
2018
Unit
5
725.00
3,625
1
1
3,625
3,625
7,250
Apartment Ranges
1994
2018
Unit
6
600.00
3,600
1
1
3,600
3 600
7,200
Unit Carpet
1994
2018
Unit
3
2,300.00
6,900
1
1
6,900
6,900
13,800
Unit Vinyl
1994
2018
Unit
3
1,325.00
3,975
1
1
3,975
3,975
7,950
A/C Units (replacement)
1994
2018
Unit
4
500.00
2,000
1
1
2,000
2,000
4,000
Subtotal
$ 37,324
$ 37,324
$ - $ 74,648
GRAND TOTAL
$ 788,965
$ 132,863
$ $ 921,828
Current Reserve Balance
$ 335,367
Reserve Deficit
$ (453,698)
Long Range Projection
Plymouth Towne Square
2018
ORIGINAL
ADJUSTED
CONSTRUCTIOW
PROJECTED
PROJECTED
REPLACEMENT
REPLACEMENT
REPLACEMENT
UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
LIFETIME
MIN LIFETIME
ANNUAL
ACCUM
ITEM
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
MEASUREMENT
QUANTITY
COST
COST
YEARS
YEARS
RESERVE
RESERVE
2018 2019
Asphalt (seal/stripe)
2015
2018
Square Feet
16,000
$ 0.59
$
9,440
3 to 5
3
$
3,147
$
9,440
9,440 -
Boiler Circ. Pumps #1
2012
2022
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
10 to 15
10
$
780
$
4,680
- -
Boiler Circ. Pumps 42
2012
2022
unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
10 to 15
10
$
780
$
4,680
-
Carpet Stairwells
2016
2038
Square Yard
200
$ 47.00
$
9,400
22 to 25
22
$
427
$
855
-
Carpet Elevators/Entryway
Vestibule/Garage Lobbies
2015
2020
Square Yard
76
$ 42.00
$
3,192
5 to 7
5
$
638
$
1,915
-
Carpet Resident Corridors
2004
2024
Square Yard
1,760
$ 40.00
$
70,400
20 to 22
20
$
3,520
$
49,280
- -
Carpet - Offices & Computer Room
2004
2018
Square Yard
72
$ 37.00
$
2,664
12 to 15
12
$
190
$
2,664
2,664
Carpet Lobby/Dining/Fireplace Room
etc
2004
2018
Square Yard
562
$ 42.00
$
23,604
12 to 15
12
$
1,686
$
23,604
23,604 -
Carpet - Activity -Puzzle -Exercise -
Library
2004
2018
Square Yard
238
$ 37.00
$
8,806
12 to 15
12
$
629
$
8.806
8,806
Flooring trash roomslJanitor roams
2004
2018
Square yard
50
$ 47.00
$
2,350
12 to 15
12
$
168
$
2,350
2,350 -
Common Area Furniture - Dining
Room
2404
2020
Unit
1
$48,400.00
$
48,400
16 to 20
16
$
3,025
$
42,350
- -
Common Area Furniture - Fireplace
Room
2004
2020
Unit
1
$ 5,900.00
$
5,900
16 to 20
16
$
369
$
5,163
-
Common Area Furniture - Sun Room
2016
2032
Unit
1
$ 4,000.00
$
4,000
16 to 20
16
$
250
$
500
-
Common Area Furniture - Activity
Room
2011
2027
Unit
1
$ 8,800.00
$
8,800
16 to 20
16
$
554
$
3,850
- -
Common Area Furniture - Puzzle
Room
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 2,300.00
$
2,300
20 to 22
20
$
96
$
2,300
2,300 -
Common Area Furniture - Craft
Room
2016
2036
Unit
1
$ 4,100.00
$
4,100
20 to 22
20
$
205
$
410
- -
Common Area Furniture - Lobby
2004
2418
Unit
1
$ 6,700.00
$
6,700
9 to 12
9
$
479
$
6,700
6,700 -
Common Area Furniture - 2nd/3rd
floor
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 5,000.00
$
5,000
20 to 22
20
$
208
$
5.000
5,000 -
Common Area Furniture - Outdoor
2006
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,600.00
$
7,604
12 to 15
12
$
633
S
7,600
7,600 -
Garage Floor Sealer
2011
2019
Square Feet
30,400
$ 0.38
$
11,400
8 to 12
8
$
1,425
$
9,975
- 11,400
Heating Zone Valves
2010
2424
Unit
120
$ 200.00
$
24,400
10 to 15
10
$
2,400
$
19,200
- -
Lighting Fixture Wall Sconces
(common areas)
2017
2037
Unit
100
$ 33.00
$
3,300
20 to 25
20
$
165
$
165
- -
Lighting fixtures Ceiling (common
areas)
1994
2018
Unit
110
$ 36.00
$
3,960
20 to 25
20
$
165
$
3,960
3,950
Lighting fixtures (garage)
2015
2036
Unit
318
$ 17.00
$
5,406
20 to 25
20
$
270
$
541
- -
Paint Stairwells
2015
2036
Unit
3
$ 1,150.00
$
3,450
20 to 25
20
$
173
$
345
- -
Paint Common Areas
2004
2024
Square Feet
34,868
$ 2.50
$
87,170
20 to 22
20
$
4,359
$
61,019
- -
Fire Lane Replacement
1994
2019
Square Feet
11,872
$ 1.80
$
21,370
25 to 30
25
$
855
S
20,515
- 21,370
Parking Lot Replacement
2015
2035
Square Feet
16,000
$ 3.50
$
56,000
20 to 25
20
$
2,800
$
8,400
- -
Elevator Modernization
1994
2024
Unit
1
$70,000.00
$
70,000
30 to 35
34
$
2,333
$
56,000
-
Generator (major overhaul)
1994
2024
Unit
1
$25,000.00
$
25,004
30 to 35
30
$
833
$
20,000
- -
KN HW Boiler 41
2012
2022
Unit
1
$48,000.00
$
48,040
10 to 15
10
$
4,800
$
28.800
- -
KN HW Boiler 42
2012
2022
Unit
1
$48,000.00
$
48,000
10 to 15
10
$
4,800
$
2800
- -
KN HW Boiler #3
2012
2022
Unit
1
$48,000.00
$
48,000
10 to 15
10
$
4,800
$
28,800
- -
Roof (asphalt)
2007
2027
Square Feet
43,000
$ 2.95
$
126,850
20 to 25
20
$
6,343
$
69,768
- -
Siding (removal ,& reinstall)
2017
2042
Square Feet
210
$ 738.00
$
154,980
25 to 30
25
$
6,199
$
6,199
- -
Trim, Fascia, & Soffit
2017
2042
Linear Feet
1,800
$ 19.00
$
34,200
25 to 30
25
$
1,368
$
1,368
-
Water Softener
2009
2021
Unit
1
$ 9,000.00
$
9,000
12 to 15
12
$
750
$
6,750
-
Window Replacement
2017
2042
Unit
346
$ 1,000.00
$
346,000
25 to 30
25
$
13,840
$
13,840
Lennox AHU #1 (3rd Floor East
Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
$10.500.00
$
10,500
15 to 20
15
$
700
$
10,500
10,500
-
Lennox CU #1 (Ground Level East
Wing)
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,240.00
$
7;200
15 to 20
15
$
300
$
7,200
7,200
Lennox AHU #2 (3rd Floor North
Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
$;10,500.00
$
10,500
15 to 20
15
$
700
$
10,500
'10,500
Lennox CU #2 (Ground Level North
Wing)
1994
2018
Unll
1
$ 7.200.00
$
7,200
15 to 20
15
$
300
$
7.200
7,200
Lennox AHU #3 (3rd Floor West
Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
$10,500.00
$
10,500
15 to 20
15
$
700
$
10,500
'10,500
Lennox CU #3 (Ground Level West
Wing)
2009
2024
Unit
1
$ 7,200.00
$
7,200
15 to 20
15
$
480
$
4,320
-
-
Lennox AHU #4 (3rd Floor Central
Wing)
2003
2018
Unit
1
$13,200.00
$
13,200
15 to 20
15
$
880
$
13.200
13,200
Lennox CU #4 (Heat Pump - Garage)
1994
2018
Unit
1
$10,500.00
$
10,500
15 to 20
15
$
438
$
10,500
14,500
Carrier AHU #5 (Garage West Wing
Maint Room)
2011
2026
Unit
1
$14,500.00
$
14,500
15 to 20
15
$
967
$
6,767
-
Carrier CU #5 (Ground Level Front of
Building)
2012
2027
Unit
1
$13,000.00
$
13,000
15 to 20
15
$
867
$
5,200
-
Lennox AHU 46 (Garage Storage
Area)
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,000.00
$
7,000
15 to 20
15
$
292
$
7.000
7,040
Thermal Zane CU #6 (Garage
Storage Area)
1994
20718
Unit
1
$ 5,500.00
$
5,500
15 to 20
15
$
229
$
5,500
5,500
Carrier AHU #7 (2nd Floor Activity
Room)
2005
2020
Unit
1
$ 7,000.00
$
7,000
15 to 20
15
$
467
$
6,067
-
-
Carrier CU #7 (Ground Level Front of
Building East)
2005
2020
Unit
1
$ 5,500.00
$
5,500
15 to 20
15
$
367
$
4,767
-
-
Titan MUA (Rooftop)
1994
2018
Unit
1
$58,000.00
$
58,000
20 to 25
20
$
2,417
$
58,000
58,000
-
Greenheck EF (Garage)
1994
2018
Unit
1
$12,000.00
$
12,000
20 to 25
20
$
500
$
12.000
12.000
-
Bell & Gossett Loop Pumps#1
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 9,000.00
$
9,000
15 to 20
15
$
375
$
9,000
9,000
-
Bell & Gossett Loop Pumps #2
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 9,000.00
$
9.000
15 to 20
15
$
375
$
9.000
9,004
-
Unit Heaters (Garage)##1
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
-
Unit Heaters (Garage) #2
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #3
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
'15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7.800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #4
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,840.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #5
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
-
Unit Heaters (Garage) #6
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
Unit Heaters (Garage) #7
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
-
Unit Heaters (Garage) #8
1994
2018
Unit
1
$ 7,800.00
$
7,800
15 to 20
15
$
325
$
7,800
7,800
-
American HW Heater #1 (Garage)
2017
2027
Unit
1
$10,500.00
$
10,500
10 to 12
10
$
1,050
$
1,050
-
American HW Heater #2 (Garage)
2017
2027
Unit
1
$10,500.00
$
10,500
10 to 12
10
$
1,050
$
1,050
-
-
American HW Heater #3 (Garage)
2017
2027
Unit
1
$10,500.00
$
10,500
10 to 12
10
$
1,050
$
1,050
-
Washing Machines #1
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
-
1,2.00
Washing Machines #2
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
101o'[2
10
$
120
$
9,080
-
1,200
Washing Machines #3
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,084
-
1,200
Washing Machines #4
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
-
1,200
Washing Machines #5
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
-
1,200
Washing Machines #6
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
-
1.200
Washing Machines #7
2009
2419
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
-
1,200
Washing Machines #8
2009
2019
Unit
1
$ 1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
-
1,200
Washing Machines #9
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,200.00
$
1,200
10 to 12
10
$
120
$
1,080
1,200
Clothes Dryers #1
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,fl00
Clothes Dryers #2
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers#3
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers #4
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers 45
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers #6
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers #7
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers #8
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1,000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Clothes Dryers #9
2009
2019
Unit
1
$
1.000.00
$
1,000
10 to 12
10
$
100
$
900
-
1,000
Subtotal
$
95,539
$
847,180
304,924
52,570
Annual Replacements
Concrete Sidewalk {10% per year)
1994
2018
Square Feet
590
$
9.00
$
5,310
1
1
$
5,310
$
10,620
5,310
5,310
Replace Concrete Curb/Gutter (10%
per year)
1994
2018
Lineal Feet
259
$
46.00
$
11,914
1
1
$
11,914
$
23,828
11,914
11,914
Apartment Refrigerators
1994
2018
Unit
5
$
725.00
$
3,625
1
1
$
3,625
$
7,250
3,625
3,625
Apartment Ranges
1994
2018
Unit
6
$
600.00
$
3,600
1
1
$
3,600
$
7,200
3,600
3,600
Unit Carpet
1994
2018
Unit
3
$
2,300.00
$
6,900
I
1
$
6,900
$
13,800
6,900
6,900
Unit Vinyl
1994
2018
Unit
3
$
1,325.04
$
3,975
1
1
$
3,975
$
7,950
3,975
3,975
A1C Units (replacement)
1994
2018
Unit
4
$
500.00
$
2,000
1
1
$
2,000
$
4,000
2,000
2,000
Subtotal
$
37,324
$
74,648
37,324
37,324
GRAND TOTAL
$
132,863
$
921,828
342,248
89,894
0
2020
2021 2022 2023
2024 2025 2026
2027 2028
2029 2030 2031
2032 2033 2034
2035
2036 2037
2038
-
9,440 - -
9,440 - -
9,440 -
- 9,440 -
- 9,440 -
-
9,440 -
-
-
- 7,800 -
- - -
- -
- - -
7,800 - -
-
- -
-
-
- 7,800 -
- - -
- -
- - -
7,800 -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
9,400
3,192
- - -
- 3,192 -
- -
- 3,192 -
- - -
3,192
- -
-
-
- - -
70,400 - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- 2,664 -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- 23,604 -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- 8,806 -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- 2,350 -
- - -
-
- -
-
48,400
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
48,400 -
-
5,900
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
5,900 -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
4,000 - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
8,800 -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
2,300
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
4,100 -
-
-
- - -
- - -
6,700 -
_ _ _
_ _ _
-
6,700 -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
5,000
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- 7,600 -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
11,400 -
- - -
- - -
11,400
- -
-
24,000
- - -
- - -
- -
- 24,000 -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- 3,300
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
3,960
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
5,406 -
-
-
- - -
- _ _
_ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
-
3,450 -
-
-
- - -
87,170 - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
56,000
- -
-
-
- - -
70.000 - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- - -
25,000 - -
- -
- - -
- - -
-
- -
-
-
- 48,000 -
- - -
- -
- - -
48,000 - -
-
- -
-
-
- 48,000 -
- - -
- -
- - -
48,040 - -
-
-
-
-
- 48,000 -
- - -
- -
- - -
48,000 - -
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
126,854 -
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
- 9,000 - - - - - -
- - -
- - 9,000 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 10,500 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,200 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 10,500 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,200 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 10,500 - - - - -
- - - - 7,200 - - -
- - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 13,200 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 10,500 - - - - -
- - - - - - 14,500 -
- - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - 13,000
- - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,000 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 5,500 - - - - -
7,000 - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - 7,000 - - -
5,500 - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - 5,500 - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - - 58,000
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - - 12,000
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 9,000 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 9,000 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - 7,800 - - - - -
- - - - - - - 10,500
- - -
- - - - - - 10,500 -
- - - - - - - 10,500
- - -
- - - - - - 10,500 -
- - - - - - - 10,500
- - -
- - - - - - 10,500 -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- 1,200 -
- - - - - - - -
93,992 18,440 1159,600
5,310 5,310 5,310
11,914
11,914
11,914
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,600
3,600
3,600
6,900
6,900
6,900
3,975
3.975
3,975
2,000
2,000
2,000
37,324
37,324
37,324
131,316 55,764 196,924
-
269,210
3,192
14,500
207,690
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5.310
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
3,625
3.625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,600
3,600
3,660
3,600
3,60❑
6,900
6,900
6.900
6,9❑0
6,900
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
2,000
2,❑00
2,000
2,000
2.000
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
306,534
40,516
51.824
245,014
-
1,200
-
-
1.000
-
-
1,000
-
-
1,000
5,310
-
1,000
-
5.310
1,000
-
-
1,000
11,914
11,914
1,000
-
-
1,000
3,625
-
1.000
-
-
19,800
81,656
5,310
5,310
5,310
11,914
11,914
11,914
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,600
3,600
3,600
6,900
6,900
6,900
3,975
3,975
3,975
2,000
2,000
2,000
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
57,124
118,980
-
163,600
180,940
-
83,092
83,396
34,800
90,660
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5.310
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
6.900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
2,000
2,000
2,400
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37.324
200,924
218,264
37,324
120,416
120,720
72,124
127,984
2039 2840 2041 2042
2943 2044
2045 2446 2047 2048 2049 2050
9,440 - - 9,440
- -
9,440 - - 9,440 - -
- - - 7,800
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 7,800
- -
- - - - - -
- 3,192 - -
- -
3,192 - - - - 3,192
- - - -
- 70,400
- - - - - -
- - - 2,664
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 23,604
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 8,806
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 2,350
- -
- - - - - -
- - - -
- -
- - - 4,000 - -
- - - -
8,800 -
- - - - - -
- - - -
- -
6,700 - - - - -
- - - 7.600
- -
- - - - - -
- - - -
11,400 -
- - - - - -
- 24,000 - -
- -
- - - - - 24,000
- - - -
- 87,170
- - - - - -
- - - -
- 21,370
- - - - - -
- - - 48,000
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 48,000
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 48,000
- -
- - - - - -
- - - -
- -
- - 125,850 - - -
- - - 154,980
- -
- - - - - -
- - - 34,200 -
- - - - -
- -
- - - - -
- 9,000 - - -
- -
- - - 346,000 -
- - - - -
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 10,500
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,200
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 10,500
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,200
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 10,500
- -
7,200 - - - -
- - - - -
- -
- _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ 13,200
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 10,500
- -
- - 14.500 - -
- - - - -
- -
- - - 13,000 -
- - - - -
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,000
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 5,500
- -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 7,000
- - - - -
- - - - -
- 5,500
- - - - -
- - - - 9,000
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 9,000
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - - 7,800
- -
- - - - -
- - - 10,500 -
- -
- - - - -
- - - 10,500 -
- -
- - - - -
- - - 10,500 -
- -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200 - - - -
- - - - -
1,200 -
1,200
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,200
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000
-
36,440
27,192
14,500
762,244
20,200
178,940
28,332
-
158,350
175,940
19,800
39,692
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,314
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
5,310
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11.914
11,914
11,914
11,914
11,914
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,625
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,500
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
6,900
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
3,975
2,000
2,000
2,040
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
37,324
73,764
64,516
51,824
799,568
57,524
216,264
65,656
37,324
195,674
213,264
57,124
77,016
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,600
100,000
(100,000)
( 200,000)
(300,000)
Plymouth Towne Square Historical and Projected Replacement Reserve and Disbursements
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
v
e
0
A
A � A
* �v oe A % rA
s d
x� ® V♦� �4
2018 2619 2020 2021 2022 U2024
� Actual Reserve Balance INNw- ; Projected Reserve Balance --41x-Actual Replacement Disbursements - - Projected Replacement Disbursements
Assumes no additional funding of the reserve and annual operating transfers remain at $84,000. includes annual replacement disbursements. Replacement disbursements have historically been funded through Operating. Replacement reserves were
utilized in 2012 and 2017.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Actual Reserve Balance 682,026 569,857 682,528 766,476 853,905 787,188 858,682 967,584 983,700 830,709
Projected Reserve Balance 335,367 77,119 71,225 23,909 52,145 (60,779) (14,103)
Actual Replacement Disbur: 51,042 48,861 47,558 68,893 248,560 69,908 79,792 160,169 112,835 789,500 342,248 89,894 131,316 55,764 196,924 37,324 306,534
Projected Replacement Disbursements
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2442 2043 2444
(236,637) (193,153) (160,977) (321,991) (275,315) (248,439) (283,419) (236,743) (353,667) (487,931) (441,255) (477,671) (514,391) (502,515) (546,499) (536,263) (516,779) (484,603) (1,200,171) (1,173,695)
40,516 51,824 245,014 37,324 57,124 118,980 37,324 200,924 218,264 37,324 120,416 120,720 72,124 127,984 73,764 64,515 51,824 799,568 57,524 216,264
2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
(1,305,958) (1,287,514) (1,240,938) (1,352,512) (1,481,876) (1,455,000)
65,656 37,324 195,674 213,264 57,124 77,016
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000 -
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000 �\ •
100,000 o •
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
� Actual Reserve Balance '71 Projected Reserve Balance --40--Actual Replacement Disbursements - Projected Replacement Disbursements
Assumes a $450,000 one-time funding of the reserve and $133,000 annual operating transfers thereafter. Replacement disbursements have historically been funded through Operating. Replacement reserves were utilized in 2012 and 2017.
Plymouth Towne Square Historical and Projected Replacement Reserve and Disbursements
Actual Reserve Balance
Projected Reserve Balance
Actual Replacement Disbursements
Projected Replacement Disbursements
2027
2008 2049 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
682,026 569,857 682,528 766,476 853,905 787,188 858,682 967,584 983,700 830,709
788,965 579,717 622,823 624,507 701,743 637,819
51,042 48,861 47,558 68,893 248,560 69,908 79,792 160,169 112,835 789,500 342,248 89,894 131,316 55,764 196,924 37,324
2024
2025
2025
2027
2028
2029
2430
2031
2032
2033
2034
2435
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
733,495
559,961
652,445
733,621
621,607
717,283
793,159
807,179
942,855
834,931
749,667
845,343
857,927
870,207
931,083
936,099
995,335
1,063,819
1,144,995
478,427
553,903
306,534
40,516
51,824
245,014
37,324
57,124
118,980
37,324
200,924
218,264
37,324
120,416
120,720
72,124
127,984
73,764
64,516
51,824
799,568
57,524
216,264
2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050
470,640 537,984 633,660 570,986 490,722 566,598
65,656 37,324 195,674 213,264 57,124 77,016
A
B
C
D
F
G
H
I
,]
K
L
M
1
Long Range Projection
Vicksburg Grassing
T
2
3
2018
4
ORIGINAL
ADJUSTED
5
CONSTRUCTION/
PROJECTED
P_ROJECTED _
REPLACEMENT
YEAR
_ _
UNIT
MEASUREMENT
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL _
COST
LIFETIME
YEARS
MIN LIFETIME
YEARS
_ANNUAL
RESERVE
ACCUM
RESERVE
6
REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
7
ITEM YEAR YEAR
8
Roof (asphalt)
Fascia & Soffit
Siding (removal & reinstall)
Caulking (remove & reinstall)
Parking Lot & Trail Replacement
Asphalt (seallstripe)
Faint Common Areas"
Carpet Main Entryway*
Carpet Community Room*
carpe -t --Resident Corridors*
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2015
2007
2016
2007
2007
2027
2037
2037 _
2025 _
2024
^ 20181
2019 _
2024!
2019' - -f --
20191
Square Feet
Liner Feet
Square Feet
Linear Feet.
Square Feew
Square Feet
Square Feet
Square Yard
Square Yard
Square Yard
42,000
1,450
38,000
39,000
16,000
18,000
24,000
115
1041
1,760
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2.95 $
19.40 $
5.50 $
1.78 $
3.50 $
0.59 $
_ 2.10 $
42.00 $
42.00 $
40.00 $
123,9001
27,550
209,000
69,420
56,000
9,444
50,400 ,
4,830
4,368
70,400
20 to 25
30 to 35
30 to 35
'18 to 2_0
17 to 20 l
-3t o 5
12 to 15
8 to 10
12 to 15
12 to 15
20
30
30
18
17
3
12
8
12
12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,195 1 $
918 $
6,967 $
3,857 $
3,294 $
3,147 $
4,200 -V-46,200
_ 604
364 $
5,867 $
68,145
10,102
76,633
42,423
36,235
9,440
1,208
4,004
64,533
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Carpet Stairwells*
2007
20221_
Square Yard
150
$
$
47.00
3.50
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,450
846
2,350
840
35,000
35,000
15 to 20
12 to 15
-
15 to 20
5
30 to 35
30 to 35
15
12
15
5
30
30
$
$
w
$
$
$
$
470
70 �
157
168
1,167
1,167
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,170
770
1,723
336
12,833
12,833
19
_ _
Carpet Common Area small spaces
(office, library, exercise room)* 2019
2007 Square Yard 240
20
Hard surface areas - trash rooms, 1-
storage lockers, maintenance rooms* _ 2007 _ 2022 Square Yard 50 ` $ 47.00
Carpet - Elevators* _ 2016 2021 Square Yard 20 $ 42.00
Elevator #1 Modernization 2007 2037 Unit 1 { $ 35,000.00
21
22
23
Elevator #2 Modernization _
York AHU #1 (Community Room}
2007
2006
2037
2021
Unit
Unit
1
1
$
$
35,004.00
8,700.00
24
$
8,700
15 to 20
15
$
580
$
6,960
25
York CU #1 (Garage)
York AHU #2 (2nd Floor)
York CU #2 (Garage)
York AHU #3 (4th Floor West Hallway)
York CU 93 (Garage)
York AHU #4 (4th Floor East Hallway)
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2021
2021
2021
2021
20211
2021
Unit1
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit - - -
Unit_
1
1
1
_ - 1
1 1
$
$
$
$
I $
$
5,500.00 $
8,100.00 $
4,750.00 $
8,100.00 $
5,250.00: $
8,100.40 $
5,500
8,100
4,750
8,100
5,250
8,100
15 to 20
15 to 20
15 to 20
15 to 20
15 to 20
15 to 20
15
15
15
15
15
15
$
$
$
$
$
$
387 $
540 $
317 $
540 $
350 $
540 $
4,400
6,480
3,800
6,480
4,200
6,480
26
27
28
29
30
31
York CU #4 (Garage)
2006
2021
Unit
1
$
4,750.00
$
4,750
15 to 20
'15
� $
317 I
$
3,800
32
_
York AHU #5 (4th Floor East Hallway)
2006
_
2021
Unit
1
$
5,500.00_
$
5,500
15 to 20
15
$
367
$_
$
$
4,400
3,800
44,000
33
York CU #5 (Garage) - 2006 2021 Unit 1 $ 4,750.00 $ 4,750 15 to 20 - - 15 $ 317 1
34
Titan MUA (Garage)
AO Smith DHWH #1 (Garage)
2006
2006
2021
2018
Unit
Unit
1
1
$
$
55,000.00
12,000.00
$
$
55,000
12,000 1
15 to 20
10 to 12
15
10
$
$
3,667
1,000
35
$
12,000
36
AO Smith DHWH. #2 (Garage)
2006
2018
Unit
1
$
12,000.00
$
12,0001
10 to 12
10
$
1,000
$
12,000
37
AO Smith DHWH #3 (Garage)
AO Smith DHWH #4 (Garage)
Well McClain Boiler (Garage)
Greenheck EF (Garage)
Water softener
2017
2006
2006
2006
2007
2027
2018
20181
20181
2021;
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
1
1
1
1
$
$
$
$
$
12,000.00 $
12,000.00 $
12,250.00 $
10,000.00 ! $
- - 9,000.00 $
12,000 1
12,000
12,250
10,000
9,000 ,
10 to 12
10 to 12
12 to 15
121o'15
15 to 20
10
10
12
12
15
$
$
$
$
$
1,200
1,000
1,021
833
643
$
$
$
$
$
1,200
12,000
12,250
10,000
7,071
38
39
40
41
42
Common Area Furniture - Dining Room
2007
_
2022;
Unit
1
$
33,600.00
$
33,600_
15 to 20
15
$
2,240
1 $
24,640
43
Common Area Furniture - Library-
Common Area Furniture - Lobby
Common Area Furniture - 2nd/3rd floor
Lobby _
Common Area Furniture - Outdoor
Window Caulking (brick sills)
Window Replacement/Repair
2007
20161
2007
2012
2007
2007
__20221
20.25
20221
2022 -
2022
2027
Unit
Unit
Unit
_ Unit
f Unit
Unit
1 $
1 $
1 $
-1 $
172 $
364 $
5,000.00
6,100.00
4,200.00
7,000.00
46.51
1,000.00
$
$
$
{ $
$
$
5,000
6,100
4,200
7,000
8,000
364,000
15 to 20
9 to 12
15 to 20
10 to 12
�15 to 20
20 to 25
__15
9
15
10
15
20
$
$
$
$
$
$
333 _$_
6.78 $
280 $
700 $
533 $
18,200 $
3,667
1,35.6_
3,080
4,200
5,866
200,200
44
45
46
TT
48
49
Magic Pac Caulking (brick sills)
2007
2022
Unit
58
$
36.76
$
2,500
15 to 20
15
$
167
v $ 4
1,833
50
Garage Floor Sealer
2016
2024
Square Feet
29,500
$
$
$
0.19
20,000.00
-
$__
5,500
8 to 12
8
$
687?
