Loading...
Correspondence SectionAdministrative Section CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 CiO, Cemer Ddve, PO Bo.,: 147 Ch,mhasse,, Mi,mesota 55317 ]~ho,e 612. 93Z 1900 Gc,e~a/ F~x' 612.93Z5739 E,gi,eeE~g Fax 612.93Z9152 htblic Sa~'9, ~z.x' 612.93(2524 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent Kara Wickenhauser, Senior Center Coordinator Susan Marek, Recreation Center Manager Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation January 5, 2001 SUB J: Repo,qs to tile Park and Recreation Commission I am currently preparing tile 2001 Park and Recreation Colnmission meeting calendar. In an effort to improve how we communicate withiu the department, I anl discontinuing your monthly repon to me. In lieu of this, I am requesting you prepare repons as scheduled below and presenting them in person to the Commission. This will alleviate you of the need to prepare monthly repons and provide an opportunity for you to personally repon to the Commission and fellow staff members. I see significant benefils for all panics in taking this approach. Dale and Susan Report Schedule Kara March June June December September December I will leave the exact content and format of this repon to your discretion, but offer tile following as possible topics. Generally these mirror your past repons. Staff reports are due two weeks prior to that month's Commission meeting. PARK & MAINTENANCE RECREATION CENTER SENIOR CENTER 1. Park Maintenance 1. 2. Trail Maintenance 3. Dox~aqtown Maintenance 4. Seasonal Repons 5. StaffNotes & News 6. Vandalism Park & Trail Usage Notes Management Recommendations Current Program Offerings 2. Program Attendance Statistics 3. Staff Notes & News 4. Revenue Report 5. Facility Notes & News 6. Daycare Report 7. Management Recommendations 8. Other Other 1. Current Program Offerings 2. Program Attendance Statistics 3. Trips 4. Special programs 5. Management Recommendations 6. Other C: Scott Botcher, City Manager Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager Park and Recreation Commission G:\park\th\M arekMemo-C RCReports °'-~ O :o~ © -+~ © ® ¥ O 0 © 0 o ~ © U Q o a .a ¥ 0 0 0 0 0 0 © © o o~ s Affordable Housing For The Region Strategies For Building Strong Communities A Report Of The Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force November, 2000 Affordable Housing For The Region Strategies For Building Strong Communities A Report Of The Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force November, 2000 The Task Force invites comments on this report. Comments can be made via the Metropolitan Council's web site, at www. metrocouncil.org, or by mailing them to: Elizabeth Ryan, Director of Housing and Livable Communities, Metropolitan Council, 230 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101. One Two 2 3 3 Four Table of Contents Resolution I. Introduction What We Mean By Affordable Housing What We Do Not Mean By Affordable Housing The Charge To The Task Force II. Why Focus On Affordable Housing Six III. Findings 6 Affordable Housing Can And Must Be Synonymous With Quality Housing 6 Mixed Income Developments Are A Preferred Way For Providing Affordable Housing 6 Higher Densities Are Necessary To Increase The Supply Of Affordable Housing 8 Most Affordable Housing Will Not Be Produced In The Marketplace Without Incentives 9 Funding Partnerships Are Needed 9 The Effective Solution Will Be A Regional Solution 10 Cities Should Have The Flexibility To Customize Their Affordable Housing Strategies 11 Cities Need Technical Assistance 13 Human And Social Services PlayA Limited BLI! Important Role Fourteen 14 16 18 21 24 25 Twenty-seven Twenty-eight Twenty-nine IV. Recommendations Provide Leadership Ensure That Local Planning And Zoning Enables Affordable Housing Change Government Practices And Policies To Reduce The Cost Of Building Housing Secure Additional Funding Invest In Skill-Building And Expertise Develop A Support Structure For Those In Need Of Services About The Task Force Acknowledgments Sources Attachments A: Occupations And Housing Affordability B: U.S. Conference Of Mayors And Mortgage BankerAssociafion Five Point Plan To Reinvest In Cities C: Sustainable Streets D: Charge To A Property M~nagement And Maintenance Task Force Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--1 Resolution As Mayors of a diverse sct of metropolitan area communities, we recognize that all communities need quality housing for people at all income levels and ages. In order for the Twin Cities metropolitan region to grow economically, more affordable housing is needed to Complement the growing job opportunities in all parts of the region. Businesses need access to workers, and workers need housing they can afford. A varied price range of quality housing is an asset to our communities: it reinforces families by creating stable envirmm~ents in which children can learn and feel secure, promotes attachment to community by providing housing for all stages of life, and lends richness to community life through variety and balance. Yet many people, including our young adult children and senior citizens, carmot afford to live in their home towns, nor can many workers afford to live near their jobs. The availability of quality housing and dignified living conditions for people at all stages of life and income levels is imperative to our region's continued success. Therefore, we will work to increase housing choice in all communities. We will do so in a manner that enhances the livability of communities and neighborhoods. We will create partnerships and explore opportunities that create housing choice without rcfying solely on scarce public resources. We call upon the broader community, including the financial community, developers, businesses, all levels of govenm~ent and nonprofits, to assist