$
1,375
51
Generator - Major Service 2007 203.7 Unit 1
$ 20,000
$ -
20 to 25 20 $ 567 $
0 0 $ 77,692 $
7,333
807,461
52
Subtotal
01
0
0
4
53
54
Annuai ReQlacements:
A
S
C D
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
55
__
56
Unit Carpet (97)
2007
2018
Unit
2
3,500.00
7,000
1
1
7,000
7,000
57
Unit Vinyl (97)
2007
20181
Unit
2
1,500.00
3,000
1
1
3,000
3,000
58
Unit Washers (97)
2007
20'18
Unit
3
575.00
1,725
1
1
1,725
1,725
59
Unit Dryers (97)
Refrigerators (97)
Dishwashers (97)
2007
2007
2007
20'18
20181
2018
Unit
Unit
Unit
2
2
2
450.00
950,00
270.00
900
1,900
540
1
1
1
1
1
1
900
1,900
540
900
1,900
540
60
61
62
Microwaves (97)
2007
20181
Unit
3
195.00
585
1
1
585
585
63
Ranges (97)
20071
20181
Unit
1
400.00
400
1
1
400
400
64
Replace Concrete Curb/Gutter (1O%Iyr)
2007
2018
Linear Feet
200
46.00
9,200
1
1
9,200
9,200
65
Concrete Sidewalk (10%/yr)
2007
2018
Square Feet
750
9.00
6,750
1
1
6,750
6,750
66
Magic Pacs (97)
2007
2098
Unit
2
6,000.00
12,000
1
1
12,000
12,000
44,000
44,000
J67Subtotal
G RAN 0 TOTAL
121,692
895,461
❑
P 0
R
S T
u
W W
x
Y Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE AF
1
_
3
4
5
6
7
2018
2019 2020
2021
2022 2023
2024
2025 2026
2027
2028 2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034 2036
8
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
123,900
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
9-
10-
11
-
- -
-
- -
-
69,420-
12
-
- ^
-
- ^
56,000
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
13
9,440
- -
91440
- -
9,440
- -
9,444
- -
9,440
-
^
9,440
- -
14
-
50,400 -
^
- -
-
^ _
-
- -
-
50,400
-
-
- -
15
-
- -
-
- -
4,830
- -
-
- ^
-
-
4,830
^
- -
16
-
4,368 -
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
4,368
-
-
- -
171
70,400 -
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
70,440
18
-
- -
-
7,050 -
^
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
19
-
840 -
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
840
20
-
- -
-
2,350 -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
21
-
- -
840
- -
-
- 840
-
- -
-
840
-
-
- -
22-
23
-
--
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
- -
24
-
- -
8,700-
25
-
5,500-
26
-
- -
8,100-
27
-
- -
4,750
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
28
-
- -
8,100-
29
-
- -
5,250-
30
-
- -
8,100
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
31
----
32
_
- -
5,500
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
33
-
- -
4,750-
34
-
_ -
55,000
35
12,400
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
12,000 -
-
-
-
-
- -
36
12,000
- -
-
- _
-
- -
-
12,000 -
-
-
-
-
- -
37
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
12,000
--
38
12,000
- -
-
- -
-
_ -
-
12,000
39
12,250
- -
-
- '
-
- -
-
- -
12,250
-
-
-
- -
40
14,000
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
10,000
-
-
-
- -
41
-
- -
9,000
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
42
'
- -
-
33,600-
43
^
- -
-
5,000 _
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
44
-
- -
-
-
-
6,100 -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
6,100 -
45
-
- -
-
4,200 -
-
-
46
-
- -
-
7,000 -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
7,06-0'--
,000-47
47
-
- -
-
8,000-
48
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
364,000-
49
-
- -
^
2,500 -
-
- -
--
50
-
- -
-
- -
5,500
- -
-
- -
-
-
5,500
-
- -
51
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
52
67,690
126,008 -
137,780
69,699 -
75,770
75,520 840
509,340
36,000 -
31,690
126,848
17,330
9,440
6,100 -
53
54
❑
P
0
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
z
AA
A8
AC
AD I
AE
AF
55
_7,0_00
- 3,000
7,000
3,000
7,000
3,000
7,000
3,000
7,000f
3,000 ;
7,000
3,000
7,000
3,000
7,000
3,000
7,000
3,000
7,004
3,000
7,0001
3,000 f
- -7,000
3,000
_
7,000_
3,000
56
7,000 7,000 - 7,000
7,000 7,004
57
3,000 3,000 3,000
3,000
3,000
58
1,725_
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
900
1,900
540
1,725
900
1,900
540
1,725
900;
11900
540
1,725
900
1,900
540
1,725
900
1,900
540
59
900 9_00 904
900
1,900
900
1,900
940
1 1,900
900 900 900 900 900 900 9900
60
1,900 1,900
1,900
_
1,900 1,904 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
540 544 544 540 540 540 540
61
540 540
540
540
540
1 540
62
5_85
- 585
585
585
585
5851
585
585T--585
585
585
5851
585
585
585
585
585
63
400
400
400
400
-5851
400_
400
4001
400,
400.
400
9,200
400
9,200
400
9,200
400
9,200 j-
400
9,200
400
9,200
400
9,200
400
9,200
400
9,200
64
9,200
6,750
9,200
---6.750
9,200
9,200
6,750
9,200
9,200
6,750
12,000.
9,200
5,750
12,000
9,200 -
6,750
12,000
9,200
6,750_6,750
12,000
65
_ 6,750
12,000
6,750
6,7501
6,750
8,750
6,750
6,750
6,750
6,750
6,750
66
12,000 12,000
12,000
12,000
- - 12,000
44,000
12,000 f
44,040
12,000
44,000
12,000
44,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000_
67
_ 44,000 44,000
44,000
44,000
+44,000
44,400
44,000
f
44,000
44,000
44,800
44,000
44,000
44,000
44 000
68_
111,690
170,008
69
44,000.
'181,780
1 113,699
44,400 119,770
1 119,520 44,840
553,340 , 80,000 441000 75,690
170,848 61,330 1 53,440 50,100 1
44,000
AG
AH
Al
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN AO
AR AD
AR
AS AT AU AV
1
2
- -
--
3
4
5
6
_
7
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043 2044
2045 2046
2047
2048 2049 2050 i -
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
123,900
- - -
9
-
27,550
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
10
-
209,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
69,420 -
- -
-
- - -
12
-
-
-
-
-
56,000
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
13
9,440
-
-
9,440
-
-
9,440
- -
9,440 -
-
9,440 - -
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
50,400 -
- -
-
- - -
15
-
-
-
_-
-
4,830
-
-
- -
- -
-
4,830 - -
16
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,368 -
- -
-
- - -
17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
70,400 -
- -
-
- - -
18
-
7,050
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
19
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
840
20
-
2,354
-
-
-
-
-
- _
_ -
21
84.0
-
-
-
-
840
-
- -
- 840
22
-
35,000
-
-
-
-
_
_ _
-
23
-
8,700
35,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
- - -
24
25
5,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
26
8,100
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
27
4,750
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
28
8,100
29
5,250
30
8,100
31
4,750
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
32
5,500-
33
4,750
34
55,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
35
-
-
12,000
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
12,000 - -
36
-
-
12,000
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
12,000 - -
37
38
-
-
12,000
-
-
12,000
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
12,000
-
- - -
12,000 - -
39
-
-
- I
-
-
-
12,250
- -
- _
_
_
40
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,400
- -
- -
-
- - -
41
_
9,000
_
_
_
_
_
-
42
-
33,600
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
43
-
5,000
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,100 -
- -
-
- - -
45
-
4,200
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
46
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,000
- -
- -
-
- - -
47
-
8,000
-
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
364,000
- - -
49
-
2,500
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
50
-
-
-
-
5,500
-
-
- -
- -
-
5,500 - -
51
-
20,000
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- - -
52
137,780
401,245
36,000
9,440 T
10,330
56,840
38,690
201,528 -
9,440 840
499,900
55,770 -
53
54
- ---
-
AG
AH
Al
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN
AO
AP
AQ
AR
AS
AT
AU AV
55
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
_
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
56
57
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,004
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
58
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
1,725
59
60
900
1,900
900
900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
900
1,900
1,900
1,900
61
_ 540
585
540
544
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
540
585
62
585
585
63
400
400_
! 400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
64
9,200
_9,200
8,750
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,_200
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,200
9,200
65
6,750
5,750
6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 8,750 6,750 6,750 6,750 6,750
6,750
661
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000 1
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,000
12,0_00
6744,004
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
44,000
60
181,780 1
445,249
80,0001
53,440
54,330100,840
82,6901
245,528
44,000
53,440.
44,840
543,900
99,774
44,000
44,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
(100,000)
(200,06Q)
Vicksburg Crossing Replacement Reserve and Disbursements
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2019
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Actual Reserve Balance Projected Reserve Balance Needed Actual Replacement Disbursements - - Projected Replacement Disbursements
Assumes no additional funding of the reserve and annual operating transfers remain at $72,000. Replacement disbursements have historically been funded through Operating.
Actual Reserve Balance
Projected Reserve Balance Needed
Actual Replacement Disbursements
Projected Replacement Disbursements
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2419 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
60,582 121,095 181,328 243,139 307,336 362,516 421,944 487,960 493,987
628,602 588,912 490,904 518,904 409,124 367,424 395,424 347,654 300,134
13,517 29,103 22,114 21,840 45,911 70,161 52,516 61,512 79,500 111,690 170,008 44,000 181,780 113,699 44,000 119,770 119,520 44,840
•
��
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Actual Reserve Balance Projected Reserve Balance Needed Actual Replacement Disbursements - - Projected Replacement Disbursements
Assumes no additional funding of the reserve and annual operating transfers remain at $72,000. Replacement disbursements have historically been funded through Operating.
Actual Reserve Balance
Projected Reserve Balance Needed
Actual Replacement Disbursements
Projected Replacement Disbursements
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2419 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
60,582 121,095 181,328 243,139 307,336 362,516 421,944 487,960 493,987
628,602 588,912 490,904 518,904 409,124 367,424 395,424 347,654 300,134
13,517 29,103 22,114 21,840 45,911 70,161 52,516 61,512 79,500 111,690 170,008 44,000 181,780 113,699 44,000 119,770 119,520 44,840
2027 2428 2829 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2437 2038 2039 2040 2041 2642 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
327,294 (154,046) (162,046) (134,046) (137,736) (236,584) (225,914) (207,354) (185,454) (157,454) (267,234) (640,483) (648,483) (629,923) (612,253) (641,093) (651,783) (825,311) (797,311) (778,751) (751,591)
553,340 80,000 44,000 75,690 170,848 61,330 53,440 50,100 44,000 181,780 445,249 80,000 53,440 54,330 100,840 82,690 245,528 44,000 53,440 44,840 543,900
2048 2049 2050
(1,223,491) (1,251,261) (1,223,261)
99,770 44,000 44,000
1,000,000
900,0()0
800,0()0
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,()0()
Vicksburg Crossing Replacement Reserve and Disbursements
i
1 ►
l ►
Op
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
� Actual Reserve Balance Projected Reserve Balance Actual Replacement Disbursements - Projected Replacement Disbursements
Assumes a $145,000 one-time funding of the reserve and $122,000 annual operating transfers thereafter. Replacement disbursements have historically been funded through Operating.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Actual Reserve Balani 60,582 121,095 181,328 243,139 307,336 362,516 421,944 487,960 493,987
Projected Reserve Balance 773,769 784,079 736,071 814,071 754,291 762,591 840,591 842,821 845,301 922,461 491,121
Actual Replacement C 13,517 29,103 22,114 21,840 45,911 70,161 52,516 61,512 79,500 111,690 170,008 44,000 181,780 113,699 44,000 119,770 119,520 44,840 553,340 80,000
Projected Replacement Disbursements
2029
2830
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2437
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
533,121
611,121
657,431
608,583
669,254
737,814
809,714
887,714
827,934
504,684
546,684
615,244
682,914
704,074
743,384
619,856
697,856
766,416
843,576
421,676
443,906
521,906
44,000
75,690
170,848
61,330
53,440
50,100
44,000
181,780
445,249
80,000
53,440
54,330
100,840
82,690
245,528
44,000
53,440
44,840
543,900
99,770
44,000
44,000
rp)City of
Plymouth
Adding Quo[ity to Life
SPECIAL
COUNCIL/PLANNING
COMMISSION/HRA
MEETING
April 24, 2018
Agenda 2C
Number:
To: Dave Callister, City Manager
Prepared by: James Barnes, HRA Manager
Reviewed by: Steve Juetten, Community Development Director
Item: TIF District Management Review and Analysis
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the updated Management Review and Analysis for the City of Plymouth's and the Plymouth
Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts.
2. BACKGROUND:
Periodically over the past 10 years, the City has had the financial consultant, Ehlers, provide a review of
all of the City's and HRA's TIF districts. The attached current report has been expanded to include
additional information and data that provide, the City, HRA and staff an opportunity to better oversee
the districts administration.
3. ATTACHMENTS:
2017 Management Review Analysis TIF Districts
Page 1
-0—
Economic Development and Redevelopment
August 2017
Management Review & Analysis
Tax Increment Financing Districts
City of Plymouth, Minnesota
r;pm City of
EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
v ymoui n
vmw,ehters- inc. com
Minnesota phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Offices also in Wisconsin and Illinois fax 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1122
toll free 800-552-1171 Page 2
Table of Contents
Management Review & Analysis...................................................................................................... 3
Overview..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
TIFDistrict Summary................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Obligationsof the TIF Districts.................................................................................................................................................. 7
DeficitPooling Program............................................................................................................................................................. 8
TIFfor Affordable Housing......................................................................................................................................................
13
TIFas a Development Tool......................................................................................................................................................
15
AdministrativeExpenses..........................................................................................................................................................
18
Assumptions..............................................................................................................................................................................
18
Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................................
19
Tax Increment Financing Districts........................................................................................................................................
21
TIFI-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek.........................................................................................................................................
21
TIF1-2 — Vicksburg Commons................................................................................................................................................
29
TIF1-3 — Plymouth Crossroads Station....................................................................................................................................
38
TIF7-4 — Hoyt..........................................................................................................................................................................
45
TIF7-5A — Village at Bassett Creek.........................................................................................................................................
52
TIF7-6 — Berkshire...................................................................................................................................................................
59
TIF7-7 — Stone Creek Village..................................................................................................................................................
67
TIF7-8 — Quest Development..................................................................................................................................................
75
TIF7-9 — Agora........................................................................................................................................................................
82
Appendixof Terms.......................................................................................................................... 86
Mapof the TIF Districts................................................................................................................... 87
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 2
Page 3
Management Review & Analysis
Overview
Revenue from tax increment financing (TIF) districts is a financial asset of the City of Plymouth. This revenue must be used primarily to address
blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district within a specified period of time. The revenue generated is
first used to pay debt service on outstanding bonds, interfund loans and developer pay-as-you-go notes (PAYGO). A portion (but not all) of the
remaining revenues can be used to participate in other eligible development projects. Over the years, the City and HRA have utilized unobligated
revenues from TIF districts to assist the following projects:
• Westview Estates - $600,000 30 -year deferred loan
• HRA Vicksburg Crossing senior housing facility — 10% pooling for bonds, if needed
The management of TIF districts is an ongoing activity. TIF requires administrative oversight for reporting to the State, tracking parcel
information, maintaining compliance with use restrictions in the TIF law and the development agreements, and matching TIF revenue to debt
service. The factors that produce tax increment revenues such as tax rates, assessor's values, and class rates change every year. The State property
tax laws have changed significantly since 1997, including the major reforms enacted in 2001. Reductions in revenue due to the reform and due to
capped tax rates, the City does not have adequate cash flow to pay for the outstanding 2009 general obligation (G.O.) tax increment financing bonds
in District 7-5A and is utilizing deficit pooling from TIF District 7-4 to offset the shortfalls. Some districts, for which project costs were paid
through a "pay-as-you-go" may not meet scheduled principal and interest payments, depending upon future values and rates. The City has no
obligation to make up shortfalls for the "pay-as-you-go" notes.
The revenues from the districts within the City are largely site specific, meaning that the revenues are restricted by law and/or by contract with the
developers. The TIF must be used primarily to address housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district within a specified period
of time. The City has given itself flexibility to utilize TIF on a limited basis for affordable housing or redevelopment outside of the TIF boundaries,
but it has used that authority sporadically.
The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has a TIF division which is mandated by state law to collect annual reporting forms and, if necessary, audit
the use of TIF. Such audits could result in a letter to the county attorney or attorney general for enforcement actions. To date the City and HRA
have not been audited. Due to legislative and market changes and oversight of TIF districts by the OSA, the management of the TIF districts within
the City is an ongoing activity. Ehlers worked with City staff to create the following plan for the management of its TIF districts and their related
obligations.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 3
Page 4
TIF District Summary
Currently there are eight (8) active TIF districts in the City, and one district (7-9 a redevelopment district) adopted by City Council in
February 2017. The City administers six (6) of the Districts and the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) administers the
remaining three (3). Overall the makeup of the types of districts are as follows:
Redevelopment
HRA 2
Redevelopment
City 4
Housinng
HRA 1
Housing
City 2
TOTAL
N/A 9
These Districts are outlined in the chart that follows on the next page. A more detailed explanation of each district can be found starting on
page 21.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 4
Page 5
,i,tMr-rflFT-'r-
TIF 1-2
TIF 1-3
TIF 7-5A
TIF 7-7
TIF 7-8
TIF Authorit
Plymouth
Commons HRA
Crossroads HRA
Cit
Cit
Ci
Ci Village
Development City
Cit
District Type
Redevelopment
Qualified Housing
Redevelopment
Housing
Redevelopment
Housing
Redevelopment
Redevelopment
-Redevelopment
139 sr. apts, two
hotels (Aloft - 95
90 -unit sr. assisted
units and Town Place
96 -unit HRA senior
living facility,
Public
71 for -sale town
Renovation of existing
130 -unit Stone
Suites - 100 units,
Project
housing & 0
50 -unit rental town
McDonalds &
improvements for
homes &
240,000 sq/ft
Creek Village
157 -Unit City Flats
with event space),
etall
Sq/ftrRetail
homes
approximately 35,000
Plymouth
rtmunit
senior apartments
office/warehouse/produ
Apartments
Apartments
19,680 sq/ft of office,
to 48,000 sq/ft
Technology Park
ction facility
61,426 sq/ft of retail &
commercial/office
a 3 -story, 339 -stall
municipal parking
ramp
Adopted
11/23/2004
6/13/2006
10/24/2006
8/1/1995
9/2/1998
10/10/2000
5/14/2002
4/12/2011
1/24/2017
Legal max term
12/31/2031
12/31/2033
12/31/2033
12/31/2022
12/31/2026
12/31/2028
12/31/2028
12/31/2040
12/31/2044
Anticipated term
12/31/2031
12/31/2033
12/31/2025
12/31/2022
12/31/2026
12/31/2018
12/31/2028
12/31/2040
12/31/2044
Obligation end date
2/1/2022
2/1/2027
8/1/2025
Completed
2/1/2023
7/31/2018
2/1/2018
8/1/2040
TBD
First Increment
2006
2008
2008
1997
2001
2003
2003
2015
Anticipated 2019
$250,000 PAYGO
$236,000 30 -year
$835,000 Interfund
Note to Vicksburg
$600,000 30 -year
deferred loan and
Loan from the
CommonsLimited
$1,899,645 PAYGO
deferred loan and
$2,490,000 GO GO
$900,000 PAYGO Note
$1,159,000
$4,500,000 PAYGO
Current Obligations
Construction
Partnersip and
Note to Minnwest
up to $6,900,000
TIF Refunding
to Continential Property
PAYGO Note to
$2,500,000 PAYGO
Note to Rockhill
Improvement Fund
$250,000 Interfund
Bank Metro
Deficit Pooling to
Bonds, Series 2009
Group & deficit pooling
MMA Mortgage
Note to 169/55 LLC
Management LLC
(only $900,000
Loan to Vicksburg
TIF 7-5A
to TIF 7-5A
Investment
authorized)
Commons Limited
Corporation
Ptnsh
Paygo $87,602
Amount outstanding
$634,057
Interfund loan
$ 1,267,235
N/A
$1,485,000
$161,610
$832,405
$2,500,000
N/A
at 02/02/2017
$99,809
10% statutory
27% withheld for
Admin percent
amount but due to
application of the
allowed if PAYGO
10%
5%
10%
10%
deficit pooling will
payment on the
5%
10%
10%
be 0% until bonds
PAYGO. Statutory limit
are paid off in 2023
of 10%
10% additionial
Unlimited pooling
Unlimited pooling
Deficit pooling to
Unlimited pooling
pooling for HRA
for affordable
Up to 25% for legal
for affordable
District 7-5A, 10
for affordable
Vicksburg Crossing
housing as long as
Up to 25% for legal
pooling for other
housing after
additionial pooling for
housing as long as
Up to 25% for legal
Up to 25% for legal
Other Uses
Senior Housing
existing project
pooling for other
redevelopment
Bonds are repaid
HRA Vicksburg
existing project
pooling for other
pooling for other
Bonds or other
maintains
redevelopment
projects and Deficit
as long as existing
Crossing Senior
maintains
redevelopment
redevelopment
types of affordable
affordability and
projects
pooling to District 7-
project maintains
Housing Bonds or other
affordability and
projects
projects
housing
reports to City
5A
affordability and
types of affordable
reports to City
reports to Cit
housing
2017 Estimated TIF
$240,224
$28,964
$282,678
$306,993
$184,169
$217,747
$193,261
$111,868
$0
Rev
Revenue
Fiscal Disparities
B ("inside")
A ('outside")
B ("inside")
B ("inside")
A ('outside")
A ('outside")
A ('outside")
B ("inside")
B ("inside")
Election
Estimated Increased
property tax as a
result of fiscal
N/A
$0
N/A
N/A
$3,011
$30,029
$0
N/A
N/A
disparities election for
Pay 2017
Projected ending
$582,373
$17,299
$168,373
$732,503
$194
$673,058
$74,081
$54,073
$0
2017 fund balance
County Number
2074
1 2075
1 2076
1 2069
1 2071
1 2072
1 2073
1 2077
1 2078
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts August 2017
Plymouth, Minnesota Page 5
Page 6
The fiscal disparities election noted in the chart on the previous page refers to the commercial and industrial (C/I) tax capacity sharing
program that is in effect for the seven -county metropolitan area. It was designed so that local governments could share in the collective
resources of commercial and industrial properties of the region, without creating pressure to compete between local governments for those
resources. Under the program, a percent of C/I tax capacity is contributed to the pool, or removed, from a local government's tax base. In
turn, a certain percent of C/I tax capacity is returned, or distributed back to a local government for computation of the ending local tax rate.
For the City of Plymouth, more C/I tax capacity is contributed to the pool than is distributed back to the City.
For tax increment purposes, fiscal disparities election can be inside (B) the district or outside (A) the district. If tax capacity is calculated
outside the district, or the A election, TIF revenues for a district do not include a deduction for this contribution/distribution mechanism,
which results in more tax increment being available for the project. If tax capacity is calculated inside the district, or the B election, TIF
revenues do include a deduction for the final tax base calculation, which means less tax increment being available for the project. The chart
on the previous page shows the property tax shift under A election, which means that other properties in the City are contributing (tax impact)
toward the fiscal disparities pool rather than C/I properties in the TIF district. Fiscal disparities is calculated on C/I property only so there may
be instances where the district includes only residential property and thus there is no property tax shift under A election.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 6
Page 7
Obligations of the TIF Districts
The revenues from these districts are largely site specific, meaning that the revenues are restricted by law and by contract with developers.
The revenues must be used primarily to address blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district
within
Summary of Outstanding Obligations (after the 2/1/2017 payment)
ay As You Go Obligation
= Bonds and Interfund Loans After 2/1/2017
1-1 Shops at Plymouth Creek Interfund Loan (December 9, 2014)
, •
835,000 1
$
634,057
2/1/2022
1-2 Vicksburg Commons
Vicksburg Commons
$
250,000
$
87,602
1-3 Plymouth Crossroads
Minnwest Bank Metro
$
1,899,645
$
1,353,825
7-6 Berkshire
Continental Property Group
$
900,000
$
89,001
7-7 Stone Creek Village
MMA Mortgage Corporation
$
1,159,000
$
832,405
7-8 Quest Development
169/55 LLC (Quest)
$
2,500,000
$
-
7-9 Agora
Rock Hill Management LLC
$
4,500,000
Not Yet Issued
TOTAL
$
11,208,645
$
2,362,833
= Bonds and Interfund Loans After 2/1/2017
1-1 Shops at Plymouth Creek Interfund Loan (December 9, 2014)
$
835,000 1
$
634,057
2/1/2022
1-2 Vicksburg Commons Interfund Loan
$
250,000
$
99,809
2/1/2027
TIF 7-5A Village at Bassett Creek 2009 GO TIF Refunding Bonds
$
2,490,000
$
1,485,000
2/1/2023
N/A TOTAL
$
3.575.000
$
2.218.865
N/A
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 7
Page 8
Deficit Pooling Program
Introduction:
Tax Increment District No. 7-5A was established as a "housing district" by the City in 1998, for the purpose of financing public improvements
related to the construction of 71 owner -occupied town homes (Village at Bassett Creek) and a 46 -unit, 202 senior rental apartments by Common
Bond (Bassett Creek Commons). Prior to August 1, 2001 the City issued bonds which are considered legally binding obligations that required the
expenditure of future District 7-5A tax increment.
In 2001, the Minnesota legislature enacted sweeping ad valorem property tax changes, effective for taxes payable in 2002. Through a combination
of reduced class rates and a shift in education levies from local government to the state, tax increment generated by districts such as District 7-5A
was reduced significantly.
Recognizing the impact of these property tax changes on existing tax increment districts, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, § 469.1763,
Subdivision 6, permitting authorities to utilize unencumbered tax increment from one district to pay certain deficits in another district, to the extent
the deficits were caused by the legislative action (the "Deficit Pooling Provisions" or the "Act").
Because of the scope of activities undertaken in District 7-5A were City obligations and because these activities were completed only four (4) years
prior to the legislative property tax changes occurred, the City wishes to focus this deficit pooling authority on District 7-5A. Therefore, the aim of
this Program is to utilize legally available revenues from other active City tax increment districts with unencumbered revenues to help offset the
loss of future increment in District 7-5A.
The purpose of this Program, then, is to set forth the legal requirements of the Deficit Pooling Provisions, establish their application to District 7-5A
and describe the methods by which the City shall apply these provisions going forward.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 8
Page 9
The Deficit Pooling Provisions:
To access the right to deficit pool from various tax increment districts to District 7-5A, the following rules must be followed:
The pooled revenues must be utilized solely for "pre-existing obligations," defined as:
• Bonds secured by District 7-5A tax increment and issued before August 1, 2001;
• Bonds secured by District 7-5A tax increment and issued after August 1, 2001, but issued pursuant to a binding contract entered into before
July 1, 2001 that requires issuance of the bonds;
• Bonds secured by District 7-5A tax increment and issued to refund bonds described in (1) and (2);
• Bonds secured by District 7-5A tax increment and issued to reimburse the City for out-of-pocket expenditures made pursuant to a binding
contract entered into before August 1, 2001; and
• Binding contracts entered into before August 1, 2001 and requiring payments secured by tax increment.
There must be a "deficit" in the Pre -Existing Obligations. In other words, the Pre -Existing Obligation must have a debt service schedule so that it
can be determined whether, at any given time, there is, in fact, a deficit.
The Deficit Pooling Provisions initially defined a "deficit" as the lesser of (1)(a) the amount due during the calendar year to pay Preexisting
Obligations minus (b) total increment collected from the District during the year plus (c) total increment that can legally transferred to the District
during the year under Minnesota Statutes, 469.1763, Subdivision 2 (the "Shortfall Amount") OR (2) the reduction in District increment caused by
the 2001 Legislation and similar previous legislative enactments (the Legislative Impact Amount").
The legislature subsequently amended the Deficit Pooling Provisions to authorize annual deficit pooling based solely upon calculation of the
Shortfall Amount (the "Single Calculation Option") so long as the City irrevocably committed to utilization of all future District 7-5A increment
solely for the purpose of paying principal and interest on the Preexisting Obligations
In 2013, the City, elected the Single Calculation Option for the purpose of calculating the deficit in District 7-5A.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 9
Page 10
Pre -Existing Obligations
Following is a summary of the obligations pertaining to District 7-5A that are considered Pre -Existing Obligations:
On October 15, 1998, the City issued $2,900,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds for District 7-5A to finance public improvements for the
District. These bonds were refinanced with the $2,490,000 GO TIF Refunding Bonds, Series 2009. These bonds were issued on November 24,
2009 and are callable on February 1, 2018 and have an end payment date of February 1, 2023.
The Existence of a Deficit:
The formula established by Statute for determining the existence of a "deficit" in any given year can be illustrated as follows:
Deficit = X — (Y + Z)
X = Annual amount due on Pre -Existing Obligations
Y = Annual District revenue derived from tax increment
Z = Project Area Transfer Amount
X — The Annual Amount Due on Pre -Existing Obligations:
The Bonds. All of the $2,900,000 in 1998 Bond proceeds were used to pay for public improvements for the District and, therefore, constitutes a
Pre -Existing Obligation. This bond was refunded by the $2,490,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2009.
Y— Annual District Revenue Derived from Tax Increment:
Revenue derived from tax increment includes actual tax increment collections, proceeds from the sale or lease of property purchased with tax
increment, principal and interest repayments on loans made with tax increment and interest and investment earnings on any of the above.
Z -Project Area Transfer Amount:
TIF Statutes permits a certain amount of increment generated by a district to be expended outside of the generating district (the "Project Area
Transfer Amount"), so long as (1) it is expended within an underlying project area and (2) its use is one that would have constituted a qualified use
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 10
Page 11
within the district.' For all "redevelopment districts" for which the request for certification was made before July 1, 1995, the permissible Project
Area Transfer Amount is 25%. For "housing districts" there is unlimited pooling for other affordable housing projects and they do not need to be
within the Project Area.
Deficit Solution. The above deficit formula solution is detailed by actual and future estimated needs in the table on the following page and is
intended to be updated annually.
Priority Between Pre -Existing Obligations and Priority Between Giving Districts:
In the case of multiple Pre -Existing Obligations, the TIF Statute does not dictate the order of priority of payment from deficit -pooled revenues,
leaving this to the discretion of the City. Pursuant to the City's Deficit Pooling Program, it was determined the order of transfer from these districts
to District 7-5A shall be from 7-4, then 7-6. Following is a chart depicting the annual TIF from District 7-5A, annual Project Area transfers,
expenses, annual deficit, and TIF needed from each "giving" district in order of priority:
$41,185
$0
11M
$60,893
Ir -1
$60,893
$64,306
Income
TIF 7-5A Investment
$64,306
Total
Expenses
bt
Bond DeYear
Annual
$83,993
Increment Income
$83,993
5100,331
Schedule
5100,331
- Actual
$189,515
$0
$189,515
$230,700
$41,185
2017 - Estimate
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$245,063
$60,893
2018 - Projection
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$248,475
$64,306
2019 - Projection
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$261,125
$76,956
2020 - Projection
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$268,163
$83,993
2021 - Projection
5184,169
50
5184,169
5284,500
5100,331
2022 - Projection
$184,169
$0
5184,169
$290,138
$105,968
2023 - Projection
$184,169
$0
5184,169
$300,163
$115,993
2024 - Projection
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$0
$0
2025 - Projection
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$0
$0
2026 - Projection
$184,169
$0
$184,169
$0
$0
TOTAL
$2,031,206
$0
$2,031,206
$2,128,325
$649,627
$41,185
$0
$41,185
$60,893
$0
$60,893
$64,306
$0
$64,306
$76,956
$0
$76,956
$83,993
$0
$83,993
5100,331
50
5100,331
$105,968
$0
$105,968
$115,993
$0
$115,993
N/A
$0
$0
N/A
$0
$0
N/A
$0
$0
$649,627 $
$649,627
' This limitation does not apply to deficit pooling, where the State Auditor has concurred that one can deficit pool between districts without regard to differing qualified
cost limitations. e.g. economic development to redevelopment. However, it does limit the Project Area Transfers that must be achieved before becoming eligible to deficit
pool.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 11
Page 12
As noted, starting in 2023 when the 2009 Bonds are repaid, the amount of increment needed from the "giving" districts, decreases to $0. Overall,
through deficit pooling, the City will be able to repay the bonds.
It is intended that this schedule be updated each year to reflect changes in remaining bond payments, actual increment collections and changes in
Project Area Transfer Amounts, if any.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 12
Page 13
TIF for Affordable Housing
The rules for utilizing TIF for affordable housing are complex. Plymouth has used TIF from some of its districts to assist affordable housing
developments. The statutory authorities for each case are outlined below:
1. Special Pooling Provision for Tax -Credit Eligible Rental Housing. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d), allows the City to
pool up to an additional 10% above the standard allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements, but
does not have 100% of its credit -eligible costs funded by tax credits. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction,
rehabilitation and public improvements directly relate to the housing. This provision does not apply if all of the eligible expenses are funded
through tax credits. This pooling, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 subdivision 4k, can be done without regard to project
area/development district limitations. The 10% calculation begins with the first TIF received after the TIF Plan was modified to allow for this
provision. The HRA has used this provision to assist Plymouth Towne Square senior housing with $80,000 in TIF from District 1-1 in
2015 and approximately $73,000 in 2016. In addition, the HRA could utilize TIF from this district and TIF 7-6 (with City authority) for
not only Plymouth Towne Square but for the Vicksburg Crossing facility as well. The HRA will continue to evaluate and utilize funds
from these Districts as needed (up to the 35% allotted in each TIF plan, net of administrative costs charged to the District).
2. Pooling from Housing Districts. A housing district is established for either rental or owner -occupied housing. The rental housing developments
are income limited to either 20% of the units at 50% or less of median income or 40% of the units at 60% or less of median income, adjusted for
family size. The owner -occupied housing is limited to 100% of median income for families of two or less or 115% for families of three or
more. The rental housing restrictions remain for the life of the TIF district while the owner -occupied restrictions apply only to the first
occupants. If excess funds from a housing district are realized, then 100% of the TIF can be pooled for other housing that meets the same
income limitations, as long as the housing within the District either met the test with the first occupant (owner -occupied projects only) or the
development agrees to continue to keep the units affordable and continue to provide annual reports to the City (rental projects only). This
pooling is not restricted to other parcels in the project area/development district and can be spent anywhere within the City.
The five (5) TIF Districts from which the City and HRA could fund affordable housing are TIF Districts 1-1, 1-2, 7-5A, 7-6 and 7-7. TIF Districts
1-1 and 7-6 can be used for affordable rental housing as noted in #1 above and TIF Districts 1-2, 7-5A and 7-7 can be used for affordable housing as
noted in #2 above. The table on the following page summarizes the amounts that could be available between the five (5) districts:
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 13
Page 14
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
Pooling for
Affordable Rental
TIF 1-1 & 7-6
(Redevelopment)
$ 133,878
$ 45,797
$ 43,349
$ 41,172
$ 41,172
$ 41,172
$ 41,172
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 19,417
$ 19,417
$ 19,417
1 $ 680,052 1
Pooling for Affordable
Housing (#2)
TIF 1-2, 7-5A & 7-7
(Housing)
$ 82,705
$ 7,463
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 379,808
$ 386,687
$ 386,687
$ 216,836
$ 219,138
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 2,949,976
August 2017
Page 14
Page 15
Pooling for Affordable Housing
Year
1-1
1-2
7-5A (Housing)
7-6
7-7
Total
(Redevelopment)
(Housing)
(Redevelopment)
(Housing)
To Date
$
6,700
$
14,749
$
$
127,178
$
67,956
$
216,583
2017
$
24,022
$
2,402
$
$
21,775
$
5,061
$
53,260
2018
$
21,575
$
102
$
$
21,775
$
188,659
$
232,110
2019
$
21,575
$
102
$
$
19,597
$
188,659
$
229,932
2020
$
21,575
$
102
$
$
19,597
$
188,659
$
229,932
2021
$
21,575
$
102
$
$
19,597
$
188,659
$
229,932
2022
$
21,575
$
102
$
$
19,597
$
188,659
$
229,932
2023
$
19,417
$
102
$
-
$
19,597
$
188,659
$
227,775
2024
$
19,417
$
6,981
$
181,307
$
19,597
$
191,520
$
418,823
2025
$
19,417
$
13,860
$
181,307
$
19,597
$
191,520
$
425,702
2026
$
19,417
$
13,860
$
181,307
$
19,597
$
191,520
$
425,702
2027
$
19,417
$
25,315
$
-
$
19,597
$
191,520
$
255,850
2028
$
19,417
$
27,618
$
$
19,597
$
191,520
$
258,153
2029
$
19,417
$
27,618
$
$
-
$
-
$
47,035
2030
$
19,417
$
27,618
$
$
$
$
47,035
2031
$
19,417
$
27,618
$
$
$
$
47,035
2032
$
-
$
27,618
$
-
$
$
$
27,618
2033
$
-
$
27,618
$
-
$
-
$
$
27,618
Total
$
313,352
$
243,484
$
543,922
$
366,699
$
2,162,570
$ 3,630,028
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
Pooling for
Affordable Rental
TIF 1-1 & 7-6
(Redevelopment)
$ 133,878
$ 45,797
$ 43,349
$ 41,172
$ 41,172
$ 41,172
$ 41,172
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 39,015
$ 19,417
$ 19,417
$ 19,417
1 $ 680,052 1
Pooling for Affordable
Housing (#2)
TIF 1-2, 7-5A & 7-7
(Housing)
$ 82,705
$ 7,463
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 188,760
$ 379,808
$ 386,687
$ 386,687
$ 216,836
$ 219,138
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 27,618
$ 2,949,976
August 2017
Page 14
Page 15
TIF as a Development Tool
Continuous redevelopment is vital to maintaining the City's long-term economic health and vitality. Plymouth has utilized TIF for key
redevelopment and housing projects. Utilizing this tool to accomplish the various goals of the City has strengthened the overall diversity of housing
options, land uses and tax base, while increasing employment opportunities. One immediate benchmark of the benefit in utilizing TIF is the overall
increase in market value from when the district was created to when it is fully developed. As illustrated in the following table, the City's overall
market value has increased in the various TIF districts by over 650% as noted in the table below:
TIF 1-1 Shops at Plymouth Creek
6,972,800
24,343,000
249.11%
TIF 1-2 Vicksburg Commons
1,487,700
7,140,000
379.94%
TIF 1-3 Plymouth Crossroads
2,544,100
23,332,000
817.10%
TIF 7-4 Hoyt
440,700
21,836,000
4854.84%
TIF 7-5 Village at Basset Creek
749,694
17,629,140
2251.51%
TIF 7-6 Berkshire
4,200,000
14,460,000
244.29%
TIF 7-7 Stone Creek Village
296,000
17,128,000
5686.49%
TIF 7-8 Quest Development
1,244,900
10,336,000
730.27%
**TIF 7-9 Agora
8,549,000
8,549,000
0.00%
** This District is excluded from the calculation since it is just beinig certified at time of this report
Is the City using the tool too much or not enough? One good way to measure use of TIF is to compare with similar cities in the use of TIF. A
common measure of the use of TIF is the percentage of the gross tax base captured in TIF districts. On the following page is a chart which
demonstrates the City's current and projected tax base which is captured in TIF districts and similar cities' situation.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 15
Page 16
City of Plymouth
Projected Captured TIF Tax Capacity and Comparison with Other Cities
Total Tax Capacity (Gross) 106,455,241 113,659,712 119,316,499 129,056,727 130,347,294 131,650,767 132,967,275 134,296,948 135,639,917 136,996,316
Percentage of Tax Base in TIF 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2%
* Assumes 1% annual increase in tax base and TIF
** After application of fiscal disparties B election
Final Payable 2017
Captured TIF as a Percent
Tax Base
of
City Tax Rate
City Bond
Rating
Minneapolis
8.5%
61.13%
Aa1/AAA
Bloomington
7.8%
40.93%
Current Districts
TIF 1-1 Shops at Plymouth Creek
209,712
209,726
217,317
222,424
224,648
226,895
229,164
231,455
233,770
236,108
TIF 1-2 Vicksburg Commons
33,873
26,193
28,376
31,039
31,349
31,663
31,980
32,299
32,622
32,949
TIF 1-3 Plymouth Crossroads
116,975
293,721
295,229
313,366
316,500
319,665
322,861
326,090
329,351
332,644
TIF 7-4 Hoyt
249,392
246,760
255,640
274,493
277,238
280,010
282,810
285,639
288,495
0
TIF 7-5 Village at Basset Creek
119,598
127,215
167,952
172,951
174,681
176,427
178,192
179,974
181,773
183,591
TIF 7-6 Berkshire
163,362
190,744
193,290
205,950
208,010
0
0
0
0
0
TIF 7-7 Stone Creek Village
134,190
152,922
168,683
180,343
182,146
183,968
185,808
187,666
189,542
191,438
TIF 7-8 Quest Development
0
1,455
1,508
105,052
106,103
107,164
108,235
109,318
110,411
111,515
TIF 7-9 Agora
0
229,319
569,518
575,213
580,965
586,775
Total Captured**
1 1,027,102
1,248,736
1,327,995
1,505,6181
1,520,674
1,555,110
1,908,567
1,927,653
1,946,929
1,675,019
Total Tax Capacity (Gross) 106,455,241 113,659,712 119,316,499 129,056,727 130,347,294 131,650,767 132,967,275 134,296,948 135,639,917 136,996,316
Percentage of Tax Base in TIF 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.2%
* Assumes 1% annual increase in tax base and TIF
** After application of fiscal disparties B election
Final Payable 2017
Captured TIF as a Percent
Tax Base
of
City Tax Rate
City Bond
Rating
Minneapolis
8.5%
61.13%
Aa1/AAA
Bloomington
7.8%
40.93%
Aaa/AAA
Edina
2.6%
28.19%
Aaa/AAA
Eden Prairie
2.6%
32.48%
Aaa
Minnetonka
2.2%
36.38%
Aaa
Brooklyn Park
2.1%
54.37%
AA+
Plymouth
1.2%
26.48%
Aaa/AAA
Maple Grove
0.4%
38.25%
AAA
Golden Valley
0.1%
56.11%
Aa1
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 16
Page 17
As noted in the table on the previous page, the City is below average versus similar cities in the use of TIF. Also shown are comparable
cities' tax rates and bond ratings. Although this is a small sample of municipalities, the amount of TIF used by a city does not seem to
correlate directly with a city's tax rate or bond rating. In conversations with rating agencies, we do know that market value growth is an
important factor in maintaining Plymouth's Aaa/AAA bond rating. Redevelopment plays an important factor in market value growth.
Following is a table which demonstrates the historical market value growth of the City.
2004
7,154,421,600
9.82%
2005
7,948,847,200
11.10%
2006
8,634,475,000
8.63%
2007
9,418,688,200
9.08%
2008
10,041,598,400
6.61%
2009
10,031,989,800
-0.10%
2010
9,582,498,400
-4.48%
2011
9,012,393,300
-5.95%
2012
8,579,997,810
-4.80%
2013
8,473,380,300
-1.24%
2014
8,650,691,024
2.09%
2015
9,321,237,463
7.75%
2016
9,788,873,773
5.02%
2017
10,546,513,938
7.74%
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 17
Page 18
Administrative Expenses
Minnesota TIF law defines certain costs to administer and maintain the district as allowable expenses that can be paid for from tax increment
revenues. The maximum allowed by State law is 10% of expenses. In some cases, the City has reduced the maximum to 5% or less for certain
development agreements. The allowable costs generally include city staff time, legal expenses, financial advisory expenses and publication and
reporting expenses. This allows a city to defray documented staff time, such as finance staff, community development staff, and administration such
as the City Manager. Time spent can be paid for from TIF revenues rather than general property tax or other revenues.
Assumptions
Before discussing the findings of the current TIF analysis, it is important to understand the assumptions used in making these projections.
1. Fund balances shown for TIF funds are based on actual amounts for December 31, 2016.
2. Pay 2016 tax increment revenues are based on City reported actual revenue collections. Pay 2017 revenues are based upon taxable values for
pay 2017 from Hennepin County reports, using actual 2017 tax rates.
Projected revenues do not account for additional development (except the developments under a development agreement) or inflation of
existing values.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 18
Page 19
Recommendations
The updated financial analysis of the HRA's and City's TIF Districts offers the following recommendations:
1. Le, -al Pooling in Districts. Four (4) redevelopment districts have cash balances within them due to funds not being utilized for administration
or other projects within or outside the district. Following is a chart outlining the districts and their cash balances available for pooling as of
May 1, 2017.
for
Year
1.1
1.3
7.4
7.6
Total
(Redevelopment)
(Redevelopment)
(Redevelopment)
(Redevelopment)
To Date
$
361,668
$
141,030
$
471,469
$
483,954
$
1,458,121
2017
$
189,983
$
27,363
$
261,034
$
40,152
$
518,532
2018
$
81,327
$
21,810
$
247,091
$
96,957
$
447,184
2019
$
51,780
$
22,028
$
236,912
$
-
$
310,719
2020
$
51,780
$
22,248
$
108,482
$
-
$
182,510
2021
$
51,780
$
22,471
$
49,691
$
$
123,941
2022
$
51,780
$
22,696
$
48,281
$
$
122,756
2023
$
-
$
22,923
$
-
$
-
$
22,923
2024
$
$
23,152
$
$
$
23,152
2025
$
$
140,209
$
$
-
$
140,209
Total
$
840,095
$
465,930
$
1,422,960
$
621,062
$ 3,350,047
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 19
Page 20
2. Funding for Affordable Housing Proiects. As noted on pages 13 and 14 of this report, there are five (5) TIF Districts from which the City
and HRA could fund affordable housing (TIF Districts 1-1, 1-2, 7-5A, 7-6 and 7-7). TIF Districts 1-1 and 7-6 can be used for affordable rental
housing that meets the requirements for tax credit housing (including use on Plymouth Towne Square and Vicksburg Crossing for capital
improvements) and TIF Districts 1-2, 7-5A and 7-7 can be used for affordable housing that meets the income guidelines for a housing TIF
district. We recommend annually completing the calculations for available TIF and for the City and HRA to determine a plan for use of the
funds. If no use is determined, we recommend decertifying the Districts when their obligations are paid off. In addition, we recommend
monitoring the income restrictions on Districts 1-2, 7-5A and 7-7 after the obligations are paid off to ensure they maintain eligibility
through the life of the district so the City and HRA can utilize the funds for affordable housing.
Six Year Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax
increment generated to pay obligations. We have accounted for this in Districts 1-1, 1-3, 7-4, 7-6 and 7-7. We recommend annually
reviewing this requirement to assure 75% (or 65% for districts 1-1 and 7-6) is utilized to pay any outstanding obligations. In addition, districts
1-1 and 7-6 will require increment to be returned in future years when the obligations are paid off (City and HRA can retain the 10% for
affordable rental housing going forward).
4. Return of Increment on an Annual Basis. TIF District 1-1 and 7-6 have elected the additional 10% for affordable housing projects.
However, their in -district obligations end prior to the end date of the District. The HRA and City will need to annually monitor, calculate and
return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes (inclusive of the 25% admin) in these Districts.
Dericit Pooling. Annually the City Finance Department should review to determine that all revenue derived from District 7-5A tax increment
has been and is applied to the Bonds and make transfers from TIF District 7-4 as needed to cover deficits in the year the deficit occurs.
6. Modification of TIF Plans for Additional 10% TIF for Affordable Housing. The City and HRA could modify the TIF plans for Districts 1-
3, and 7-4 to allow an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing projects. If the City and HRA are interested in this, we recommend
completing an analysis to determine the amount of TIF that would be available under this election.
7. Stone Creek Village Budget Modification. The Developer is required to maintain affordability until 2038 for the project due to their
financing. Since the obligation is paid off in 2018 (second half 2017 TIF), the City will be able to continue to collect eleven (11) more years
of TIF for use on affordable housing projects (2018-2028). We recommend the City modify the TIF Plan to increase the budget to avoid
generating excess increment and maximize the future TIF available for affordable housing projects.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 20
Page 21
Tax Increment Financing Districts
TIF 1-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek
Description:
The Shops at Plymouth Creek (County
number 2074) is a Redevelopment District
established in 2004 and is located within
Redevelopment Project Area No. 1.
Originally, the district encompassed one 28 -
acre parcel of land and was established to
facilitate the redevelopment of the parcel into
a combination of retail (Shops at Plymouth Creek) and senior housing. On February 2, 2005, the HRA entered into a Pledge Agreement with the
City to pledge TIF from the District for repayment of the $1,370,000 General Obligation Bonds issued by the City for public improvements (since
refinanced with interfund loan noted in the Obligations section). In 2010 the HRA modified the District to extend the term of the District from
December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2031 (legal term), to modify the budget to allow the additional 10% pooling for affordable housing purposes
(specifically for the HRA Vicksburg Crossing senior housing facility) and removed parcel 20-118-22-14-0010 (Vicksburg Crossing). In 2015
and 2016, the HRA provided $80,000 and $73,412 respectfully to Plymouth Towne Square senior housing project. The HRA will continue to
evaluate and utilize funds from this District as needed to offset any shortfalls for capital costs of the Plymouth Towne Square senior housing
project and for the Vicksburg Crossing (no approval is needed from the City).
..........................11 /23/2004
3 Date...................12/21/2004
ertified Date ....................04/04/2005
irst Increment .......................06/2006
bligation End Date..............02/01/2022
ec ertifi e s ........................12/31/2031
[odification .....................01 /26/2010
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 21
Page 22
TIF 1-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
Administrative Authority:
The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
Former PID # Former Use New PID # New Use
20-118-22-14-0005
Dane Spicer Industrial 20-118-22-14-0006
20-118-22-14-0002 Manufacturer 20-118-22-14-0007 Shops at Plymouth Creek
20-118-22-14-0008
20-118-22-14-0009
Fiscal Disparities Election:
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2005): 97.3490%
Current (Pay 2017): 108.393%
Allowable Uses:
TIF 1-1— Redevelopment Funds. MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may
be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district.
Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, soils correction, environmental remediation, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities,
road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 22
Page 23
TIF 1-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
TIF 1-1 — Affordable Housing. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d), allows the City to pool up to an additional 10% above
the standard allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements, but does not have 100% of its credit -
eligible costs funded by tax credits. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction, rehabilitation and public improvements
directly relate to the housing. This provision does not apply if all of the eligible expenses are funded through tax credits. This pooling, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 subdivision 4k, can be done without regard to project area/development district limitations. The 10%
calculation begins in with the first TIF received after the TIF Plan was modified to allow for this provision (January 26, 2010).
Obligations:
There is one interfund loan as follows:
• $835,000 Interfund Loan at 4% from the Construction Improvement Fund which was utilized to pay off the 2005A GO TIF bonds. The
HRA approved an interfund loan for up to $900,000 on December 9, 2014 and will be repaid from 65% of the TIF generated from the
District. After the 2/1/2017 payment, the current balance is $634,056.90 and the projected final payment is on February 1, 2022.
Other Development Agreement Compliance:
Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value for each portion of the development shall be in effect until termination of the
District or when the HRA collects $845,765 in TIF. The minimum market values shall be as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Shops at Plymouth Creek as of January 2, 2006 shall be less than $2,875,000 and as of January 2, 2007 shall not be less than
$11,000,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF District terminates.
Lot 2, Block 1, Shops at Plymouth Creek as of January 2, 2006 shall be less than $2,875,000 and as of January 2, 2007 shall not be less than
$6,200,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF District terminates.
Lot 3, Block 1, Shops at Plymouth Creek as of January 2, 2006 shall be less than $1,035,000 and as of January 2, 2007 shall not be less than
$2,000,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF District terminates.
Lot 4, Block 1, Shops at Plymouth Creek as of January 2, 2006 shall be less than $1,552,500 and as of January 2, 2007 shall not be less than
$2,800,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF District terminates.
Lot 5, Block 1, Shops at Plymouth Creek as of January 2, 2006 shall be less than $0 and as of January 2, 2007 shall not be less than
$1,000,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF District terminates.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 23
Page 24
TIF 1-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
Three Year Rule
The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused
public improvements to be constructed in the district. This District met the requirement when the City issued the 2005A GO Tax Increment Bonds
in April 2005.
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit in 2009 to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The four-year deadline was
April 4, 2011 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date.
Five Year Rule:
At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the District must be used to pay for qualified costs within the District. In 2009, the State
Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten (10) years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after
June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. In 2014, the State Legislature again amended the five-year rule limit for Redevelopment districts to eight
(8) years after certification for districts certified after April 20, 2009 and before June 30, 2012. The five-year deadline (10 -year deadline) for this
District is April 4, 2015. This District complied with this rule when the GO TIF Bonds were issued in 2005.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. This District may not be enlarged after April 4, 2010.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 24
Page 25
TIF 1-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
Recommendations.
1. Minimum Assessment Agreement (MAA). Annually assure that the development meets the required MAA amounts.
Additional 10% TIF for Affordable Housing. In 2010 the HRA modified the TIF plan to allow an additional 10% pooling for affordable
housing projects. It is estimated that the balance available at the end of 2031 (legal end term of the District) will be approximately $313,352.
If the City chose to decertify the District when the Bonds are paid off (2/1/22) it is estimated that the balance available at the end of 2021
would be $117,022. This increment may be used to finance improvements to the Plymouth Towne Square facility and the Vicksburg
Crossing facility (up to the 35% allotted in each TIF plan, net of administrative costs charged to the District). In addition, they can be
used to pay credit -eligible costs for tax credit eligible rental projects. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction,
rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing as long as these costs were not funded through tax credits (does not
apply if all eligible expenses are funded through tax credits). The funds can be spent anywhere within the City and do not need to be located
within the Project Area. The income and rent guidelines are defined as follows:
Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at
60% of median income (40/60) and rents for all the income -restricted units must not exceed 30% of the applicable
income limit
2. Use of Legal Pooling Funds. At the end of 2016, there was $361,668 available for legal pooling. It is estimated that there will be
approximately $840,095 available for legal pooling in 2022. We recommend that the HRA develop a plan for use of these funds. If no
pooling is completed, the balance will have to be returned when the district expires.
3. Six Year Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax
increment generated to pay obligations. Because the HRA modified the TIF plan to allow an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing
projects, this requirement is reduced to 65%. We recommend annually reviewing this requirement to assure 65% is utilized to pay the
Interfund Loan (estimated to be repaid by February 1, 2022). After that date (2021 TIF) the City can only retain 10% of the TIF for affordable
housing projects that meet the definition under the Statute through the term of the District, which is December 31, 2031.
4. Return oflncrement on an Annual Basis. Starting in pay 2023 when the Obligation of the District is paid off, the City will need to annually
monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% (10% increase for housing and 25% admin portion) it is retaining for
affordable housing purposes and noted in #1 above (estimated to be approximately $196,000).
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 25
Page 26
TIF 1-1 - Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
Modified
First
Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term
2006 11/23/2004 12/21/2004 4/4/2005 12/31/2031
Interest Income 1.00% I) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time
Admin Expense 1.00% 2) Admin. Expense is currently: for year 2016 2.0% At or Under Limn
3) 25% pooling for redevelopment projects and 10%poolinigforhousingprojects(HRAVicksburgCrossingorotherhousingneeds)
4) Current redevelopment pooling dollars (25%)
5) Current housing pooling dollars (10%)
Revenues Expe
Term Tax Increment Bonds Interestlncome TOTALREVENUES Project Bonds Interfund Loan Admin Expense
'2031 2,900,000 1,500,000 168,000 4,568,000 1,190,000 2,800,000 - 145,000
Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTALEXPENSE Total Budget
433,000 4,568,000 4,568,000
End of District Projected Actual Total 5,547,817 522,670 357,290 6,427,777 1,258,510 1,001,007 130,697 80,843 17,915 153,412 - 2,642,384 2,642,384
r xx
ORIGINAL HSS Geo. Enlargement
District Type
Redevelopment
Project Area
Fiscal Disparities
B Election
County Number
2074
Frozen Rate
UTA#1 97.349% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA#2 0.000%
UTA#3 0.000%
Current Year 2016
Modified
First
Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term
2006 11/23/2004 12/21/2004 4/4/2005 12/31/2031
Interest Income 1.00% I) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time
Admin Expense 1.00% 2) Admin. Expense is currently: for year 2016 2.0% At or Under Limn
3) 25% pooling for redevelopment projects and 10%poolinigforhousingprojects(HRAVicksburgCrossingorotherhousingneeds)
4) Current redevelopment pooling dollars (25%)
5) Current housing pooling dollars (10%)
Revenues Expe
Term Tax Increment Bonds Interestlncome TOTALREVENUES Project Bonds Interfund Loan Admin Expense
'2031 2,900,000 1,500,000 168,000 4,568,000 1,190,000 2,800,000 - 145,000
Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTALEXPENSE Total Budget
433,000 4,568,000 4,568,000
End of District Projected Actual Total 5,547,817 522,670 357,290 6,427,777 1,258,510 1,001,007 130,697 80,843 17,915 153,412 - 2,642,384 2,642,384
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 26
Page 27
CASH FLOWPROJECTIONS
ROLL UP
TAX
CAPACITY
Revenues
Expenditures
Current Local
Affordable
Increment
TIF Year
Year
Base
Current
Fiscal Disparities
Captured
Tax Rate
Tax Increment
Bonds Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES
Project Bonds Interfund Loan Admin Expense
CountyAdmin
Housing
Returned TOTALEXPENSE Ending Balance
9
2015
-
-
-
-
112.547%
2,047,730
522,670 70,196
2,640,596
1,258,510 1,001,007 16,7O0
46,921
4,139
80,000
- 2,407,211
233,319
10
2016
138,706
479,000
122,977
217,317
110554%
239,390
1,941
241,331
- - 30,694
1,315
861
73,412
- 106,282
368,368
11
2017
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
240,224
3,684
243,908
- - 26,639
2,402
861
-
- 29,902
582,373
12
2018
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
5,824
221,572
- - 21,413
2,157
861
-
- 24,431
779,514
13
2019
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
7,795
223,543
- - 16,450
2,157
861
-
- 19,468
983,589
14
2020
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
9,836
225,584
- - 11,449
2,157
861
-
- 14,467
1,194,705
15
2021
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
11,947
227,695
- - 6,246
2,157
861
-
- 9,264
1,413,136
16
2022
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
14,131
229,879
- - 1,106
2,157
861
-
- 4,125
1,638,890
17
2023
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
16,389
232,137
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
1,868,009
18
2024
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
18,680
234A28
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
2,099,419
19
2025
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
20,994
236,742
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
2,333,142
20
2026
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
23,331
239,079
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
2,569,203
21
2027
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
25,692
241,440
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
2,807,625
22
2028
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
28,076
243,824
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
3,048,431
23
2029
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
30,484
246,232
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
3,291,645
24
2030
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
32,916
248,664
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
3,537,291
25
2031
138,706
485,360
124,230
222,424
108.393%
215,748
35,373
251,121
- - -
2,157
861
-
- 3,018
3,785,393
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 26
Page 27
TIF 1-1 - Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan 400,000
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $625,000
Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $6,250,000
TEST 3: Cumulative TI F Admin Allowable (10%) $590,511
Total TIF Revenues for the Project $5,905,107
RESULTS: Admin per TIF Plan
$400,000
Actual Admin Expenses
$80,843
Available Admin
$319,157
Actual Percentage
1.4%
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Accummulated Totals 1 1 Tax Increment
TIF Year
Year
Admin. Expenses
Total
%Allowable
Current Year
Cummulative
Admin Costs
9
2015
46,921
2,117,926
2.2%
2,047,730
2,047,730
46,921
10
2016
48,236
2,359,257
2.0%
239,390
2,287,120
48,236
11
2017
50,638
2,603,165
1.9%
240,224
2,527,344
50,638
12
2018
52,796
2,824,737
1.9%
215,748
2,743,092
52,796
13
2019
54,953
3,048,280
1.8%
215,748
2,958,840
54,953
14
2020
57,111
3,273,864
1.7%
215,748
3,174,588
57,111
15
2021
59,268
3,501,559
1.7%
215,748
3,390,336
59,268
16
2022
61,426
3,731,438
1.6%
215,748
3,606,084
61,426
17
2023
63,583
3,963,575
1.6%
215,748
3,821,832
63,583
18
2024
65,741
4,198,003
1.6%
215,748
4,037,580
65,741
19
2025
67,898
4,434,745
1.5%
215,748
4,253,328
67,898
20
2026
70,056
4,673,825
1.5%
215,748
4,469,076
70,056
21
2027
72,213
4,915,265
1.5%
215,748
4,684,825
72,213
22
2028
74,371
5,159,089
1.4%
215,748
4,900,573
74,371
23
2029
76,528
5,405,322
1.4%
215,748
5,116,321
76,528
24
2030
78,685
5,653,986
1.4%
215,748
5,332,069
78,685
25
2031
80,843
5,905,107
1.4%
215,748
5,547,817
80,843
Redevelopment
Yes
12/21/2004
Yes
10%
35%
25% Spent Outside for
Cumulative
Annual
1u%
Spent For
Cumulative
Annual
for Qualified Qualified
Available for
Available for
for Affordable
Affordable
Available for
Available for
edevelopment Redevelopment
Pooling
Pooling
Housing Costs
Housing
Pooling
Pooling
465,012
177,146
177,146
136,173
80,000
56,173
56,173
58,532
361,668
184,522
23,939
73,412
6,700
23,939
57,654
551,651
189,983
24,022
-
30,723
24,022
51,779
632,977
81,327
21,575
52,297
21,575
51,780
684,757
51,780
21,575
73,872
21,575
51,779
736,536
51,780
21,575
95,447
21,575
51,780
788,316
51,780
21,575
117,022
21,575
51,779
840,095
51,780
21,575
138,597
21,575
-
840,095
-
19,417
158,014
19,417
840,095
19,417
177,431
19,417
840,095
19,417
196,849
19,417
840,095
19,417
216,266
19,417
840,095
19,417
235,683
19,417
840,095
19,417
255,100
19,417
840,095
19,417
274,518
19,417
840,095
19,417
293,935
19,417
840,095
19,417
313,352
19,417
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 27
Page 28
TIF 1-1 — Shops at Plymouth Creek Continued
2/1/2015 835,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
835,000.00
1 -Feb
2015
0.0
835,000.0
44,797.86
16,700.00
1,497.86
790,202.17—
1 -Aug
2015
0.5
790,202.14
45,693.82
15,804.04
61,497.86
744,508.33
1 -Feb
2016
1.0
744,508.33
46,607.69
14,890.17
61,497.86
697,900.64
1 -Aug
2016
1.5
697,900.64
63,843.74
13,958.01
77,801.75
634,056.90
1 -Feb
2017
2.0
634,056.90
65,391.70
12,681.14
78,072.84
568,665.21
1 -Aug
2017
2.5
568,665.21
66,699.54
11,373.30
78,072.84
501,965.67
1 -Feb
2018
3.0
501,965.67
60,078.80
10,039.31
70,118.11
441,886.87
1 -Aug
2018
3.5
441,886.87
61,280.37
8,837.74
70,118.11
380,606.49
1 -Feb
2019
4.0
380,606.49
62,505.98
7,612.13
70,118.11
318,100.51
1 -Aug
2019
4.5
318,100.51
63,756.10
6,362.01
70,118.11
254,344.41
1 -Feb
2020
5.0
254,344.41
65,031.22
5,086.89
70,118.11
189,313.18
1 -Aug
2020
5.5
189,313.18
66,331.85
3,786.26
70,118.11
122,981.33
1 -Feb
2021
6.0
122,981.33
67,658.48
2,459.63
70,118.11
55,322.85
1 -Aug
2021
6.5
55,322.85
55,322.85
1,106.46
56,429.31
0.00
1 -Feb
2022
1 7.0
TOTALS
835.000.00
130,697.09
965.697.09
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 28
Page 29
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons
Description:
Vicksburg Commons (County number 2075) is a Qualified Housing District established in 2006 and is
located within Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. Originally, the district encompassed a 19.53 -acre
parcel of land and was established to facilitate the development of a 50 -unit rental town home project,
of which 100% of the units would be affordable to persons or families at or below 50% of the area
median income. In October of 2006, the HRA entered into a development agreement with Vicksburg
Commons Limited Partnership (Common Bond). In it, the HRA agreed to loan $250,000 to the
Developer, which would be payable from 50% of the tax increment received from the TIF district,
after application of a 5% reduction for
administrative costs. In addition, the HRA
agreed to reimburse the Developer for
public improvement costs and issued a
Tax Increment Note in the amount of
$250,000, payable from the remaining
50% of tax increment revenues at 6%
interest.
Adopted ...........................06/ 13/2006
Requested Date ...................06/29/2006
Certified Date ....................07/17/2006
First Increment .......................06/2008
Obligation End Date..............02/01/2027
Decertifies ........................12/31/2033
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 29
Page 30
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons Continued
Administrative Authority:
The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
04-118-22-22-0001 1 Vacant Land 1 04-118-22-22-0005
Fiscal Disparities Election:
Vicksburg Commons Rental Town Homes (4d
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district. This election does not have a financial effect on the district
because it contains only non-commercial properties, which do not contribute to the fiscal disparities pool.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2007): 93.6530%
Current (Pay 2017): 107.056%
Allowable Uses:
MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4d specifies the activities on which tax increment from a housing district may be spent. In general, tax increment must
be spent on housing projects meeting the income guidelines, public improvements directly related to housing projects and administrative
expenses. The City has used increment from this district to support affordable housing initiatives, in compliance with TIF law.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 30
Page 31
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons Continued
Obligations:
There is currently two (2) PAYGO Notes in this District as follows:
$250,000 PAYGO Note at 6.00% interest. The Note was issued on issued on October 31, 2006, to Vicksburg Commons Limited
Partnership. The Note is payable from 50% of the increment received from the District, after deducting the HRA's 5% administrative
fee, and is payable from August 1, 2008 through February 1, 2034. After the 2/1/2017 payment, the current balance is $87,601.92 and
the projected final payment is on August 1, 2025. The maximum capitalized interest paid on the Note shall not exceed and shall not
be less than $35,210.21 as provided in the TIF Plan. To date $19,451.16 was paid in capitalized interest. In addition, the maximum
total Note payments cannot exceed $546,480.87. To date at total of $272,867.85 has been paid on the Note.
• $250,000 loan at 6.00% interest. The Loan was made on October 31, 2006 to Vicksburg Commons Limited Partnership. The Note is
payable from 50% of the increment received from the District, after deducting the HRA's 5% administrative fee, and is payable from
August 1, 2008 through February 1, 2034. After the 2/1/2017 payment, the current balance is $99,808.51 and the projected final payment
is on February 1, 2027. The maximum capitalized interest paid on the Loan shall not exceed and shall not be less than $35,210.21
as provided in the TIF Plan. To date $19,451.16 was paid in capitalized interest.
Income Compliance Requirements:
Income limitations are required to be monitored on an on-going basis for a Housing District. The Authority is required to substantiate that the
applicable income limitations and rent restrictions are being met on an annual basis for rental. The compliance must be completed regardless of
whether the project receives tax credits or not, pursuant to 469.174 sub 11. The Developer has been submitting the required documentation by
February 1 on an annual basis and have continued to meet the requirement that 100% of the units are affordable to persons and families at or
below 50% of the area median income (AMI). If the income of an individual or family occupying the project increases above 50% but not greater
than 125% of the AMI, then the unit will continue to be incompliance. This income requirement is required to stay in place through the term
of the Agreement.
Other Development Agreement Compliance:
1. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2007 shall be $2,643,000 and as of January 2, 2008 shall be
$6,835,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF District terminates.
M� Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 31
Page 32
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons Continued
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The four-year deadline was July 17,
2012. During research done in order to comply with this rule, staff discovered certain parcels needed to be removed from the District. The
HRA took action to remove the parcels by resolution. After subsequent communication with the County, these parcels were removed for
payable 2013.
Five Year Rule:
The five-year rule is not applicable to housing districts.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. This District may not be enlarged after July 17, 2011.
Recommendations:
1. Income Verification. The HRA will need to continue to receive and keep income verification reports for the project to assure that 100% of
the units are affordable to persons at or below 50% of the AMI.
2. Decertification of the District. The District's obligations will be paid off on February 1, 2027 (pay 2026 TIF). The HRA should discuss with
the Developer their plans for maintaining the project's affordability longer than the required term of the obligation. If they choose to not
maintain the affordability, the HRA will need to decertify the TIF district for Pay 2027. If they choose to maintain the affordability, the will
need to continue to report to the HRA on an annual basis.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 32
Page 33
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons Continued
3. Use of Increment. If the Developer agrees to maintain the affordability after 2026, the HRA will be able to continue to collect seven (7)
more years of TIF for use on affordable housing projects (2027-2033). It is estimated that the balance available at the end of 2033 will be
approximately $255,256 (balance would be $54,543 at the end of 2026). This increment may be used to pay eligible costs for "housing
projects" as defined by MS 469.174, Subd. 11, located anywhere within the City limits. A housing project is a rental or owner -occupied
housing development intended for occupancy by low and moderate income families. The income guidelines are defined in MS 469.1761 as
follows:
Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at
60% of median income (40/60).
Owner Occupied: Assistance to home owner's with an income at or below 100% of the median income for a family of two or less or
115% of the median income for a family of three or more.
Typically, TIF is utilized for capital expenditures, but may be used for non -capital expenditures on a limited basis. Examples of potential
rental housing projects would include:
1. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election)
2. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election)
3. Providing subsidy to an existing project that is earmarked for additional affordability (20/50 or 40/60 election)
Examples of potential owner -occupied projects would include:
1. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction
2. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers
3. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners)
4. Second mortgages to qualified home buyers
In order for the HRA to continue to utilize these funds for housing projects, the development is required to continue to meet income guidelines
and report them annually to the HRA (100% of the units affordable at 50% of AMI). The HRA needs to annually monitor the income
verification to assure that the existing income requirements are met. If the income requirements are not met on any given year, then the HRA
will need to return that year's increment to the County for redistribution.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 33
Page 34
TIF 1-2 - Vicksburg Commons Continued
r ,• , ,
ORIGINAL HSS Geo. Enlargement Interest Income 1.00%
District Type Housing Admin Expense 2.75%
Project Area
Fiscal Disparities A Election
County Number 2075
Frozen Rate UTA#1 93.653% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA#2 0.000%
UTA#3 0.000%
Current Year 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Unlimited pooling for affordable housing - approximately $28O,O0O at end of District term
2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time.
3) Admin. Expense is currently: 4.8% At or Under Limit
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 34
Page 3 5
Decertifies
Revenues
Expenditures
First
Receipt City Approved Cert Request
Certified
Legal Term
Expected Term
Tax Increment
Credits
Interestlncome Loan Proceeds TOTALREVENUES
Project
Paygo
Admin Expense
CountyAdmin Outside District
Other Expense
TOTAL EXPENSE
Total Budget
Original Budget
2008 6/13/2006
6/30/2006
7/17/2O06
12/31/2033
12/31/2033
1,360,000
-
20,000 500,000
1,880,000
500,000
1,241,579
68,000
- -
70,421
1,880,000
1,880,000
Cumulative Modified
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
End of District Projected Actual Total
1,057,005
12,526
12,394
1,081,925
756,981
40,915
12,713
826,669
810,609
Under/
(Over) Budget
302,995
(12,526)
7,606 500,000
798,075
500,000
484,598
27,085
(12,713) -
70,421
1,053,331
1,069,391
CASH FLOW PROJECHONS ROLL
UP
TAX CAPACITY
Revenues
Expenditures
Increment
Current Local
TIF Year
Year
Base
Current
Fiscal Disparities
Captured
Tax Rate
Tax Increment
Credits
Interest Income Loan Proceeds TOTAL REVENUES
Project
Paygo
Admin Expense
County Admin Affordable Housing
Returned
TOTAL EXPENSE
Ending Balance
7
2015
-
-
-
-
110.935%
541,021
12,526
501 -
554,048
-
508,289
26,641
2,813 -
-
537,743
16,305
8
2016
14,877
43,253
-
28,376
109.046%
23,591
121
23,712
-
23,985
733
550 -
-
25,268
14,749
9
2017
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
147
29,112
-
25,216
797
550 -
-
26,562
17,299
10
2018
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
173
29,137
-
27,516
797
550 -
-
28,863
17,574
11
2019
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
176
29,140
-
27,516
797
550 -
-
28,863
17,851
12
2020
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
179
29,143
-
27,516
797
550 -
-
28,863
18,131
13
2021
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
181
29,146
-
27,516
797
550 -
-
28,863
18,414
14
2022
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
184
29,148
-
27,516
797
550 -
-
28,863
18,700
15
2023
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
187
29,151
-
27,516
797
550 -
-
28,863
18,989
16
2024
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
190
29,154
-
20,637
797
550 -
-
21,984
26,159
17
2025
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
262
29,226
-
13,758
797
550 -
-
15,105
40,281
18
2026
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
403
29,367
-
13,758
797
550 -
-
15,105
54,543
19
2027
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
545
29,510
-
2,302
797
550 -
-
3,649
80,404
20
2028
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
804
29,768
-
Will keep district
797
550 -
-
1,347
108,826
21
2029
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
1,088
30,053
-
open after PAYGO
797
550 -
-
1,347
137,532
22
2030
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
1,375
30,340
issuming develope
797
550 -
-
1,347
166,525
23
2031
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
1,665
30,630
-
is willing to keep
797
550 -
-
1,347
195,808
24
2032
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
1,958
30,922
-
original project
797
550 -
-
1,347
225,384
25
2033
14,877
45,916
-
31,039
107.056%
28,964
2,254
31,218
-
affordable.
797
550 -
-
1,347
255,256
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 34
Page 3 5
TIF 1-2 - Vicksburg Commons Continued
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan 68,000
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $138,000
Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $1,380,000
TEST 3: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
Total TIF Revenues for the Project
$106,940
$1,069,399
RESULTS: Admin per TIF Plan
$68,000
Actual Admin Expenses
$40,915
Available Admin
$27,085
Actual Percentage
3.8%
Accummulated Totals
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 30%):
Total Pooling %:
Tax Increment
TIF Year
Year
Admin. Expenses
Total
%Allowable
2,402
Current Year
Cummulative
Admin Costs
100% for Affordable
Housing
7 2015
26,641 541,522 4.9%
553,547 553,547 26,641
526,906
8
2016
27,374
565,234
4.8%
6,981
23,591
577,138
27,374
22,858
9
2017
28,171
594,346
4.7%
27,618
28,964
606,102
28,171
28,168
10
2018
28,967
623,483
4.6%
28,964
635,067
28,967
28,168
11
2019
29,764
652,623
4.6%
28,964
664,031
29,764
28,167
12
2020
30,560
681,766
4.5%
28,964
692,995
30,560
28,168
13
2021
31,357
710,912
4.4%
28,964
721,960
31,357
28,168
14
2022
32,153
740,060
4.3%
28,964
750,924
32,153
28,168
15
2023
32,950
769,211
4.3%
28,964
779,888
32,950
28,168
16
2024
33,746
798,366
4.2%
28,964
808,852
33,746
28,167
17
2025
34,543
827,591
4.2%
28,964
837,817
34,543
28,168
18
2026
35,339
856,959
4.1%
28,964
866,781
35,339
28,168
19
2027
36,136
886,468
4.1%
28,964
895,745
36,136
28,168
20
2028
36,932
916,237
4.0%
28,964
924,710
36,932
28,167
21
2029
37,729
946,289
4.0%
28,964
953,674
37,729
28,168
22
2030
38,525
976,629
3.9%
28,964
982,638
38,525
28,168
23
2031
39,322
1,007,258
3.9%
28,964
1,011,603
39,322
28,168
24
2032
40,118
1,038,181
3.9%
28,964
1,040,567
40,118
28,168
25
2033
40,915
1,069,399
3.8%
28,964
1,069,531
40,915
28,167
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
Housing
Yes
6/30/2006
No
0%
100%
Outside
Cumulative
Available for Annual Available
Pooling for Pooling
16,305
16,305
14,749
14,749
17,151
2,402
17,253
102
17,355
102
17,456
102
17,558
102
17,660
102
17,762
102
24,742
6,981
38,602
13,860
52,462
13,860
77,777
25,315
105,395
27,618
133,013
27,618
160,631
27,618
188,248
27,618
215,866
27,618
243,484
27,618
August 2017
Page 35
Page 36
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons Continued
City of Plymouth
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Principal Ledger - Vicksburg Commons
PAYGO Note
Principal Amount
Note Issue •.
Final Payment
Date
$ 250,000
• 0.
1 -Feb -34
Interest Due
Total Tax Tax
Increment
Available (95%)
Increment
Available at Total
00%
Interest Rate
Payments
6.00%
Note Balance
10/31/2006
$ 250,000.00
2/1/2007
3,780.82
$
$ 253,780.82
8/1/2007
7,613.42
$ 261,394.25
2/1/2008
7,841.83
$ 269,236.07
8/1/2008
8,077.08
7,862.00
7,862.00
$ 269,451.16
2/1/2009
8,083.53
8,294.88
16,156.88
$ 269,239.81
8/1/2009
8,077.19
34,091.00
50,247.88
$ 243,226.01
2/1/2010
7,296.78
17,377.25
67,625.13
$ 233,145.54
8/1/2010
6,994.37
-
6,973.81
74,598.94
$ 233,166.09
2/1/2011
6,994.98
42,165.00
39,074.64
113,673.58
$ 201,086.43
8/1/2011
6,032.59
42,165.00
22,071.17
135,744.75
$ 185,047.86
2/1/2012
5,551.44
53,074.80
24,201.75
159,946.50
$ 166,397.54
8/1/2012
4,991.93
53,074.80
28,012.38
187,958.88
$ 143,377.09
2/1/2013
4,301.31
18,049.00
28,012.38
215,971.26
$ 119,666.02
8/1/2013
3,589.98
18,049.00
8,573.35
224,544.61
$ 114,682.65
2/1/2014
3,440.48
17,093.50
8,573.35
233,117.96
$ 109,549.78
8/1/2014
3,286.49
17,093.50
8,119.79
241,237.75
$ 104,716.49
2/1/2015
3,141.49
12,952.50
8,119.79
249,357.54
$ 99,738.19
8/1/2015
2,992.15
12,952.50
6,152.39
255,509.93
$ 96,577.95
2/1/2016
2,897.34
12,952.50
6,152.39
261,662.32
$ 93,322.89
8/1/2016
2,799.69
13,253.45
6,626.82
268,289.14
$ 89,495.76
2/1/2017
2,684.87
9,157.42 4,578.71
272,867.85
$ 87,601.92
8/1/2017
2,628.06
13,758.05
6,879.02
279,746.87
$ 83,350.96
2/1/2018
2,500.53
13,758.05
6,879.02
286,625.90
$ 78,972.46
8/1/2018
2,369.17
13,758.05
6,879.02
293,504.92
$ 74,462.62
2/1/2019
2,233.88
13,758.05
6,879.02
300,383.94
$ 69,817.47
8/1/2019
2,094.52
13,758.05
6,879.02
307,262.96
$ 65,032.97
2/1/2020
1,950.99
13,758.05
6,879.02
314,141.99
$ 60,104.94
8/1/2020
1,803.15
13,758.05
6,879.02
321,021.01
$ 55,029.06
2/1/2021
1,650.87
13,758.05
6,879.02
327,900.03
$ 49,800.91
8/1/2021
1,494.03
13,758.05
6,879.02
334,779.06
$ 44,415.92
2/1/2022
1,332.48
13,758.05
6,879.02
341,658.08
$ 38,869.37
8/1/2022
1,166.08
13,758.05
6,879.02
348,537.10
$ 33,156.43
2/1/2023
994.69
13,758.05
6,879.02
355,416.12
$ 27,272.10
8/1/2023
818.16
13,758.05
6,879.02
362,295.15
$ 21,211.24
2/1/2024
636.34
13,758.05
6,879.02
369,174.17
$ 14,968.56
8/1/2024
449.06
13,758.05
6,879.02
376,053.19
$ 8,538.59
2/1/2025
610.88
13,287.50
6,643.75
366,252.95
$ 2,505.72
/20251
13,287.50
3,134.93
366,252.95
$ 0.00
TOTAL
135,831.87
554,978.65
385,831.87
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 36
Page 37
TIF 1-2 — Vicksburg Commons Continued
City of Plymouth
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Principal Ledger - Vicksburg Commons
Internal Loan from Reserve Fund
Principal Amount
Loan Issue Date
$ 250,000
Interest Rate
6.00%
Final Payment
Date
Interest Due
Total Tax Tax
Increment
Available
Increment
Available at
50.00% Total
Payments
Note Balance
10/31/2006
$ 250,000.00
2/1/2007
3,780.82
$ 253,780.82
8/1/2007
7,613.42
$ 261,394.25
2/1/2008
7,841.83
$ 269,236.07
8/1/2008
8,077.08
7,862.00
7,862.00
$ 269,451.16
2/1/2009
8,083.53
8,294.88
16,156.88
$ 269,239.81
8/1/2009
8,077.19
34,091.36
50,248.24
$ 243,225.65
2/1/2010
7,296.77
17,377.25
67,625.49
$ 233,145.16
8/1/2010
6,994.35
-
17,630.67
85,256.16
$ 222,508.85
2/1/2011
6,675.27
42,165.00
19,537.32
104,793.48
$ 209,646.79
8/1/2011
6,289.40
42,165.00
22,071.17
126,864.65
$ 193,865.03
2/1/2012
5,815.95
53,074.80
24,201.75
151,066.40
$ 175,479.23
8/1/2012
5,264.38
53,074.80
28,012.38
179,078.78
$ 152,731.23
2/1/2013
4,581.94
18,049.00
28,011.21
207,089.99
$ 129,301.95
8/1/2013
3,879.06
18,049.00
8,573.36
215,663.35
$ 124,607.65
2/1/2014
3,738.23
17,093.50
8,573.36
224,236.71
$ 119,772.52
8/1/2014
3,593.18
17,093.50
8,119.79
232,356.50
$ 115,245.91
2/1/2015
3,457.38
12,952.50
8,119.79
240,476.29
$ 110,583.49
8/1/2015
3,317.50
12,952.50
6,152.39
246,628.68
$ 107,748.61
2/1/2016
3,232.46
13,253.64
6,152.39
252,781.07
$ 104,828.68
8/1/2016
3,144.86
13,253.45
6,626.73
259,407.80
$ 101,346.81
2/1/2017
3,040.40
9,157.42 4,578.71
263,986.51
$ 99,808.51
8/1/2017
2,994.26
13,758.05
6,879.02
270,865.53
$ 95,923.74
2/1/2018
2,877.71
13,758.05
6,879.02
277,744.55
$ 91,922.43
8/1/2018
2,757.67
13,758.05
6,879.02
284,623.57
$ 87,801.08
2/1/2019
2,634.03
13,758.05
6,879.02
291,502.60
$ 83,556.09
8/1/2019
2,506.68
13,758.05
6,879.02
298,381.62
$ 79,183.75
2/1/2020
2,375.51
13,758.05
6,879.02
305,260.64
$ 74,680.24
8/1/2020
2,240.41
13,758.05
6,879.02
312,139.66
$ 70,041.62
2/1/2021
2,101.25
13,758.05
6,879.02
319,018.69
$ 65,263.85
8/1/2021
1,957.92
13,758.05
6,879.02
325,897.71
$ 60,342.74
2/1/2022
1,810.28
13,758.05
6,879.02
332,776.73
$ 55,274.00
8/1/2022
1,658.22
13,758.05
6,879.02
339,655.76
$ 50,053.20
2/1/2023
1,501.60
13,758.05
6,879.02
346,534.78
$ 44,675.77
8/1/2023
1,340.27
13,758.05
6,879.02
353,413.80
$ 39,137.02
2/1/2024
1,174.11
13,758.05
6,879.02
360,292.82
$ 33,432.11
8/1/2024
1,002.96
13,758.05
6,879.02
367,171.85
$ 27,556.05
2/1/2025
826.68
13,758.05
6,879.02
374,050.87
$ 21,503.71
8/1/2025
645.11
13,758.05
6,879.02
380,929.89
$ 15,269.80
2/1/2026
458.09
13,758.05
6,879.02
387,808.92
$ 8,848.87
8/1/2026
265.47
13,758.05
6,879.02
394,687.94
$ 2,235.31
2/1/2027
67.06
13,758.05
2,302.37
396,990.31
$ 0.00
TOTAL
146,990.31
597,495.02
396,990.31
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 37
Page 38
TIF 1-3 — Plymouth Crossroads Station
Description.
Plymouth Crossroads (County number 2076) is a
Redevelopment District established in 2006 and is located
within Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. Originally, the , f
district encompassed 18.26 acres on 6 parcels of land and was _ =� j•.'; " M
established to facilitate the redevelopment of the Plymouth �r;; �..... ., , r +� ON
Crossroads Station. Originally, the City signed a development '` r " ��_ �� i +1 a' 10 n
agreement with Dove Capital I, LLC on May 1, 2007. Dove in::: D.Aim'" a 11.I.. n
-r_ —,.
ZZ7 -As
Capital, went out of business and the property reverted to the
r
bank. On May 1, 2011, the HRA approved assistance to
Oppidan (dba KTJ 198, LLC) and its sub developers for a
multi -phase development including four-story, 90 -unit senior
assisted living complex, a McDonalds, and approximately 35,000 to 48,000 square feet of commercial/retail and/or office. On May 1, 2014, the
HRA issued a TIF Note to KTJ 198 LLC who in turn assigned it to Minnwest Bank Metro on February 1, 2014. On March 10, 2014, a total of
$225,000 was paid on the Note from cash accumulated in the district to date. The term of the note is through August 1, 2029 and is expected to be
paid in full, assuming the office building in the district is built as expected.
In 2008, the City approved a $138,500 Interfund Loan from its Water Resource Fund. The Loan was approved to finance improvements to a
culvert that goes under Highway 55. Of the amount authorized, $40,304 was advanced in 2008 and paid in full by year ended 2009.
Adopted ...........................10/24/2006
Requested Date ...................02/01/2007
Certified Date....................05/10/2007
First Increment .......................07/2008
Obligation End Date..............08/01/2025
Decertifies ........................12/31/2033
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 38
Page 39
TIF 1-3 — Plymouth Crossroads Station Continued
Administrative Authority:
The Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
Former PID #
Former Use
New PID #
New Use
36-118-22-23-0006
(Southeast quarter of NE
Shopping Mall
35-118-22-14-0029
Waters Senior Apartments
quarter, Section 35, Town
118, Range 22)
38-118-22-23-0006
(Southwest quarter of NW
Shopping Mall
35-118-22-14-0030
McDonalds
quarter, Section 36, Town
118, Range 22)
36-118-22-23-0007
Vacant Land
35-118-22-14-0031
Storm Water Pond
36-118-22-23-0008
Vacant Land
35-118-22-14-0032
Vacant Land
35-118-22-17-0026
Vacant Land
36-118-22-23-0006
Vacant Land
Vacated Hwy 55 ROW
ROW
38-116-22-23-0058
Vacant Land
Fiscal Disparities Election:
County reports show the district as having an A election. TIF Plan documents indicate B election. Staff has reviewed this and the County
concurred that it should be B election. The County originally agreed to make this change this for taxes payable 2011, but that did not occur. Staff
requested that the County change the fiscal disparities calculation for payable 2018 and the County has stated they will make the change.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2007): 90.533%
Current (Pay 2017): 107.550%
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 39
Page 40
TIF 1-3 — Plymouth Crossroads Station Continued
Allowable Uses:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment
must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property
acquisition, demolition, soils correction, environmental remediation, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking
facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
Obligations:
There is currently one PAYGO Note in this District as follows:
• $1,899,645 PAYGO Note at 6.00% interest. The Note was issued on issued on February 1, 2014, to KTJ 198 LLC (Oppidan) and the
Note was assigned to Minnwest Bank Metro on February 2, 2014. The Note is payable from 90% of the increment received from the
District and is payable from February 1, 2014 through February 1, 2034. After the 2/1/2017 payment, the current balance is
$1,353,825.28 and the projected final payment is on August 1, 2025.
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The four-year deadline was May 11,
2013.
Five Year Rule:
At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the District must be used to pay for qualified costs within the District. In 2009, the State
Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten (10) years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after
June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. In 2014, the State Legislature again amended the five-year rule limit for Redevelopment districts to eight
(8) years after certification for districts certified after April 20, 2009 and before June 30, 2012. The five-year deadline (10 -year deadline) for this
District is May 10, 2017.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 40
Page 41
TIF 1-3 — Plymouth Crossroads Station Continued
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. The District may not be enlarged after May 11, 2012.
Recommendations:
1. Fiscal Disparities Election. Fiscal disparities should be calculated under the "b" election (inside the TIF District). The County has been
calculating this election under option "a". They have been notified and stated they will make the correction for pay 2018. The City should
review the calculations in 2018 to assure this is completed.
2. Six Year Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax
increment generated to pay obligations. We recommend annually reviewing this requirement to assure 75% is utilized to pay the TIF Note
(estimated to be repaid by August 1, 2025).
3. Additional 10% TIF for Affordable Housing. The HRA could modify the TIF plan to allow an additional 10% pooling for affordable
housing projects. If the HRA is interested in this, we recommend completing an analysis to determine the amount of TIF that would be
available under this election.
4. Decertification. If the HRA chooses to not modify the TIF plan to allow for the additional dollars to be utilized for affordable housing, this
district will need to be decertified early when the Note is paid in full, which is estimated to be August 2025 (current term is December 31,
2033).
5. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. Currently there is approximately cash balance $141,030 in the District for use on redevelopment
projects, which represents the actual cash balance at December 31, 2016 after the obligation payments are made. It is estimated that there will
be approximately $465,930 available for use when the obligations are paid in 2025. We recommend that the HRA update its pooling analysis
and develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the balance will need to be returned either when the district expires or
when the obligation is paid.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 41
Page 42
TIF 1-3 - Plymouth Crossroads Station Continued
I
JI71NlM�IPIi11�U4D11U1PL
Outside District Returned TOTAL EXPENSE
ORIGINAL HSS Geo. Enlargement Interest Income 1.00%
District Type
Redevelopment Admin Expense 0.50%
Project Area
737,711
Fiscal Disparities
B Election
County Number
2076
Frozen Rate
UTA#1 90.533% 0.000% 0.000%
295,229
UTA#2 0.000%
280,524
UTA#3 0.000%
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Limited Pooling options available
2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time
3) Admin. Expense is currently: 4.0% At or Under limit
4) Fiscal Disparities Election Bshould becorrected with the County for Pay 2O18.
5) District should be decertified early when the Paygo Obligation is paid in full (2025).
6) Remaining fund balance can be used for Admin or Pooling.
Decertifies Revenues Expenditures
First
Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Other Revenue Interestlncome TOTALREVENUES Project Paygo Admin Expense CountyAdmin Outside District Other Expense TOTALEXPENSE Total Budget
Budget 2008 10/24/2006 2/1/2001 5/10/2007 12/31/2033 12/31/2025 4,595,918 4,595,918 1,687,000 2,188,103 459,593 261,223 4,595,919 4,595,919
TIF Year Year
7 2015
8 2016
9 2017
10 2018
11 2019
12 2020
13 2021
14 2022
15 2023
16 2024
17 2025
End of District Projected Actual Total 3,060,855
Under/(Over)Budget 1,439,145
TAX CAPACITY
ROW PR(
32,754 3,093,609 - 2,564,247 51,197
63,164 1,502,309 1,975,000 (393,329) 398,803
Current Local
Base Current Fiscal Disparities Captured Tax Rate Tax Increment Other Revenue Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES Project Paygo Admin
Expenditures
-
-
Outside District Returned TOTAL EXPENSE
-
111.585%
726,866
10,845
737,711
580,482
39,880
3,215
48,074
343,303
190,203
295,229
109.732%
280,524
797
281,321
252,473
1,050
902
48,074
361,440
201,222
313,366
107.550%
282,678
1,410
284,089
254,410
1,413
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
1,684
223,032
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
1,902
223,250
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
2,122
223,471
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
2,345
223,693
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
2,570
223,918
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
2,796
224,145
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
3,026
224,374
199,213
1,107
902
48,074
361,440
67,988
245,378
107.550%
221,348
3,257
224,606
82,388
1,107
902
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
a ,a
Increment
Outside District Returned TOTAL EXPENSE
Ending Balance
623,511
114,134
254,425
141,030
256,726
168,393
201,222
190,203
201,222
212,231
201,222
234,480
201,222
256,950
201,222
279,646
201,222
302,569
201,222
325,720
84,396
465,930
August 2017
Page 42
Page 43
TIF 1-3 - Plymouth Crossroads Station Continued
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan $450,000
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $459,592
Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $4,595,918
TEST 3: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
Total TIF Revenues for the Project
$309,361
$3,093,609
RESULTS: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (30%)
$309,361
Actual Admin Expenses
51,197
Available Admin
$258,164
Actual Percentage
1.7%
Accummulated Totals
TIF Year Year I Admin. Expenses Total %Allowable
7
2015
39,880
737,711
5.4%
726,866
8
2016
40,930
1,019,032
4.0%
280,524
9
2017
42,343
1,303,121
3.2%
282,678
10
2018
43,450
1,526,153
2.8%
221,348
11
2019
44,557
1,749,403
2.5%
221,348
12
2020
45,664
1,972,874
2.3%
221,348
13
2021
46,770
2,196,567
2.1%
221,348
14
2022
47,877
2,420,485
2.0%
221,348
15
2023
48,984
2,644,630
1.9%
221,348
16
2024
50,091
2,869,004
1.7%
221,348
17
2025
51,197
3,093,609
1.7%
221,348
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Redevelopment
Yes
2/1/2007
No
0%
25%
Vir
Tax Increment
Current Year Cummulative
Y�P1 I C l<1N_I �Kq
Admin Costs
k11 D1 114Y�1�hf Ci3 i r113 i7i� i!
25%
for Qualified
Redevelopment
Costs Spent Outside
Cumulative
Available for
Pooling
Annual Available
for Pooling
726,866
726,866
39,880
141,837
141,837
114,134
280,524
1,007,390
40,930
69,081
141,030
26,896
282,678
1,290,068
42,343
69,256
168,393
27,363
221,348
1,511,417
43,450
54,230
190,203
21,810
221,348
1,732,765
44,557
54,230
212,231
22,028
221,348
1,954,113
45,664
54,231
234,480
22,248
221,348
2,175,462
46,770
54,230
256,950
22,471
221,348
2,396,810
47,877
54,230
279,646
22,696
221,348
2,618,158
48,984
54,231
302,569
22,923
221,348
2,839,507
50,091
54,230
325,720
23,152
221,348
3,060,855
51,197
54,230
465,930
140,209
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 43
Page 44
TIF 1-3 — Plymouth Crossroads Station Continued
City of Plymouth
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Principal Ledger - Plymouth Crossroads Station
PAYGO Note - Minnwest Bank
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 44
Page 45
$
1,899,645.00
2/1/2014
0.00
225,000.00
225,000.00
225,000.00
1,674,645.00
8/1/2014
50,239.35
51,396.03
51,396.03
276,396.03
1,673,488.32
2/1/2015
50,204.65
51,393.30
51,393.30
327,789.33
1,672,299.67
8/1/2015
50,168.99
126,347.96
126,347.96
454,137.29
1,596,120.70
2/1/2016
47,883.62
126,344.67
126,344.67
580,481.96
1,517,659.65
8/1/2016
45,529.79
126,236.38
126,236.38
706,718.34
1,436,953.06
2/1/2017
43,108.59
126,236.371 126,236.37
832,954.71
1,353,825.28
8/1/2017
40,614.76
141,339.10
127,205.19
960,159.90
1,267,234.85
2/1/2018
38,017.05
141,339.10
127, 205.19
1,087,365.09
1,178,046.71
8/1/2018
35,341.40
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,186,971.84
1,113,781.36
2/1/2019
33,413.44
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,286,578.59
1,047,588.05
8/1/2019
31,427.64
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,386,185.34
979,408.94
2/1/2020
29,382.27
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,485,792.09
909,184.46
8/1/2020
27,275.53
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,585,398.84
836,853.24
2/1/2021
25,105.60
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,685,005.59
762,352.09
8/1/2021
22,870.56
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,784,612.34
685,615.90
2/1/2022
20,568.48
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,884,219.09
606,577.63
8/1/2022
18,197.33
110,674.17
99,606.75
1,983,825.84
525,168.21
2/1/2023
15,755.05
110,674.17
99,606.75
2,083,432.58
441,316.52
8/1/2023
13,239.50
110,674.17
99,606.75
2,183,039.33
354,949.27
2/1/2024
10,648.48
110,674.17
99,606.75
2,282,646.08
265,991.00
8/1/2024
7,979.73
110,674.17
99,606.75
2,382,252.83
174,363.98
2/1/2025
5,230.92
110,674.17
99,606.75
2,481,859.58
79,988.15
8/1/2025
2,399.64
110,674.17
82,387.79
2,564,247.37
0.00
TOTALS
664,602.37
2,775,745.40
2,564,247.37
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 44
Page 45
TIF 7-4 — Hoyt
Description:
The Hoyt TIF District (County number 2069) is a Redevelopment District established in 1995 and is
located within Municipal Development District No. 7. Originally, the district encompassed two (2)
parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of public infrastructure
improvements in the Plymouth Technology Park.
On December 18, 2001, the TIF District was modified to allow for deficit pooling to District 7-5A to
assist in paying for the TIF bonds issued in 2005 when a shortfall occurs. Pursuant to the
modification, the amount that the District can contribute is limited to $6,900,000. Because the
original obligations are paid, TIF must either be used for deficit pooling to TIF 7-5A or be returned
to the County.
On February 8, 2011, an administrative modification was completed for the TIF plan that authorized
a Spending Plan under Minnesota Statutes 469.176 Sub 4(m). This allowed the City to provide
assistance for a 67 -unit affordable housing development (Westview Estates). On June 1, 2011, the
City entered into a Development Agreement with Plymouth West View Estates, LLC. and on June
15, 2011 issued them a 30 -year deferred loan for $600,000 at 0% interest (payable on June 15, 2041).
If there is an event of default, the interest rate increases to 8%.
Adopted...........................08/01/1995
Requested Date ...................08/17/1995
Certified Date ....................03/07/1996
First Increment .......................07/1997
Obligation End Date...............12/31/2022
Decertifies ........................12/31 /2022
Modification #1 ....................12/2/1998
#2 .................. 05/09/2000
#3 (deficit pooling) ........ 12/18/2001
#4 (spending plan).......... 02/08/2011
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
.. r
August 2017
Page 45
Page 46
TIF 7-4 — Hoyt Continued
Administrative Authority:
The City of Plymouth is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
10-118-22-23-0004
10-118-22-24-0010
Plymouth Technology Park
Plymouth Technology Park
Fiscal Disparities Election:
10-118-22-23-0006
10-118-22-23-0008
10-118-22-23-0009
10-118-22-23-0010
10-118-22-23-0011
10-118-22-23-0012
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 1996): 123.1040%
Current (Pay 2017): 112.244%
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
Plymouth Technology Park
Alidald Plymouth Tech
Alidald Plymouth Tech
Alidald Plymouth Tech
ity of Plymouth Vacant Land
of Plymouth Storm Water Pond
August 2017
Page 46
Page 47
TIF 7-4 — Hoyt Continued
Allowable Uses:
TIF 7-4 Redevelopment Funds. MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be
spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district.
Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, soils correction, environmental remediation, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities,
road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
TIF 7-4 Deficit Pooling — In 2001, the Minnesota legislature enacted sweeping ad valorem property tax changes, effective for taxes payable in
2002. TIF District 7-5A was the only impacted TIF district that was established prior to the legislative change since it was the only District the
City issued bonds for (other two district were PAYGO and had sufficient TIF to repay the obligations). Recognizing the impact of these property
tax changes, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, § 469.1763, Subdivision 6, permitting authorities to utilize unencumbered tax increment
from one district to pay certain deficits in another district, to the extent the deficits were caused by the legislative action. TIF District 74's TIF
Plan was administratively modified on December 18, 2001 to allow the City to pool funds to TIF District 7-5A to address deficits caused by the
legislative change.
Obligations:
There are currently two (2) obligations for the District as follows:
$600,000 up front 30 -year deferred loan/note at 0% interest. The Note was issued on June 15, 2011 to Plymouth West View Estates,
LLC. The note is payable on June 15, 2041, unless forgiven. If there is an event of default, the interest rate increases to 8%.
• Up to $6,900,000 deficit pooling to TIF District 7-5A. To date the District has deficit pooled $394,698 and it is anticipated that in total,
it will deficit pool $1,003,140 (additional $608,442).
Three Year Rule:
The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused
public improvements to be constructed in the district. This District met the requirement when the Development Agreement with Hoyt Properties
was signed on August 1, 1995 and a Tax Increment Revenue Note was issued.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 47
Page 48
TIF 7-4 — Hoyt Continued
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. This District does not fall within
this timeframe so it's four-year date is March 7, 2000 and was satisfied due to the development commencing by that date.
Five Year Rule:
At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the District must be used to pay for qualified costs within the District. In 2009, the State
Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten (10) years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after
June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. In 2014, the State Legislature again amended the five-year rule limit for Redevelopment districts to eight
(8) years after certification for districts certified after April 20, 2009 and before June 30, 2012. This District does not fall within the
aforementioned timeframes and therefore its five-year deadline is March 7, 2001.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. This District may not be enlarged after March 7, 2001.
Recommendations:
1. Use of Increment for Legal Pooling. At the end of 2017, it is estimated that there will be approximately $732,503 available in legal pooling
dollars for redevelopment projects. We recommend that the City develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the
balance will need to be returned either when the district expires or when the obligation is paid.
2. Use of Increment for Deficit Pooling. Currently the 2009 TIF refunding bonds (Interfund Loan) in District 7-5A are outstanding. These
bonds are credit enhanced by TIF District 7-4 since revenues are pledged to their repayment. The City should continue to utilize the fund
balance in this district for transfers to District 7-5A for deficit pooling and transfer the amount in the same calendar year as the deficits occur.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 48
Page 49
TIF 7-4 - Hoyt Continued
3. Additional 10% TIF for Affordable Housing. The City could modify the TIF plan to allow an additional 10% pooling for affordable housing
projects (would need to be completed in 2017). If the City is interested in this, we recommend completing an analysis to determine the
amount of TIF that would be available under this election (TIF from 2nd half 2017 through 2022).
4. Deferred Loan. The City should determine if the funds will be returned or forgiven at the end of the loan period. If the funds are returned to
the City, they will be restricted for use on redevelopment projects.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 49
Page 50
TIF 7-4 - Hoyt Continued
ORIGINAL HSS Geo. Enlargement Interest Income 1,00% 1) Limited Pooling options available
District Type Redevelopment Admin Expense 2,00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time
Project Area 3) Admin, Expense is currently: 1.2% At or Under Limit
Fiscal Disparities B Election
County Number 2069
Frozen Rate UTA #1 123,104% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA g2 0.000%
UTA g3 0.000%
Current Year 2016
Decertifies Revenues Expenditures
First Deficit Pooling for
Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Other Revenue Interestlncome TOTALREVENUES Project Paygo Admin Expense CountyAdmin Affordable Housing Other Expense TOTALEXPENSE Total Budget
Budget 1997 8/1/1995 8/17/1995 3/7/1996 12/31/2022 12/31/2022 705,000 - - 705,000 634,500 70,500 705,000 705,000
TIFYear Year
Wr
TAX CAPACITY
Base Current Fiscal
End of District Projected Actual Total 6,798,137 423,101 7,221,238 600,000 703,896 56,763 11,134 1,003,140 3,082,523 5,457,456 5,457,456
Under/(Over)Budget 862,863 (423,101) 439,762 34,500 (103,896) 13,737 5,896,860 (3,026,523) 2,203,544 2,214,678
18
2015
40,963
4,512
13,279
310,801
19
2016
7,416
407,720
144,664
255,640
20
2017
7,416
435,220
153,311
274,493
21
2018
7,416
435,220
153,311
274,493
22
2019
7,416
435,220
153,311
274,493
23
2020
7,416
435,220
153,311
274,493
24
2021
7,416
435,220
153,311
274,493
25
2022
7,416
435,220
153,311
274,493
26
2023
CASH FLOW ROLL
Revenues Expenditures
Current Local
Tax Rate Tax Increment Other Revenue Interestlncome TOTALREVENUES Jobs Bill Paygo Admin Expense County Admin
4,658,658
297,522
306,993
306,993
306,993
306,993
306,993
306,993
331,524
4,990,182 600,000 703,896
40,963
4,512
13,279
310,801
1,975
946
17,855
324,847
1,975
946
7,325
314,318
1,975
946
9,796
316,189
1,975
946
12,165
319,158
1,975
946
14,487
321,480
1,975
946
16,670
323,663
1,975
946
105,968
1,975
1,881, 750
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
ling? -5a
Increment
Returned
TOTALEXPENSE
Ending Balance
352,114
1,768,523
3,470,008
1,520,174
42,584
45,505
1,785,470
60,893
1,314,000
1,311,814
732,503
64,306
67,227
979,594
76,956
79,877
1,216,506
83,993
86,914
1,448,749
100,331
103,252
1,666, 977
105,968
108,889
1,881, 750
115,993
117,968
1,763, 782
August 2017
Page 50
Page 51
TIF 7-4 - Hoyt Continued
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TEST
Year
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan
70,500
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$759,050
Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan
$7,590,500
TEST 3: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$540,069
Total TIF Expenses for the Project
$5,400,693
RESULTS: Admin per TIF Plan
$70,500
Actual Admin Expenses
$56,763
Available Admin
$13,737
Actual Percentage
1.1%
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Redevelopment
Yes
8/17/1995
No
0%
25%
TIF Year
Year
Accummulated Totals
Admin. Expenses Total
%Allowable
Current Year
Tax Increment
Less: Deficit
Less: Jobs Bill Pooling
Cummulative
Admin Costs
25% for Qualified
Costs Spent Outside
Cumulative
Available for
Pooling
Annual Available
for Pooling
18 2015
40,963 3,429,045 1.2%
4,658,658 600,000 352,114 4,306,544 40,963 1,035,673 - 1,035,673
1,035,673
19
2016
42,938
3,472,575
1.2%
297,522
- 42,584
4,561,482
42,938
61,760 -
1,097,433
61,7601
20
2017
44,913
4,848,414
0.9%
306,993
- 60,893
4,807,581
44,913
59,549 -
732,503
-
21
2018
46,888
4,913,666
1.0%
306,993
- 64,306
5,050,268
46,888
58,697 -
979,594
247,0911
22
2019
48,863
4,991,568
1.0%
306,993
- 76,956
5,280,305
48,863
55,534 -
1,216,506
236,9121
23
2020
50,838
5,076,508
1.0%
306,993
- 83,993
5,503,304
50,838
53,775 -
1,324,988
108,482
24
2021
52,813
5,177,785
1.0%
306,993
- 100,331
5,709,966
52,813
49,691 -
1,374,679
49,6911
25
2022
54,788
5,284,699
1.0%
306,993
- 105,968
5,910,990
54,788
48,281 -
1,422,960
48,2811
26
2023
56,763
5,400,693
1.1%
-
- 115,993
5,794,997
56,763
- -
1,422,960
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 51
Page 52
TIF 7-5A — Village at Bassett Creek
Description:
The Village at Bassett Creek Housing District (County number 2071) established in 1998 and is
located within Municipal Development District No. 7. Originally, the District encompassed
three parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of 71 owner -occupied
town homes (Village at Bassett Creek) and a 46 -unit, 202 senior rental apartments by Common
Bond (Bassett Creek Commons). 20 of the town home units were affordable with the remaining
51 being market rate. 45 of the senior apartments are affordable to persons at or below 50% of
the Area median income and I is market rate. On October 15, 1998, the City issued $2,900,000
GO Tax Increment Bonds to
finance public improvements
for the projects. These bonds
were refinanced on November
24, 2009 with the $2,490,000 GO TIF Refunding Bonds. Due to tax reform in
2001, the District does not generate enough tax increment to make payments on
the Bonds. On December 18, 2001, the City approved a resolution authorizing
TIF Districts 7-4 and 7-6 to deficit pool to the District. In 2013, the City passed a
resolution irrevocably committing all increment generated by the District and
increments transferred from District 7-4 to payment on the Bonds. The maximum
amount that can be transferred from TIF 7-4 is $6.9 million.
Adopted...........................09/02/
1998
Requested Date ...................
11/09/1998
Certified Date ....................04/16/1999
First Increment ........................07/2001
Obligation End Date...............02/01/2023
Decertifies ........................12/31
/2026
Modification .....................12/
18/2001
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 52
Page 53
TIF 7-5A — Village at Bassett Creek Continued
Administrative Authority:
The City of Plymouth is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
Former •. #
Former Use
New •. #
New Use
36-118-22-24-0011 through
Village at Bassett Creek Town
36-118-22-24-0003
Vacant Land
0083 and 36-118-22-24-0087
Homes
through 0088
36-118-22-24-0004
Vacant Land
36-118-22-24-0084
Bassett Creek Sr. Housing
36-118-22-24-0005
Vacant Land (City Owned)
36-118-22-24-0089
Bassett Creek Office Centre
Fiscal Disparities Election:
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district. This election does not have a financial effect on the district
because it contains only non-commercial properties, which do not contribute to the fiscal disparities pool.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 1999): 123.1510%
Current (Pay 2017): 106.871%
Allowable Uses:
MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4d specifies the activities on which tax increment from a housing district may be spent. In general, tax increment must
be spent on housing projects meeting the income guidelines, public improvements directly related to housing projects and administrative
expenses. The City has used increment from this district to support affordable housing initiatives, in compliance with TIF law.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 53
Page 54
TIF 7-5A — Village at Bassett Creek Continued
Obligations.
There is currently one bond for this District as follows:
• $2,490,000 GO TIF Refunding Bonds, Series 2009. These bonds were issued on November 24, 2009 and are callable on February 1,
2018 and have an end payment date of February 1, 2023. As of February 2, 2017, the outstanding principal on the Bonds was
$1,485,000.
Three Year Rule:
The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused
public improvements to be constructed in the district. The deadline for this District was April 19, 2002 and was met when the City issued the
1998A GO Tax Increment bonds.
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The four-year deadline was April
19, 2003 and was satisfied.
Five Year Rule:
The five-year rule is not applicable to housing districts.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. This District may not be enlarged after April 16, 2004.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 54
Page 55
TIF 7-5A — Village at Bassett Creek Continued
Compliance Requirements.
Income limitations are required to be monitored on an on-going basis for a Housing District. The City is required to substantiate that the
applicable income limitations and rent restrictions are being met on an annual basis for rental and for the first purchasers of an owner -occupied
housing unit. The compliance for rental projects must be completed regardless of whether the project receives tax credits or not, pursuant to
469.174 sub 11. The required documentation was submitted for the for -sale housing portion. For the rental portion, they have been submitting the
required documentation on an annual basis and have continued to meet the requirement that 100% of the units are affordable to persons at or
below 50% of the area median income (AMI).
Recommendations:
1. Income Verification. The City will need to continue to receive and keep income verification reports for the project.
2. Deficit Pooling. Continue to monitor the amount needed on an annual basis from deficit pooling from TIF District 7-4 and make the transfers
in the year dollars are needed.
3. Refinancinz of 2009A GO TIF Bonds. These Bonds were issued on November 24, 2009 and are callable on February 1, 2018. The City
should review the options of refinancing the Bonds through a new debt issuance and/or interfund loan.
4. Use of Increment. The Bonds will be paid off in 2023 and there are still three (3) years remaining in the District. The City could choose to
leave the District open and utilize the TIF generated in 2024-2026 for affordable housing projects. It is anticipated that the amount available
for affordable housing will be approximately $552,507 (approximately $184,00/year). This increment may be used to pay eligible costs for
"housing projects" as defined by MS 469.174, Subd. 11, located anywhere within the City limits. A housing project is a rental or owner -
occupied housing development intended for occupancy by low and moderate income families. The income guidelines are defined in MS
469.1761 as follows:
Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at
60% of median income (40/60).
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts August 2017
Plymouth, Minnesota Page 55
Page 56
TIF 7-5A — Village at Bassett Creek Continued
Owner Occupied: Assistance to homeowners with an income at or below 100% of the median income for a family of two or less or
115% of the median income for a family of three or more.
Typically, TIF is utilized for capital expenditures, but may be used for non -capital expenditures on a limited basis. Examples of potential
rental housing projects would include:
1. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election)
2. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election)
3. Providing subsidy to an existing project that is earmarked for additional affordability (20/50 or 40/60 election)
Examples of potential owner -occupied projects would include:
1. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction
2. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers
3. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners)
4. Second mortgages to qualified home buyers
In order for the City to continue to utilize these funds for housing projects, the rental portion of the development is required to continue to
meet income guidelines and report them annually to the City (100% of the units affordable at 50% of AMI). The City needs to annually
monitor the income verification to assure that the existing income requirements are met. If the income requirements are not met on any given
year, then the City will need to return that year's increment to the County for redistribution.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 56
Page 57
TIF 7-5A - Village at Bassett Creek Continued
� �axn;uruun:naaexsui�� I I I
ORIGINAL HSS Geo. Enlargement Interest Income 1,00%
District Type Housing Admin Expense 1,00'E
Project Area
Fiscal Disparities A Election
County Number 2071
Frozen Rate UTA01 123.151% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA 82 0.000%
UTA 03 0.000%
Current Year 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Limited Pooling options available
21 Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time
3) Admin. Expense is currently: 2.4% At or Under Limit
First
Receipt CityApproved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Taxlncrement Credits Interestlncome Other Revenue Bonds TOTALREVENUES Project Bonds Admin Expense County Admin OutsldeDIstrlct Other Expense TOTALEXPENSE Total Budget
Original Budget 2001 9/2/1998 11/9/1998 4/16/1999 12/31/2026 12/31/2026 3,000,000 3,00)1,000 2,400,000 450,000 150,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Cumulative Modified 12/18/2001 2,412,608 2,900,000 5,312,608 2,400,000 2,819,846 150,000 5,369,846 51369,846
BEE�
14 2015
15 2016
16 2017
17 2018
18 2019
19 2020
20 2021
21 2022
22 2023
23 2024
24 2025
25 2026
TAX CAPACITY
Base Current
6,816 174,768
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
6,816 179,767
End of District Projected Actual Total 4,038,225 118,399 120,863 1,003,140 5,390,000 10,670,627 2,393,351 7,524,670 194,250 8,764
Under/(Over)Budget (1,625,617) (118,399) (120,863) (1,003,140) (2,490,000) (5,358,019) 6,649 (4,704,824) 144,2501
167,952
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
172,951
Revenues
Current Local
Tax Rate Tax increment Credits Interest Income Transfer In Bands TOTAL REVENUES
Increment
Bonds Admin Expense County Admin Outside District Returned TOTAL EXPENSE Ending Balance
2,007,019 118,399
115,403
352,114 5,390,000
7,982,935
2,393,351 5,396,345
187,306
4,684
189,515
1171
42,584
232,082
230,700
1,419
1,020
184,169
2
60,893
245,064
245,063
Move county
184,169
2
64,306
248,411
248,475
administration
184,169
2
76,956
261,127
261,125
and other
184,169
2
83,993
268,164
268,163
administrative
184,169
2
100,331
284,502
284,500
expensesto
184,169
2
105,968
290,140
290,138
TIF 7-7
184,169
2
115,993
300,165
300,163
until 2024.
184,169
2
184,171
1,842
1,020
184,169
1,815
185,984
1,842
1,020
184,169
3,646
187,815
1,842
1,020
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
7,981,686 1,249
233,139 192
245,063 194
248,475 196
261,125 198
268,163 200
284,500 202
290,138 204
300,163 206
2,862 181,515
2,862 364,638
2,862 549,592
August 2017
Page 57
Page 58
TIF 7-5A - Village at Bassett Creek Continued
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan $150,000
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $521,985
Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan $5,219,846
TEST 3: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
Total TIF Expenses for the Project
$992,679
$9,926,785
RESULTS: Admin per TIF Plan
$150,000
Actual Admin Expenses
$194,250
Available Admin
($44,250)
Actual Percentage
1 2.0%
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
Year
District Type:
Housing
Does this section apply?
Yes
Certification Request Date:
11/9/1998
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
No
If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
0%
Total Pooling %:
100%
TIF Year
Year
Accummulated
Admin. Expenses
Totals
Total
%Allowable
2,007,019
14
2015
187,306
7,794,380
2.4%
189,515
15
2016
188,725
8,026,100
2.4%
184,169
16
2017
188,725
8,271,163
2.3%
184,169
17
2018
188,725
8,519,638
2.2%
184,169
18
2019
188,725
8,780,763
2.1%
184,169
19
2020
188,725
9,048,925
2.1%
184,169
20
2021
188,725
9,333,425
2.0%
184,169
21
2022
188,725
9,623,563
2.0%
184,169
22
2023
188,725
9,923,725
1.9%
184,169
23
2024
190,567
9,924,745
1.9%
184,169
24
2025
192,408
9,925,765
1.9%
184,169
25
2026
194,250
9,926,785
2.0%
Tax Increment
Current Year Cummulative
Admin Costs
100% for
Affordable
Housing Spent Outside
Cumulative
Available for
Pooling
Annual Available
for Pooling
2,007,019
2,007,019
187,306
1,819,713
189,515
2,196,534
188,725
188,096
184,169
2,380,703
188,725
184,169
184,169
2,564,872
188,725
184,169
184,169
2,749,041
188,725
184,169
184,169
2,933,210
188,725
184,169
184,169
3,117,379
188,725
184,169
184,169
3,301,548
188,725
184,169
184,169
3,485,717
188,725
184,169
-
-
184,169
3,669,886
190,567
182,328
181,307
181,307
184,169
3,854,056
192,408
182,327
362,615
181,307
184,169
4,038,225
194,250
182,328
543,922
181,307
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 58
Page 59
TIF 7-6 — Berkshire
Description:
The Berkshire District (County number 2072) is a Redevelopment District established
in 2000 and is located within Municipal Development District No. 7. Originally, the
district encompassed three parcels of land and was established to facilitate the
renovation of a 240,000 -square foot office/warehouse/production facility.
On December 18, 2001, the TIF plan was modified to allow deficit pooling to TIF
District 7-5A. In addition, on January 26, 2010, the TIF plan was modified to allow
for 10% additional pooling for affordable housing (primarily for the HRA owned
Vicksburg Crossing Sr. Housing Facility). On May 1, 2005, the HRA and City
entered into an agreement to pledge these funds to the Vicksburg Crossing project if
necessary (TIF 1-1). To date, no pooling has been completed for TIF 1-1 or deficit
pooling purposes to 7-5A. funds could also be used for improvements to Plymouth Towne Square senior housing facility and would require the
City to transfer these funds (similar to Vicksburg Crossing).
Adopted ...........................10/
10/2000
Requested Date ...................06/05/2001
Certified Date ....................06/20/2001
First Increment .......................07/2003
Obligation End Date...............07/31/2018
Decertifies ........................12/31
/2028
Mod #I (deficit pooling) ..........
12/ 18/2001
Mod #2 (10% aff. Hsg.).........
01/26/2010
Administrative Authority:
The City of Plymouth is responsible for this District.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 59
Page 60
TIF 7-6 — Berkshire Continued
Parcels:
Fiscal Disparities Election:
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2001): 106.110%
Current (Pay 2017): 107.550%
Allowable Uses:
TIF 7-6 — Redevelopment Funds. MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may
be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district.
Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, soils correction, environmental remediation, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities,
road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
TIF 7-6 — Affordable Housing. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d), allows the City to pool up to an additional 10% above
the standard allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements, but does not have 100% of its credit -
eligible costs funded by tax credits. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction, rehabilitation and public improvements
directly relate to the housing. This provision does not apply if all of the eligible expenses are funded through tax credits. This pooling, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 subdivision 4k, can be done without regard to project area/development district limitations. The 10%
calculation begins in with the first TIF received after the TIF Plan was modified to allow for this provision (January 26, 2010).
W� Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 60
Page 61
TIF 7-6 — Berkshire Continued
TIF 7-6 — Deficit Pooling. In 2001, the Minnesota legislature enacted sweeping ad valorem property tax changes, effective for taxes payable in
2002. TIF District 7-5A was the only impacted TIF district that was established prior to the legislative change since it was the only District the
City issued bonds for (other two district were PAYGO and had sufficient TIF to repay the obligations). Recognizing the impact of these property
tax changes, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, § 469.1763, Subdivision 6, permitting authorities to utilize unencumbered tax increment
from one district to pay certain deficits in another district, to the extent the deficits were caused by the legislative action. TIF District 7-6's TIF
Plan was administratively modified on January 26, 2010 to allow the City to pool funds to TIF District 7-5A to address deficits caused by the
legislative change.
Obligations:
There are currently two (2) obligations in this District as follows:
$900,000 at 8.50% interest. The Note was issued to Continental Property Group on December 18, 2001 and is payable from July 31,
2002 through December 31, 2027. The Note is payable with 73% of the Tax Increment generated from the project. After the 2/1/2017
payment, the current balance is $161,609.66 and the projected final payment is on February 1, 2018.
• Pledge of TIF to the 2012A GO Refunding Bonds. These Bonds refinanced the original the HRA's Governmental Housing Project
Bonds, Series 2005 which were issued to allow the HRA to construct the 96 -unit Vicksburg Crossing housing project. If revenues from
the Project are not sufficient to make payments on the Bonds, the City can utilize TIF from the District to pay any shortfalls.
Three Year Rule:
The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused
public improvements to be constructed in the district. The deadline for this District was June 20, 2004 and was met when the they issued the
$900,000 Taxable Limited Revenue TIF Note on December 18, 2001.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 61
Page 62
TIF 7-6 — Berkshire Continued
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. This District does not fit this
timeframe and its four-year rule date was June 20, 2005.
Five Year Rule:
At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the District must be used to pay for qualified costs within the District. In 2009, the State
Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten (10) years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after
June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. In 2014, the State Legislature again amended the five-year rule limit for Redevelopment districts to eight
(8) years after certification for districts certified after April 20, 2009 and before June 30, 2012. This District does not fall within the
aforementioned timeframes and therefore its five-year deadline is June 20, 2006.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. This District may not be enlarged after June 20, 2006.
Recommendations:
1. Six Year Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax
increment generated to pay obligations. We recommend annually reviewing this requirement to assure 75% is utilized to pay the TIF Note
(estimated to be repaid by July 31, 2018). After that date (2nd half 2018 TIF) the City can only retain 35% of the TIF for affordable housing
projects (10% housing and 25% admin) that meet the definition under the Statute through the term of the District, which is December 31,
2028.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 62
Page 63
TIF 7-6 — Berkshire Continued
2. Use of Increment for Deficit Pooling. Currently the 2009 TIF refunding bonds (Interfund Loan) in District 7-5A are outstanding. These
bonds are credit enhanced by TIF District 7-6 since revenues are pledged to their repayment. To date the City has not needed to utilize
revenues from this District for transfers to District 7-5A for deficit pooling. We recommend monitoring deficits in District 7-5A and to the
extent, revenues from that District and District 7-4 are inadequate to make payments on the Interfund Loan, the City should transfer the
amount necessary to cover the deficit in the same calendar year as it occurs.
3. Additional 10% TIF for Affordable Housing. On January 26, 2010, the City modified the TIF plan to allow an additional 10% pooling for
affordable housing projects. It is estimated that the balance available at the end of 2028 (legal end term of the District) will be approximately
$366,699 (authorized amount in TIF Plan was $550,000). If the City chose to decertify the District when the Note is paid off (7/31/18) it is
estimated that the balance available at the end of 2018 would be $170,727. This increment may be used to finance improvements to the
Plymouth Towne Square facility and the Vicksburg Crossing facility and would require the City to transfer the funds to the HRA (up
to the 35% allotted in each TIF plan, net of administrative costs charged to the District). In addition, they can be used to pay credit -
eligible costs for tax credit eligible rental projects. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction, rehabilitation and
public improvements directly related to the housing as long as these costs were not funded through tax credits (does not apply if all eligible
expenses are funded through tax credits). The funds can be spent anywhere within the City and do not need to be located within the Project
Area. The income and rent guidelines are defined as follows:
Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at
60% of median income (40/60) and rents for all the income -restricted units must not exceed 30% of the applicable
income limit
4. Use of Legal Pooling Funds. It is estimated that there will be approximately $621,062 available for legal pooling at the end of 2018 when the
Note is paid off. We recommend that the City develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the balance will have to be
returned when the district expires.
5. Use of TIF for 2012A GO Refunding Bonds. Annually review if revenues from the HRA senior project are adequate to pay debt service on
the Bonds. If revenues are inadequate, transfer funds as appropriate.
6. Return oflncrement on an Annual Basis. Starting in pay 2019 when the Obligation of the District is paid off, the City will need to annually
monitor, calculate and return any increment in excess of the 35% it is retaining for affordable housing purposes (10% housing and 25%
admin) and noted in #3 above (estimated to be approximately $198,000).
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 63
Page 64
TIF 7-6 - Berkshire Continued
RECOMMENDATIONS
ORIGINAL H55 Geo. Enlargement Interest Income
District Type Redevelopment Admin Expense 1.00% 2) Budget Mod: Not Recommended at this time
Project Area 3) Admin. Expense is currently: 3.6% At or Under Limit
Fiscal Disparities A Election
County Number 2072
Frozen Rate UTA#1 106.110% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA#2 0.000%
UTA#3 0.000%
Current Year 2016
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 64
Page 65
Decertifies
Revenues
Expenditures
First
Receipt CityApproved
Cert Request Certified
Legal Term Expected Term
Tax Increment
Other Revenue Interestlncome TOTALREVENUES
Project
Paygo
Admin Expense CountyAdmin Outside District
Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSE
Total Budget
Original Budget
2003 10/10/2000
6/5/2001 6/20/2001
12/31/2028 12/31/2028
1,840,000
-
1,840,000
900,000
430,000
60,000
450,000
1,840,000
1,840,000
Cumulative Modified
1/26/2010
5,200,000
- 300,000
5,500,000
3,150,000
1,800,000
550,000
- -
- 5,500,000
5,500,000
End of District Projected Actual Total
2,728,462
- 66,024
5,163,363
-
1,832,849
58,875
5,226 -
- 1,949,155
1,896,950
Under/(over)Budget
2,471,538
- 233,976
336,637
3,150,000
(32,849)
491,125
(5,226) -
- 3,550,845
3,603,050
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
r
TAX CAPACITY
Revenues
Expenditures
Current Local
Increment
TIF Year
Year
Base
Current Fiscal Disparities
Captured Tax Rate
Tax Increment
Other Revenue Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES
Project
Paygo
Admin Expense CountyAdmin Outside District Affordable Housing
Returned TOTAL EXPENSE
Ending Balance
12
2015
-
- -
- 111.585%
2,084,173
- 48,212
2,132,385
-
1,521,473
54,910
3,628 - -
- 1,580,011
552,374
13
2016
82,500
275,790
193,290 109.732%
208,795
4,970
213,765
152,420
1,788
799
155,007
611,132
14
2017
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
6,111
223,858
-
158,955
2,177
799 - -
- 161,932
673,058
15
2018
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
6,731
224,477
-
13,871
2,177
799 - -
- 16,848
880,688
16
2019
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
8,807
226,554
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
1,104,265
17
2020
82,500
288,450
205,950 107.550%
217,747
11,043
228,789
2,177
799
2,976
1,330,078
18
2021
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
13,301
231,048
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
1,558,149
19
2022
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
15,581
233,328
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
1,788,501
20
2023
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
17,885
235,632
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
2,021,157
21
2024
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
20,212
237,958
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
2,256,139
22
2025
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
22,561
240,308
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
2,493,470
23
2026
82,500
288,450
205,950 107.550%
217,747
24,935
242,682
2,177
799
2,976
2,733,175
24
2027
82,500
288,450
205,950 107.550%
217,747
27,332
245,079
2,177
799
2,976
2,975,277
25
2028
82,500
288,450 -
205,950 107.550%
217,747
29,753
247,500
-
-
2,177
799 - -
- 2,976
3,219,801
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 64
Page 65
TIF 7-6 - Berkshire Continued
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan
$550,000
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$495,000
Estimated Total TIF Expenses perTlF Plan
$4,950,000
TEST 3: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$183,807
Total TIF Expenses for the Project
$1,838,075
12
2015
RESULTS: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$183,807
Actual Admin Expenses
$58,875
Available Admin
$124,932
Actual Percentage
3.2%
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Redevelopment
Yes
6/5/2001
Yes
10%
35%
%Allowable
Tax Increment
Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs
Accummulated
Totals
Admin.
1u"/o
for Affordable
Housing Costs
TIF Year
Year
Expenses
Total
12
2015
54,910
1,525,101
13
2016
56,698
1,678,320
14
2017
58,875
1,838,075
15
2018
61,053
1,852,745
16
2019
63,230
1,853,544
17
2020
65,408
1,854,343
18
2021
67,585
1,855,142
19
2022
69,763
1,855,941
20
2023
71,940
1,856,740
21
2024
74,118
1,857,539
22
2025
76,295
1,858,338
23
2026
78,473
1,859,137
24
2027
80,650
1,859,936
25
2028
82,828
1,860,735
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Redevelopment
Yes
6/5/2001
Yes
10%
35%
%Allowable
Tax Increment
Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs
tsi Spent Outside
for Qualified for Qualified
Redevelopment Redevelopment
Cumulative
Available for
Pooling
Annual
Available for
Pooling
1u"/o
for Affordable
Housing Costs
Spent for Cumulative
Affordable Available for
Housing Pooling
Annual
Available for
Pooling
3.6%
2,084,173
2,084,173
54,910
466,133
466,133
446,076
106,298
106,298
106,298
3.4%
208,795
2,292,968
56,698
50,411
483,954
37,878
20,880
127,178
20,880
3.2%
217,747
2,510,715
58,875
52,259
524,106
40,152
21,775
148,952
21,775
3.3%
217,747
2,728,462
61,053
52,259
621,062
96,957
21,775
170,727
21,775
3.4%
217,747
2,946,208
63,230
-
621,062
-
19,597
190,324
19,597
3.5%
217,747
3,163,955
65,408
621,062
19,597
209,922
19,597
3.6%
217,747
3,381,702
67,585
621,062
19,597
229,519
19,597
3.8%
217,747
3,599,449
69,763
621,062
19,597
249,116
19,597
3.9%
217,747
3,817,196
71,940
621,062
19,597
268,713
19,597
4.0%
217,747
4,034,943
74,118
621,062
19,597
288,310
19,597
4.1%
217,747
4,252,689
76,295
621,062
19,597
307,908
19,597
4.2%
217,747
4,470,436
78,473
621,062
19,597
327,505
19,597
4.3%
217,747
4,688,183
80,650
621,062
19,597
347,102
19,597
4.5%
217,747
4,905,930
82,828
621,062
19,597
366,699
19,597
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 65
Page 66
TIF 7-6 — Berkshire Continued
City of Plymouth
Principal Ledger - Continental PAYGO
PAYGO Note
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 66
Page 67
$ 900,000.00
12/18/2001
2,724.66
$ 902,724.66
7/31/2002
38,365.80
$ 941,090.46
12/31/2002
39,996.34
$ 981,086.80
7/31/2003
41,696.19
55,712.27
40,669.96
40,669.96
$ 982,113.03
12/31/2003
41,739.80
55,712.27
40,669.96
81,339.92
$ 983,182.87
7/31/2004
41,785.27
68,673.88
50,131.93
131,471.85
$ 974,836.21
12/31/2004
41,430.54
68,673.88
50,131.93
181,603.78
$ 966,134.82
7/31/2005
41,060.73
64,985.70
47,439.56
229,043.34
$ 950,779.82
12/31/2005
40,408.14
64,985.70
47,439.56
276,482.90
$ 935,424.82
7/31/2006
39,755.56
63,411.68
46,290.53
322,773.43
$ 928,889.85
12/31/2006
39,477.82
63,411.68
46,290.53
369,063.95
$ 922,077.14
7/31/2007
39,188.28
67,596.50
49,345.45
418,409.40
$ 911,919.98
12/31/2007
38,756.60
67,596.50
49,345.45
467,754.84
$ 901,331.13
7/31/2008
38,306.57
82,105.00
59,936.65
527,691.49
$ 879,701.06
12/31/2008
37,387.29
82,105.00
59,963.80
587,655.29
$ 857,124.55
7/31/2009
36,427.79
108,110.00
78,920.30
666,575.59
$ 814,632.04
12/31/2009
34,621.86
108,110.00
78,920.45
745,496.04
$ 770,333.46
7/31/2010
32,739.17
92,322.00
67,395.05
812,891.09
$ 735,677.58
12/31/2010
31,266.30
92,322.00
67,395.05
880,286.14
$ 699,548.82
7/31/2011
29,730.83
94,027.00
-
880,286.14
$ 729,279.65
12/31/2011
30,994.39
94,027.00
137,279.07
1,017,565.21
$ 622,994.96
7/31/2012
26,477.29
67,103.00
48,985.27
1,066,550.48
$ 600,486.98
12/31/2012
25,520.70
67,103.00
48,985.26
1,115,535.74
$ 577,022.42
7/31/2013
24,523.45
83,165.50
60,710.85
1,176,246.59
$ 540,835.02
12/31/2013
22,985.49
83,165.50
60,710.85
1,236,957.44
$ 503,109.66
7/31/2014
21,382.16
90,842.50
66,314.76
1,303,272.20
$ 458,177.06
12/31/2014
19,472.53
90,842.50
66,314.76
1,369,586.96
$ 411,334.82
7/31/2015
17,481.73
104,031.50
75,942.87
1,445,529.83
$ 352,873.68
12/31/2015
14,997.13
104,031.50
75,942.87
1,521,472.70
$ 291,927.95
7/31/2016
12,406.94
104,397.50
76,210.18
1,597,682.88
$ 228,124.71
12/31/2016
9,695.30
104,397.50
76,210.18
1,673,893.05
$ 161,609.83
7/31/2017
6,868.42
108,873.41
79,477.59
1,753,370.64
$ 89,000.66
12/31/2017
3,782.53
108,873.41
79,477.59
1,832,848.23
$ 13,305.60
7/31/2018
1 565.49
108,873.41
13,871.09
1,846,719.32
$ (0.00)
TOTAL
964.019.07
2.619.588.29
1.846.719.32
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 66
Page 67
TIF 7-7 — Stone Creek Village
Description:
The Stone Creek Village Housing District (County number 2073) was
established in 2002 and is located within Municipal Development District No. 7.
On April 18, 2003, the City entered into a Development Agreement with
Plymouth Leased Housing Associates LLC. (Dominium) to construct 130 units
of rental housing. The Developer is required to maintain a minimum of 34 units
for occupancy by persons or families at or below 50% of the area median
income through the term of the Agreement.
On April 18, 2003, the City issued a $1,159,000 PAYGO TIF Note to the
Developer who in turn assigned the Note MMA Mortgage Investment
Corporation in December 2005. In addition, on April 1, 2003, the City provided
the Developer a 30 -year Loan for $236,000 from its Tax Increment Housing
Assistance Program (TIFAP). The loan carries a 2% simple, non -compounding
interest rate and is due and payable in full on April 1, 2033.
Adopted ............................05/14/2002
Requested Date....................05/31/2002
Certified Date .....................06/06/2002
First Increment ........................07/2003
Obligation End Date
...............02/01/2018
Decertifies .........................12/31
/2028
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 67
Page 68
TIF 7-7 — Stone Creek Village Continued
Administrative Authority:
The City of Plymouth is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
Fiscal Disparities Election:
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2002): 109.2460%
Current (Pay 2017): 107.550%
Allowable Uses:
MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4d specifies the activities on which tax increment from a housing district may be spent. In general, tax increment must
be spent on housing projects meeting the income guidelines, public improvements directly related to housing projects and administrative
expenses.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 68
Page 69
TIF 7-7 — Stone Creek Village Continued
Obligations.
There are currently two (2) obligations in this District as follows:
$236,000 up front 30 -year deferred loan/note at simple, non -compounding 2% interest. The Note was issued on April 1, 2003 to
Plymouth Leased Housing Associates, Limited Partnership. The note is payable on April 1, 2033.
$1,159,000 at 7.69% interest. The Note was issued on issued on April 18, 2003, to Plymouth Leased Housing Associates and was
assigned to MMA Mortgage Investment Corporation in December 2005. The Note is payable from 95% of the increment received from
the Project and is payable from August 1, 2005 through February 1, 2018. In no event, shall the total payment amounts on the Note
exceed $1,982,682. After the February 1, 2017 payment, the total payments are $1,598,749.40 and the current balance is $832,404.87. It
is not expected that revenues will be sufficient to pay this obligation in full.
Income Compliance Requirements:
Income limitations are required to be monitored on an on-going basis for a Housing District. The City is required to substantiate that the
applicable income limitations and rent restrictions are being met on an annual basis. The compliance must be completed regardless of whether the
project receives tax credits or not, pursuant to 469.174 sub 11. The property owner has been submitting the required documentation on an annual
basis and have continued to meet the requirement that the required 34 units are affordable to persons or families at or below 50% of the area
median income.
Other Development Agreement Compliance:
None
Three Year Rule:
The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused
public improvements to be constructed in the district. This deadline for the District was June 6, 2005 and was met when the City issued the TIF
Note on April 18, 2003.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 69
Page 70
TIF 7-7 — Stone Creek Village Continued
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. TIF District 7-7 does not fit this
timeline and its four-year rule deadline was June 6, 2006.
Five Year Rule:
Five-year rule is not applicable to housing districts.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. The district may not be enlarged after June 6, 2007.
Recommendations:
8. Use of Increment. The Developer is required to maintain affordability until 2038 for the project due to their financing. Since the obligation
is paid off in 2018 (second half 2017 TIF), the City will be able to continue to collect eleven (11) more years of TIF for use on affordable
housing projects (2018-2028). We recommend the City modify the TIF Plan to increase the budget to avoid generating excess increment and
maximize the future TIF available for affordable housing projects. It is estimated that the balance available at the end of 2028 will be
approximately $2,162,570. This increment may be used to pay eligible costs for "housing projects" as defined by MS 469.174, Subd. 11,
located anywhere within the City limits. A housing project is a rental or owner -occupied housing development intended for occupancy by low
and moderate income families. The income guidelines are defined in MS 469.1761 as follows:
Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at
60% of median income (40/60).
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts August 2017
Plymouth, Minnesota Page 70
Page 71
TIF 7-7 — Stone Creek Village Continued
Owner Occupied: Assistance to homeowners with an income at or below 100% of the median income for a family of two or less or
115% of the median income for a family of three or more.
Typically, TIF is utilized for capital expenditures, but may be used for non -capital expenditures on a limited basis. Examples of potential
rental housing projects would include:
1. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election)
2. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election)
3. Providing subsidy to an existing project that is earmarked for additional affordability (20/50 or 40/60 election)
Examples of potential owner -occupied projects would include:
1. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction
2. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers
3. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners)
4. Second mortgages to qualified home buyers
In order for the City to continue to utilize these funds for housing projects, the development is required to continue to meet income guidelines
and report them annually to the City (25%, or 34 of the units are affordable at 50% of AMI). The City needs to annually monitor the income
verification to assure that the existing income requirements are met. If the income requirements are not met on any given year, then the City
will need to return that year's increment to the County for redistribution.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 71
Page 72
TIF 7-7 - Stone Creek Village Continued
DISTRICT ,• „ ,RECOMMENDATIONS
ORIGINAL HSS Geo. Enlargement Interest Income 1.00% 1) Consider pooling options. Get TIF attorney opinion on use of increment for housing after the obligation is finished.
District Type Housing Admin Expense 0.50% 2) Budget Mod: Should consider a modification for increment revenue, admin budget and outside uses, depending on above
Project Area 3) Admin. Expense is currently: 1.3% At or Under Limit
Fiscal Disparities A Election
County Number 2073
Frozen Rate UTA #1 109.246% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA k2 0.000%
UTA k3 0.000%
Current Year 2016
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
0 Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 72
Page 73
First
Receipt City Approved CertRequest Certified
Legal Term
Expected Term
Tax Increment
Interestlncome Other Revenue TOTALREVENUES
Project
Paygo
Admin Expense
County Admin
Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSE
Total Budget
Original Budget
2003 5/14/2002
5/31/2002 6/6/2002
12/31/2028
12/31/2028
2,087,000
- -
2,087,000
993,600
1,121,300
104,400
-
- - 2,219,300
2,219,300
Cumulative Modified
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
End of District Projected Actual Total
4,000,476
126,671 -
4,127,146
1,782,347
44,711
20,657
- 1,847,715
1,847,715
Under/(Over)Budget
(1,913,476)
(126,671) -
(2,040,146)
993,600
(661,047)
59,689
)20,657)
- - 371,585
371,585
TAX CAPACITY
Revenues
Expenditures
Current Local
Increment
TIF Year
Year
Base
Current Fiscal Disparities
Captured
Tax Rate
Tax Increment
Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUES
Project
Paygo
Admin Expense
County Admin
Affordable Hsg Returned TOTAL EXPENSE
Ending Balance
12
2015
-
- -
-
111.585%
1,496,912
9,810
1,506,722
-
1,423,535
19,469
3,455
- - 1,446,459
60,263
13
2016
3,313
171,996 -
168,683
109.732%
184,436
381
184,817
-
175,214
755
774
- - 176,743
68,337
14
2017
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
683
193,944
-
183,598
2,808
1,794
- - 188,200
74,081
15
2018
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
741
194,001
-
Will keep
2,808
1,794
- - 4,602
263,480
16
2019
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
2,635
195,895
-
district open
2,808
1,794
- - 4,602
454,774
17
2020
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
4,548
197,808
-
after PAYGO,
2,808
1,794
- - 4,602
647,980
18
2021
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
6,480
199,740
-
assuming
2,808
1,794
- - 4,602
843,119
19
2022
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
8,431
101,692
-
developer is
2,808
1,794
- - 4,602
1,040,209
20
2023
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
10,402
203,663
-
willing to keep
2,808
1,794
- - 4,502
1,239,269
21
2024
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
12,393
205,653
-
original project
966
774
- - 1,740
1,443,182
22
2025
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
14,432
207,692
-
affordable.
966
774
- - 1,740
1,649,135
23
2026
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
16,491
209,752
-
-
966
774
- - 1,740
1,857,146
24
2027
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
18,571
211,832
-
-
966
774
- - 1,740
2,067,238
25
2028
3,313
183,656 -
180,343
107.550%
193,261
20,672
213,933
-
-
966
774
- - 1,740
2,279,431
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
0 Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 72
Page 73
TIF 7-7 - Stone Creek Village Continued
TEST 1: Admin per TIF Plan 104,400
TEST 2: Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $208,700
Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $2,087,000
TEST 3: Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
Total TIF Revenues for the Project
$412,715
$4,127,146
RESULTS: Admin per TIF Plan
$104,400
Actual Admin Expenses
44,711
Available Admin
$59,689
Actual Percentage
1.1%
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Housing
Does this section apply?
Yes
Certification Request Date:
5/31/2002
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
No
If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
0%
Total Pooling %:
100%
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 73
Page 74
Accummulated Totals
Tax Increment 100% for Cumulative
Affordable
Available for
Annual Available
TIF Year
Year
Admin. Expenses
Total
%Allowable
Current Year
Cummulative
Admin Costs
Housing Spent Outside
Pooling
for Pooling
12
2015
19,469
1,506,722
1.3%
1,496,912
1,496,912
19,469
1,477,443
60,263
60,263
13
2016
20,224
1,691,539
1.2%
184,436
1,681,348
20,224
183,681
67,956
7,693
14
2017
23,032
1,885,483
1.2%
193,261
1,874,609
23,032
190,453
73,017
5,061
15
2018
25,840
2,079,484
1.2%
193,261
2,067,869
25,840
190,452
261,675
188,659
16
2019
28,648
2,275,380
1.3%
193,261
2,261,130
28,648
190,453
450,334
188,659
17
2020
31,456
2,473,188
1.3%
193,261
2,454,391
31,456
190,453
638,993
188,659
18
2021
34,264
2,672,929
1.3%
193,261
2,647,651
34,264
190,452
827,651
188,659
19
2022
37,072
2,874,621
1.3%
193,261
2,840,912
37,072
190,453
1,016,310
188,659
20
2023
39,880
3,078,283
1.3%
193,261
3,034,173
39,880
190,453
1,204,969
188,659
21
2024
40,846
3,283,937
1.2%
193,261
3,227,433
40,846
192,294
1,396,489
191,520
22
2025
41,813
3,491,629
1.2%
193,261
3,420,694
41,813
192,294
1,588,009
191,520
23
2026
42,779
3,701,381
1.2%
193,261
3,613,954
42,779
192,295
1,779,530
191,520
24
2027
43,745
3,913,213
1.1%
193,261
3,807,215
43,745
192,294
1,971,050
191,520
25
2028
44,711
4,127,146
1.1%
193,261
4,000,476
44,711
192,294
2,162,570
191,520
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 73
Page 74
TIF 7-7 — Stone Creek Village Continued
City of Plymouth
Principal Ledger - Stone Creek Village
MMA Mortgage Corporation PAYGO Note
Maximum amount
Note Issue D.
Final Payment
Date
$ 1,159,000
i
I -Feb -18
Interest Due
Total Tax
Increment
Tax Increment
Available at Total
Interest Rate
Payments
Note
7.69%
Balance
Available
00
4/18/2003
-
$
1,159,000.00
8/1/2003
25,639.30
$
1,184,639.30
2/1/2004
45,549.38
$
1,230,188.68
8/1/2004
47,300.75
$
1,277,489.4
2/1/2005
49,119.47
$
1, , 8.91
8/1/2005
51,008.11
33,616.74
31,935.91
31,935.91
1,345,681.11
2/1/2006
51,741.44
30,350.42
28,832.90
6 .81
$
1,368,589.65
8/1/2006
52,622.27
66,185.34
62,876.08 4
123,644.89
$
1,358,335.85
2/1/2007
52,228.01
63,635.00
60,009.99
183,654.88
$
1,350,553.86
8/1/2007
51,928.80
63,635.00
60,009.99
243,664.87
$
1,342,472.67
2/1/2008
51,618.07
63,635.00
60,453.63
304,118.50
$
1,333,637.11
8/1/2008
51,278.35
63,635.00
72,879.73
376,998.23
$
1,312,035.73
2/1/2009
50,447.77
73,529.50
72,879.73
449,877.96
$
1,289,603.77
8/1/2009
49,585.27
73,529.50
69,853.26
519,731.22
$
1,269,335.78
2/1/2010
48,805.96
73,375.50
69,853.25
589,584.47
$
1,248,288.49
8/1/2010
47,996.69
73,375.50
69,706.59
659,291.06
$
1,226,578.59
2/1/2011
47,161.95
62,493.50
69,706.59
728,997.65
$
1,204,033.95
8/1/2011
46,295.11
62,493.50
59,368.73
788,366.38
$
1,190,960.32
2/1/2012
45,792.42
66,577.92
59,368.73
847,735.11
$
1,177,384.02
8/1/2012
45,270.42
66,577.92
63,248.84
910,983.95
$
1,159,405.59
2/1/2013
44,579.14
66,577.92
63,248.85
974,232.80
$
1,140,735.89
8/1/2013
43,861.29
66,577.92
70,227.18
1,044,459.98
$
1,114,370.00
2/1/2014
42,847.53
77,534.00
70,227.18
1,114,687.16
$
1,086,990.35
8/1/2014
41,794.78
77,533.50
73,656.83
1,188,343.99
$
1,055,128.30
2/1/2015
40,569.68
77,533.50
73,656.83
1,262,000.81
$
1,022,041.16
8/1/2015
39,297.48
85,018.00
80,767.10
1,342,767.91
$
980,571.54
2/1/2016
37,702.98
85,018.00
80,767.10
1,423,535.01
$
937,507.42
8/1/2016
36,047.16
92,218.10
87,607.20
1,511,142.21
$
885,947.38
2/1/2017
34,064.68
92,218.10
87,607.20
1,598,749.40
$
832,404.87
8/1/2017
32,005.97
96,630.32
91,798.81
1,690,548.21
$
772,612.03
2/1/2018
1 29,706.93
96,630.32
91,798.81
1,782,347.02
$
710,520.15
TOTAL
1 1,874,643.60
1,850,135.04
1,782,347.02
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 74
Page 75
TIF 7-8 — Quest Development
Description.
TIF District 7-8 is a Redevelopment District (County
number 2077) established in 2011 and is located within
Municipal Development District No. 7. On May 2, 2015, the
City entered into a Development Agreement with 169/55
LLC to construct 157 -units of rental housing, of which 16
units were to be affordable to persons at or below 50% of the
area median income (AMI).
Adopted ............................04/ 12/2011
Requested Date ....................06/22/2011
Certified Date .....................06/28/2011
First Increment ........................07/2015
Obligation End Date
..............08/01/2031
Decertifies .........................12/31
/2044
Administrative Authority:
The City of Plymouth is responsible for this District.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
. .,V
L�'
in
August 2017
Page 75
Page 76
TIF 7-8 — Quest Development Continued
Parcels:
Fiscal Disparities Election:
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the District.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2011): 109.623%
Current (Pay 2017): 106.871%
Allowable Uses:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment
must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property
acquisition, demolition, soils correction, environmental remediation, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking
facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
Obligations:
There is currently one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:
• $2,500,000 at 5.00% interest. The Note was issued on issued on August 19, 2015, to 169/55 LLC and was assigned to TCF National
Bank on August 19, 2015. The Note is payable from 90% of the increment generated from the Project and is payable from August 1,
2017 through February 1, 2040 (anticipated to be paid off on August 1, 2031).
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 76
Page 77
TIF 7-8 — Quest Development Continued
Other Development Agreement Compliance:
1. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2017 shall be $20,000,000. The Assessment Agreement
shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner.
2. Reduction in Market Value. The Developer will not seek a reduction in Market Value for tax collection in years 2035 through 2039,
notwithstanding #1 above. In the event that the market value is reduced and the City has to make a payment to the County for tax collection
in years 2018 through 2034, the Developers TIF payment will be reduced by this amount or if the TIF Note is paid off, the Developer shall
pay the City the amount due within 30 days of written notice.
3. Affordability. The project shall contain 16 units and be affordable to persons or families at or below 60% of the area median income (both
rents and incomes). No more than two (2) units will be efficiency units and at least eight (8) units will have two (2) to three (3) bedrooms.
The Developer is required to submit annual reports regarding meeting the affordability requirements by January 31St, through the term of the
Agreement.
4. Look Back and Reduction of TIF Assistance. If the site improvements are less than $1,000,000, the TIF assistance shall be reduced on a
dollar for dollar basis. If project costs of (excluding site improvements) is less than anticipated, the TIF Note will be reduced by 50% of the
excess of the aggregate project costs of $30,151,226 (Exhibit F) over the actual project costs incurred as calculated at the time of completion
of construction. This requirement was satisfied on December 1, 2016.
5. Sale or Refinance. If the Developer sells the project to an unrelated third party or refinances the project during the first 7.5 years of the term
of the agreement (November 2, 2022), then an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculation needs to be completed. To the extent the modified
IRR exceeds 15% annually during that period of up to 7.5 years, then 50% of the excess amount of such average profit over the annual 15%
modified IRR will be applied to reduce the principal amount of the TIF Note. Any subordinate debt secured by collateral owned by direct or
indirect owners of the project and the deferred development fee of $850,000 shall be characterized as equity for purposes of calculating the
modified IRR.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 77
Page 78
TIF 7-8 — Quest Development Continued
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. TIF District 7-8 does not fit this
timeline and its four-year rule will be June 28, 2015.
Five Year Rule:
At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the District must be used to pay for qualified costs within the District. In 2009, the State
Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten (10) years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after
June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. In 2014, the State Legislature again amended the five-year rule limit for Redevelopment districts to eight
(8) years after certification for districts certified after April 20, 2009 and before June 30, 2012. The five-year deadline (8 -year deadline) for this
District is June 28, 2019.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. The district may not be enlarged after June 28, 2016.
Recommendations:
None at this time.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 78
Page 79
TIF 7-8 - Quest Development Continued
DISTRICT INFORMATION
ORIGINAL N55 Geo. Enlargement Interest Income 1.00% 1) District may need to be decertified early
Di strict Type Redevelopment Admin Expense 2.00% 2) Budget Mod: May need an admin mod for administrative expenses. Does not appear to require afull mod if district is decertified early
Project Area 3) Admin. Expense is currently: for year 2016 156.1% Over Limit
Fiscal Of
BElection 4) Discuss requirements for section 4J
County Number 2077
Frozen Rate UTA41 109.623% 0.000% 0.000%
UTA 42 0.000%
UTA 43 0.000%
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 79
Page 80
Fi st
_----------
.._-_..___
Receipt CityApproved
Cert Request
Certified
Legal Term
Expected Term
Tax Increment
Interest Income Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
Project
Paygo
Interfund Loan
Admin Expense CountyAdmin Outside District Other Expense
TOTALEXPENSE
Total Budget
Original Budget
2015 4/12/2011
6/22/2011
6/28/2011
12/31/2040
12/31/2040
6,302,868
100,000 -
6,402,868
2,500,000
3,272,581
630,287
- - -
6,402,868
6,402,868
Cumulative Modified
End of District Projected Actual Total
2,688,042
36,680
2,724,722
2,365,966
360
58,654
14,965
1,922,766
2,439,944
Under/(Over)Budget
3,614,826
63,320
3,678,146
2,500,000
906,615
(360)
571,633
(14,965) -
4,480,102
3,962,924
TAX CAPACITY
CASH W PROJECTIONS
Revenues a
ROLL UP
Expenditures
Current Local
Increment
TIF Year
Year
Base
Current
Fiscal Disparities
Captured
Tax Rate
Tax Increment
Interest Income Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
Project
Paygo
Interfund loan
Admin Expense CountyAdmin Outside District Returned
TOTALEXPENSE
Ending Balance
0
2015
24,148
26,508
905
1,455
115.673%
1,604
(74)
1,530
-
-
110
4,229
1,993 - -
6,332
(4,802)
1
2016
24,148
26,510
854
1,508
112.140%
1,653
(6)
1,647
-
-
125
729
519 - -
1,373
(4,528)
2
2017
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,868
(45)
111,823
-
50,341
125
2,237
519 - -
53,222
54,073
3
2018
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
541
112AO7
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
303,436
63,044
4
2019
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
630
112,496
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
72,105
5
2020
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
721
112,587
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
81,256
6
2021
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
813
112,679
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
90,499
7
2022
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
905
112,771
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
99,835
8
2023
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
998
112,864
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
109,263
9
2024
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,093
112,959
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
118,787
10
2025
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,188
113,054
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
128,405
11
2026
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,284
113,150
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
138,119
12
2027
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,381
113,247
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
147,931
13
2028
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,479
113,345
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
157,841
14
2029
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,578
113,444
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
167,849
15
2030
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,678
113,544
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
177,958
16
2031
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,780
113,646
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
188,168
17
2032
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,882
113,748
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
198,480
18
2033
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
1,985
113,851
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
208,896
19
2034
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,089
113,955
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
219,415
20
2035
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,194
114,060
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
230,039
21
2036
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,300
114,166
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
240,770
22
2037
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,408
114,274
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
103,436
251,608
23
2038
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,516
114,382
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
262,555
24
2039
24,148
129,200
-
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,626
314,491
-
100,679
-
2,237
519 - -
1O3,436
273,611
25
2040
24,148
129,200
105,052
106.871%
111,866
2,736
114,602
100,679
2,237
519
1O3,436
284,777
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 79
Page 80
TIF 7-8 - Quest Development Continued
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Redevelopment
Yes
6/22/2011
No
0%
25%
TEST 1:
Admin per TIF Plan
630,287
TEST 2:
Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$630,287
Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan
$6,302,868
TEST3:
Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$268,804
Total TIF Revenues for the Project
$2,688,042
RESULTS:
Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)
$268,804
Actual Admin Expenses
58,654
Available Admin
$210,150
Admin. Expenses
Actual Percentage
2.2%
Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:
District Type:
Does this section apply?
Certification Request Date:
Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?
If so, What is the Additional %Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):
Total Pooling %:
Redevelopment
Yes
6/22/2011
No
0%
25%
Page 81
Accummulated Totals
Tax Increment
Available for
TIF Year
Year
Admin. Expenses
Total
%Allowable
Current Year
Cummulative
Admin Costs
25% for Qualified Costs Spent Outside
Cumulative
Pooling
0
2015
4,229
1,530
276.4%
1,604
1,604
4,229
(3,828) -
(3,828)
(4,802)
1
2016
4,958
3,177
156.1%
1,653
3,257
4,958
(316) -
(4,144)
(4,528)
2
2017
7,195
115,000
6.3%
111,868
115,125
7,195
25,730 -
21,586
21,586
3
2018
9,433
227,406
4.1%
111,866
226,991
9,433
25,729 -
47,315
47,315
4
2019
11,670
339,903
3.4%
111,866
338,857
11,670
25,729 -
73,044
72,105
5
2020
13,907
452,490
3.1%
111,866
450,723
13,907
25,729 -
98,773
81,256
6
2021
16,145
565,168
2.9%
111,866
562,589
16,145
25,730 -
124,503
90,499
7
2022
18,382
677,939
2.7%
111,866
674,455
18,382
25,729 -
150,232
99,835
8
2023
20,619
790,803
2.6%
111,866
786,321
20,619
25,729 -
175,961
109,263
9
2024
22,857
903,762
2.5%
111,866
898,186
22,857
25,729 -
201,690
118,787
10
2025
25,094
1,016,816
2.5%
111,866
1,010,052
25,094
25,729 -
227,419
128,405
11
2026
27,331
1,129,966
2.4%
111,866
1,121,918
27,331
25,729 -
253,148
138,119
12
2027
29,569
1,243,213
2.4%
111,866
1,233,784
29,569
25,730 -
278,878
147,931
13
2028
31,806
1,356,558
2.3%
111,866
1,345,650
31,806
25,729 -
304,607
157,841
14
2029
34,043
1,470,003
2.3%
111,866
1,457,516
34,043
25,729 -
330,336
167,849
15
2030
36,281
1,583,547
2.3%
111,866
1,569,382
36,281
25,729 -
356,065
177,958
16
2031
38,518
1,697,193
2.3%
111,866
1,681,248
38,518
25,729 -
381,794
188,168
17
2032
40,755
1,810,940
2.3%
111,866
1,793,114
40,755
25,729 -
407,523
198,480
18
2033
42,992
1,924,791
2.2%
111,866
1,904,980
42,992
25,730 -
433,253
208,896
19
2034
45,230
2,038,746
2.2%
111,866
2,016,846
45,230
25,729 -
458,982
219,415
20
2035
47,467
2,152,806
2.2%
111,866
2,128,712
47,467
25,729 -
484,711
230,039
21
2036
49,704
2,266,972
2.2%
111,866
2,240,578
49,704
25,729 -
510,440
240,770
22
2037
51,942
2,381,246
2.2%
111,866
2,352,444
51,942
25,729 -
536,169
251,608
23
2038
54,179
2,495,628
2.2%
111,866
2,464,310
54,179
25,729 -
561,898
262,555
24
2039
56,416
2,610,119
2.2%
111,866
2,576,176
56,416
25,730 -
587,628
273,611
25
2040
58,654
2,724,722
2.2%
111,866
2,688,042
58,654
25,729
613,357
284,777
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
August 2017
Plymouth, Minnesota
Page 80
Page 81
TIF 7-8 — Quest Development Continued
City of Plymouth
Principal Ledger - 169/55, LLC
TCF PAYGO Note
1/11/2017
-
-
$ 2,500,000.00
8/1/2017
69,444.44
19,103.92 55,933.92
50,340.53
50,340.53
-
50,340.53
$ 2,500,000.00
2/1/2018
62,500.00
31,263.39 55,933.92
50,340.53
100,681.06
50,340.53
$ 2,500,000.00
8/1/2018
62,500.00
(50,367.30) 145,601.07
131,040.96
231,722.01
18,173.65
62,500.00
$ 2,481,826.35
2/1/2019
62,045.66
145,601.07
131,040.96
362,762.97
68,995.30
62,045.66
$ 2,412,831.05
8/1/2019
60,320.78
145,601.07
131,040.96
493,803.93
70,720.18
60,320.78
$ 2,342,110.86
2/1/2020
58,552.77
145,601.07
131,040.96
624,844.89
72,488.19
58,552.77
$ 2,269,622.68
8/1/2020
56,740.57
145,601.07
131,040.96
755,885.85
74,300.39
56,740.57
$ 2,195,322.28
2/1/2021
54,883.06
145,601.07
131,040.96
886,926.81
76,157.90
54,883.06
$ 2,119,164.38
8/1/2021
52,979.11
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,017,967.77
78,061.85
52,979.11
$ 2,041,102.53
2/1/2022
51,027.56
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,149,008.73
80,013.40
51,027.56
$ 1,961,089.14
8/1/2022
49,027.23
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,280,049.68
82,013.73
49,027.23
$ 1,879,075.41
2/1/2023
46,976.89
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,411,090.64
84,064.07
46,976.89
$ 1,795,011.33
8/1/2023
44,875.28
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,542,131.60
86,165.68
44,875.28
$ 1,708,845.66
2/1/2024
42,721.14
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,673,172.56
88,319.82
42,721.14
$ 1,620,525.84
8/1/2024
40,513.15
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,804,213.52
90,527.81
40,513.15
$ 1,529,998.03
2/1/2025
38,249.95
145,601.07
131,040.96
1,935,254.48
92,791.01
38,249.95
$ 1,437,207.02
8/1/2025
35,930.18
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,066,295.44
95,110.78
35,930.18
$ 1,342,096.24
2/1/2026
33,552.41
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,197,336.40
97,488.55
33,552.41
$ 1,244,607.69
8/1/2026
31,115.19
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,328,377.35
99,925.77
31,115.19
$ 1,144,681.92
2/1/2027
28,617.05
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,459,418.31
102,423.91
28,617.05
$ 1,042,258.01
8/1/2027
26,056.45
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,590,459.27
104,984.51
26,056.45
$ 937,273.50
2/1/2028
23,431.84
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,721,500.23
107,609.12
23,431.84
$ 829,664.38
8/1/2028
20,741.61
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,852,541.19
110,299.35
20,741.61
$ 719,365.03
2/1/2029
17,984.13
145,601.07
131,040.96
2,983,582.15
113,056.83
17,984.13
$ 606,308.20
8/1/2029
15,157.70
145,601.07
131,040.96
3,114,623.11
115,883.25
15,157.70
$ 490,424.94
2/1/2030
12,260.62
145,601.07
131,040.96
3,245,664.07
118,780.34
12,260.62
$ 371,644.61
8/1/2030
9,291.12
145,601.07
131,040.96
3,376,705.02
121,749.84
9,291.12
$ 249,894.76
2/1/2031
6,247.37
145,601.07
131,040.96
3,507,745.98
124,793.59
6,247.37
$ 125,101.17
8/1/2031
3,127.53
145,601.07
128,228.70
3,635,974.68
125,101.17
3,127.53
$ 0.00
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 81
Page 82
TIF 7-9 — Agora
Description:
TIF District 7-9 is a redevelopment district that was adopted on
January 24, 2017 and is located within Municipal Development
District No. 7. The District encompasses three (3) parcels of land
(former Four Seasons Mall and City Storm Water Pond) and was
established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into
approximately 139 senior apartments, two hotels (Aloft — 95 units and
Town Place Suites - 100 units, with event space), approximately
19,680 sq/ft of office, 61,426 sq/ft of retail and a 3 -story municipal
parking ramp consisting of approximately 339 stalls to accommodate
the City's transit parking needs.
On January 24, the City approved a development Agreement with
Rock Hill Management LLC. for the development. The City is
required to issue the Developer a $4,500,000 PAYGO TIF Note at
4% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs,
euf ¢ nury PaAJnB�M1eilul .a...arA. � 1 = � '� na.w
consisting mostly of extraordinary costs related to soils correction and
structural elements related to poor soils. To date the TIF Note has not been issued.
Adopted ...........................01
/24/2017
Requested Date ...................06/29/2017
Certified Date ....................06/30/2017
First Increment .....................Est. 2019
Obligation End Date..............12/31/2033
Decertifies ........................12/31
/2044
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 82
Page 83
TIF 7-9 — Agora Continued
Administrative Authority:
The City of Plymouth is responsible for this District.
Parcels:
Fiscal Disparities Election:
The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the District.
Original and Current Tax Rate:
Original (Pay 2017): 112.7350%
Current (Pay 2017): 112.7350%
Allowable Uses:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment
must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property
acquisition, demolition, soils correction, environmental remediation, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking
facilities, and allowable administrative expenses.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 83
Page 84
TIF 7-9 — Agora Continued
Obligations.
It is anticipated that there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:
$4,500,000 at 4.00% interest. To date the Note has not been issued. The Note is payable from 90% of the increment generated from the
Project and is payable from August 1, 2019 through February 1, 2034.
Other Development Agreement Compliance:
1. Senior Housing. Lancaster Lane Senior Housing LLC shall construct the project by December 31,2019 and not seek tax exemption for all or
part of the project.
2. Hotels. Prior to issuance of the TIF Note, the Developer must provide copies of the Franchise agreements for the hotels. In addition, the lessee
of the Hotel property must construct the hotels by December 31,2 018.
Business Subsidy Act. The Developer agrees to continue operations within the City for at least five (5) years after completion of the project and
will provide the City with requested information to satisfy the annual reporting requirements to DEED.
4. Minimum Assessment Awreement. The minimum market value for the commercial and office potion of the development shall be
$12,882,000 as of January 2, 2018. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the earlier of February 1, 2034, TIF Note is paid in
full or the TIF District terminates. The Developer shall notify the City of any administrative or judicial review to reduce the market value.
5. Reduction in Market Value. The Developer will not seek a reduction in Market Value for tax collection in years 2029 through 2033,
notwithstanding #3 above. In the event that the market value is reduced and the City has to make a payment to the County for tax collection
in years 2019 through 2028, the Developers TIF payment will be reduced by this amount or if the TIF Note is paid off, the Developer shall
pay the City the amount due within 30 days of written notice.
6. Parkinz Ramp, The Developer shall submit plans to the City for approval and comply with competitive bidding requirements and payment
and performance bond requirements to construct the ramp. Any modifications of the plans and specifications and change orders shall be
submitted to the City for approval. If the ramp is comprised of less than 339 -stalls, the Developer shall provide surface parking for the
number of stalls not constructed. The Developer shall enter into an Operating and Maintenance Agreement and a Special Assessment
Agreement with the City for a term of 50 years.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 84
Page 85
TIF 7-9 — Agora Continued
7. Look Back and Reduction of TIF Assistance. If the site improvements are less than $5,113,184, the TIF assistance shall be reduced on a
dollar for dollar basis. If project costs of (excluding site improvements) is less than anticipated, the TIF Note will be reduced by 50% of the
excess of the aggregate project costs of $41,936,969 (Exhibit F) over the actual project costs incurred as calculated at the time of completion
of construction.
8. Sale or Refinance. If the Developer sells the project to an unrelated third party or refinances the project during the first ten (10) years of the
term of the agreement (January 1, 2027), then a cash -on -cash (COC) return needs to be completed. To the extent the average actual project
COC exceeds 8% annually during that period of up to 10 years, then 50% of the excess amount of such average profit over the 8% COC will
be applied to reduce the principal amount of the TIF Note. Any subordinate debt secured by collateral owned by direct or indirect owners of
the project and the deferred development fee of $850,000 shall be characterized as equity for purposes of calculating the modified IRR.
Four Year Rule:
MN Statute 469.176 sub 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within
the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The State Legislature amended the four-
year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. TIF District 7-9 does not fit this
timeline and its four-year rule will be a date in 2022 (unknown since the district has not yet been certified by the County).
Five Year Rule:
At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the District must be used to pay for qualified costs within the District. In 2009, the State
Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten (10) years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after
June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. In 2014, the State Legislature again amended the five-year rule limit for Redevelopment districts to eight
(8) years after certification for districts certified after April 20, 2009 and before June 30, 2012. TIF District 7-9 does not fit these timelines and its
five-year rule will sometime in 2022.
Geographic Enlargements:
MN Statute 469.175 sub 4 (f) places limits on the length of time a TIF district may add parcels. No parcels may be added five years after the
certification date. The district may not be enlarged after a date yet to be determined in 2022.
Recommendations: None at this
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 85
Page 86
Appendix of Terms
Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 - A geographic area in the City that includes all but the northwestern corner of the City. The Project
Area plan was adopted in 2004 and subsequently modified as districts were adopted or modified. It is the area in which TIF districts may
be established and in which increment may be spent, subject to limitations. This Project Area was established by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Plymouth and the HRA administers the districts within this area. The TIF Districts includes in
this area are TIF 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3.
Municipal Development District No. 7 — This project area includes all but the northwestern edge of the City. It was established in 1995,
and like the Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 above, it has been subsequently modified as districts are adopted or modified. It is also a
unique geographic area in which TIF from the TIF Districts (TIF 7-4, 7-5A, 7-6, 7-7 and 7-8) can be spent. The City administers this
Development District.
Three Year Rule — This is governed by MN Statute 469.176 sub la. This statutory section was repealed in 2005, but remained in effect
for the districts that existed when the rule was in place. It states that, within three years form certification date, bonds must be issued, the
authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district.
Four Year Rule — This is governed by MN Statute 469.176 sub 6. This section requires that, within four years from certification, certain
activities must have taken place on each parcel within the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation
and site improvements. If such activities have not taken place on a parcel, the parcel is `knocked down' from the district. This means that
increment may no longer be collected from that parcel. If activity subsequently takes place, there are procedures to reinstate the parcel in
the district. The reinstatement process does not require a public hear or a TIF plan modification.
Five Year Rule — This is governed by MN Statute 469.1763 and places limits on the amount and the time in which revenues may be used
on activities outside the district. TIF spent on activities outside the geographic boundary of the district itself is referred to as `pooling'. For
redevelopment districts, 25% of increment collected may be spent, subject to limitations, on activities outside the boundaries of the district
itself. For economic development and housing districts, this limit is reduced to 20%.
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 86
Page 87
Map of the TIF Districts
Plymouth Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Project Area No. 1
Open TIF Districts 0 District g°undary
Pity ofayR th, 0Lake
lhinnesa�
1 0.5 0 1 z 3 4
mommommi
hf es
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
August 2017
Page 87
Page 88
Development District No. 7
Apra fat 20 f I T,, ECJ,, ,, o'& e Y e i P er.?e r.. r DLS&V- Wo T iR
aeiRP erAamiY7fe y.e toCertskcws M'.TA �e CNy! Vnlls
iiy of
Ns�4 +wN.ac�a
as os � a x
xav
•w�ti.�vr..T-r-.s..�.1rr is ..,n
Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing Districts
Plymouth, Minnesota
LEGEND
[=Dr ,:.P.11, D11Hd No. 7
117-1 C'ly Sour-darp
Lakes
Major S33d'
'./
Roads
Tom,/ Railroads
August 2017
Page 88
Page 89
h ]
-
--
4M EHLERS
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
L-
L
TIF Status Report
City of Plymouth
Steve Juetten
April 24, 2018
1 - f�■
Overview
• Number of TIF Districts
• Tax Capacity Captured by TIF
• Increase in Tax Base
• Existing Obligations
• Pooling for affordable housing and
redevelopment
2
EHLERS
LEARERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
Number of TIF Districts
• 9 TIF Districts
✓ 6 Redevelopment (26 years)
• TIF 1-1 (Shops at Plymouth Creek), TIF 1-3 (Plymouth Crossroads), TIF 7-4
(Hoyt), TIF 7-6 (Berkshire), TIF 7-8 (Quest), TIF 7-9 (Agora)
✓ 3 Housing (26 years)
• TIF 1-2 (Vicksburg Commons), TIF 7-5A (Village at Basset Creek), TIF 7-7
(Stone Creek Village)
EHLERS
LEARERS IN PU13LIC FINANCE
Future Captured Tax Capacity in TIF
Total Tax Capacity (Gross)
129,056,727
130,347,294
131,650,767
132,967,275
134,296,948
135,639,917
136,996,316
Percentage of Tax Base in TIF
CURRENT DISTRICTS
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
TIF 1-1 Shops at Plymouth Creek
222,424
224,648
226,895
229,164
231,455
233,770
236,108
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2031
Interfund Loan Obligation: Anticipated End
2/1/2022
TIF 1-2 Vicksburg Commons
31,039
31,349
31,663
31,980
32,299
32,622
32,949
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2033
Interfund Loan Obligation: Anticipated End
2/1/2027
PAYG Obligation: Anticipated End
8/1/2025
TIF 1-3 Plymouth Crossroads
313,366
316,500
319,665
322,861
326,090
329,351
332,644
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2033
PAYG Obligation: Anticipated End
8/1/2025
TIF 7-4 Hoyt
274,493
277,238
280,010
282,810
285,639
288,495
0
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2022
Deficit Pooling with TIF 7-5: Anticipated End
2/1/2023
TIF 7-5 Village at Basset Creek
172,951
174,681
176,427
178,192
179,974
181,773
183,591
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2026
2009 GO TIF Refunding Bonds: Anticipated End
2/1/2023
TIF 7-6 Berkshire
205,950
208,010
0
0
0
0
0
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2028
PAYG Obligation: Anticipated End
7/31/2018
TIF 7-7 Stone Creek Village
180,343
182,146
183,968
185,808
187,666
189,542
191,438
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2028
PAYG Obligation: Anticipated End
2/1/2018
TIF 7-8 Quest Development
105,052
106,103
107,164
108,235
109,318
110,411
111,515
District Legal Max Term
12/31/2040
PAYG Obligation: Anticipated End
8/1/2031
TIF 7-9 Agora
0
229,319
569,518
575,213
580,965
586,775
District Le al Max Term
12/31/2044
Total Captured"
1,505,6181
1,520,674
1,555,110
1,908,567
1,927,653
1,946,929
1,675,019
Total Tax Capacity (Gross)
129,056,727
130,347,294
131,650,767
132,967,275
134,296,948
135,639,917
136,996,316
Percentage of Tax Base in TIF
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
Tax Capacity Captured by TIF
Final Payable 2017
Minneapolis
8.5%
61.13%
Aa1/AAA
Bloomington
7.8%
40.93%
Aaa/AAA
Edina
2.6%
28.19%
Aaa/AAA
Eden Prairie
2.6%
32.48%
Aaa
Minnetonka
2.2%
36.38%
Aaa
Brooklyn Park
2.1%
54.37%
AA+
Plymouth
1.2%
26.48%
Aaa/AAA
Maple Grove
0.4%
38.25%
AAA
Golden Vallev
0.1%
56.11%
Aa1
EHLERS
LEARERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
Increase in Tax Base
• Nearly 660% increase in market value overall
TIF 1-1 Shops at Plymouth Creek
6,972,800
24, 343, 000
249.11%
TIF 1-2 Vicksburg Commons
1,487,700
7,140,000
379.94%
TIF 1-3 Plymouth Crossroads
2,544,100
23, 332, 000
817.10%
TI F 7-4 Hoyt
440,700
21, 836, 000
4854.84%
TI F 7-5 Village at Basset Creek
749,694
17, 629,140
2251.51%
TIF 7-6 Berkshire
4,200,000
14,460, 000
244.29%
TI F 7-7 Stone Creek Village
296,000
17,128, 000
5686.49%
TIF 7-8 Quest Development
1,244,900
10, 336, 000
730.27%
**TIF 7-9 Agora
8,549,000
8,549,000
0.00%
** TOTAL
26,484,894
144,753,140
659.39%
EHLERS
LEARERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
Final Thoughts
1. Redevelopment efforts have increased property valuations
within the TIF districts by nearly 660% and justify the short term
investment
2. The City's TIF districts are in overall good financial health
3. The City has opportunities to utilize funds from several districts
to augment its housing and redevelopment efforts and to assist
in paying for other eligible redevelopment costs and/or
affordable housing projects (HRA -owned) and future projects
EHLERS
LEARERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
rp)City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
To:
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING Prepared by:
April 24, 2018 Reviewed by:
Agenda 2D
Number:
Mayor and Council
Dave Callister, City Manager
Item: Set Future Study Sessions
Pending Study Session Topics (at least three Council members have approved the following study
items on the list):
None at this time.
Other Council requests for Study Session Topics:
None at this time.
Staff's requests for Study Sessions:
• City Manager's Quarterly update (suggest May 22 following regular Council meeting)
• Transit update (placeholder at this time and can be scheduled with other items)
Page 1
r�ity
Plymouth
Adding Quality tO Life
April 2018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
5:30 PM
7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL
Hotel Licensing
QUALITY
Medicine Lake Room
COMMITTEE
7:00 PM
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Medicine Lake Room
MEETING
Council Chambers
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4:30 PM to 7:00 PM
Hennepin County
Primavera
Primavera
Open Book Meeting
Plymouth Creek
Plymouth Creek
Medicine Lake Room
Center
Center
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
22
23
25:30 PM
25
26
27
28
OUNCIL/HRA/
Planning Commission
MEETING
Housing Study/TIF
District update/Senior
Building
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
29
30
HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
Page 2
r�ity
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
May 2018
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
Walk with
PLANNING
the Mayor
COMMISSION
Plymouth Creek
MEETING
Center
Council Chambers
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
5:00 PM
8:00 AM -12:30
SPECIAL COUNCIL
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
PM
MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK It REC
Fire Department
Fire Dep t. Update
QUALITY
ADVISORY
Waffle Breakfast
Medicine Lake Room
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
Fire Station III
7:00 PM
MEETING
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chambers
MEETING
Council Chambers
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
7:00 PM
PLANNING
10:00 AM
COMMISSION
Bark in the Park
MEETING
Hilde Performance
Council Chambers
Center
20
21
22 5:30 PM
23
24
25
26
COUNCIL/EQC
7:00 PM
MEETING
HOUSING AND
Organics Recycling
REDEVELOPMENT
Medicine Lake
Room
AUTHORITY
7:00 PM
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Medicine Lake Room
MEETING
Council Chambers
27
28
29
30
31
MEMORIAL DAY
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
Page 3
r�ity
Plymouth
Adding Quality t0 Life
June 2018
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
5:30 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK £t REC
TwinWest Up -
date/Budget Goals
QUALITY
ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
7:00 PM
MEETING
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Medicine Lake Room
Plymouth Creek
MEETING
Center
Council Chambers
19
17
18
20
21
22
23
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5:30 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
7:00 PM
VOTE
MEETING
HOUSING AND
State of the Streets in
REDEVELOPMENT
NW
Plymouth
AUTHORITY
Medicine Lake Room
Absentee Voting
7:00 PM
begins for State
REGULAR COUNCIL
Medicine Lake Room
Primary Election
MEETING
Council Chambers
Page 4
r�ity
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
July 2018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
INDEPENDENCE
DAY
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
8
9
10
11 7:00 PM
12
13
14
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
5:30 PM - 10:30 PM
Music in Plymouth
Hilde
Performance Center
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR
HOUSING AND
COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
29
30
31
CITY COUNCIL
FILINGS OPEN
Mayor, At Large,
Ward 2 and Ward 4
Page 5
r�ity
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
August 2018
Page 6
1
2
3
4
7:00 PM
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM
PLANNING
Kids Fest
COMMISSION
Hilde
MEETING
Performance Center
Council Chambers
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
10:00 AM -3:00 PM
QUALITYABSENTEE/DIRECT
COMMITTEE
BALLOTING
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
12
13
14 �
15
16
17
18
VOTE
8:00 AM -5:00 PM
7:00 PM
5:00 PM
ABSENTEE/DIRECT
PRIMARY
PLANNING
CITY COUNCIL FILINGS
BALLOTING
ELECTION
COMMISSION
DEADLINE TO
Polls Open
MEETING
WITHDRAW
7:00 AM to 8:00 PM
Council Chambers
5:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL
FILINGS CLOSE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7:00 PM
5:30 PM
HOUSING AND
SPECIAL COUNCIL
REDEVELOPMENT
MEETING
AUTHORITY
Budget and CIP
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
Medicine Lake Room
26
27
28 5:30 PM
29
30
31
SPECIAL COUNCIL
MEETING
Budget and CIP
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
Council Chambers
Page 6
r�
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
September 2018
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLANNING
LABOR DAY
MEETING
COMMISSION
Budget and CIP
MEETING
CITY OFFICES
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chambers
CLOSED
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK £t REC
MEETING
QUALITY
ADVISORY
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
MEETING
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
Public Works
Maintenance Building,
14900 23rd Ave. N.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
7:30 PM
VOTE
10:30 AM - 2:00 PA
PLANNING
Plymouth on Parad
COMMISSION
qw
Celebration
MEETING
City Center Area
Council Chambers
ABSENTEE VOTING
BEGINS FOR GENERAL
ELECTION
2330
24
25
26
27
28
29
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
HOUSING AND
MEETING
REDEVELOPMENT
Council Chambers
AUTHORITY
MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
Page 7