us with our effort to build a high quality of life and economic prosperity in the Twin Cities region, by joining in implementing our recommendations to: · Provide Leadership · Ensure That Local Planning And Zoning Enables Affordable Housin9 · Change Government Polices And Practices To Reduce The Cost Of Buildin9 Housing · Secure Additional Funding · Invest In Skill-building And Expedise, and · Develop A Support Structure For Those In Need Of Services fJayors' Regional Housing Task Force--2 What We Mean By Affordable Housing I. Introduction We use tile term "affordable housing" throughout this report. Our meaning is simple: the availabilio, of quailO, housi~g a~zd dig~zified living co~ditio,s for people of ali i~comes and a~ all stages of life. Affordable housing is not a separate class or type of housing that makes it different from ordinary housing. It is ordinary housing: roughly half of home owners in tile Twin Cities live in "affordable" housing. But the housing being produced in the market place is less and less affordable to ordinary people-- people who live in and contribute to our communities. Because affordable housing is linked to the health of our communities, a mix of housing for people of all incomes is essential to the continued prosperity of our cities and the metropolitan region. Some of the more compelling reasons for eusuring a mix of housing are: Academic l'erformance of Children. Education has been called the greatest economic resource of today. Academic achievement improves when children have stable housing. In a recent study, average reading scores for children who moved three or more times during tile 5,ear were almost 20% lower than those of children who did not move.t In another study, eighty percent of homeless children scored in the bottom quartile of ail achievement test for academic performance.: Strong Economy. Businesses need workers, and workers need places to live. There are more and more examples of business relocations from areas without sufficient housing for workers to areas with such housing. City Fiscal Strength. Preliminary results from a study currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Council suggest that cities can meet their affordable housing goals and experience positive fiscal outcomes. Strong Communities. Our cities should be places where people can live their entire lives if they choose, developing social attachments which promote strong neighborhoods and civic involvement. This is disrupted when young adults, senior citizens and those serving our communities such as teachers, police officers, receptionists, nursing aides and travel agents, are priced out of the housing market. The chart shown in Attachment A shows how difficult it is for workers in many occupations to aflbrd housing. ~The Kids Mobility Project, ?98. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--3 Congestion. Lack of affordable housing near the work place contributes to traffic congestion. In 1970, the average trip distance from home to work in the metropolitan area was 6.6 mi}es; this had increased in 9.2 miles by 1990. Congestion on metropolitan freeways rose from 25% of total freeway miles in 1990 to 50% in 1997. Opportunit3,. Some people face difficult life transitions, such as wclfare to work, or homelcssness. Without stable housing, it is virtually impossible for them to succeed at their transition to economically secure and self-sufficient lives. Because of the lack of affordable housing, family homclcssness has increased dramatically. A 1997 survey of homeless people found that 34% were working; 19% had full time jobs.3 In short, a mix of housing is fundamcntal to the quality of life in our cities. What We Do Not Mean By Affordable Housing Unfortunately, affordable housing has come to have many different, often negative, cmmotations. A stereotype of "affordable housing" has developed, based on failed public housing developments of the past. In the worst scenarios, affordable housing has become a synonym for inept government programs, poorly maintained housing, social decay and crime. We reject this view of affordable housing. When we speak on these pages of affordable housing, we mean the availability of quality housing and dignified living conditions for people of all income levels, at all stages of life. We also mean housing that fits well into its neighborhood. The Charge To The Task Force Tile charge to tile task force was to identify ways of increasing the supply of affordable housing. We examined a number of supply side factors such as fees and regulations, the availability of land, and the provision of producer subsidies. We also looked at no-cost items that restrict the supply of lower priced housing, such as lack of public support. The demand side of the housing equation is equally important. However, solutions on the demand side (as functions of income and demographics) tend to be difficult to address at the local level. ~ Quoted in Fieldings, Wilder Research Center, 2000. t¥1ayors' Regional Housing Task Force--4 II. Why Focus On Affordable Housing Tile need for more reasonably-priced housing has ballooned. The Metropolitan Council estimates that at least one in five of all regional households lives in homes that are not affordable to them-- that is, they are forced to pay more for housing than they can reasonably afford. An estimated 161,000 households in the Twin Cities pay half or more of their income for housing and/or live in substandard housing conditions. Of these, 46,000 arc moderate income working families, 72% of whom live in thc suburbs. Another 53,000 households are elderly or marginally employed.4 Housing prices in metropolitan areas throughout the country continue to rise at a pace that makes housing costs increasingly burdensome for households of modest or Iow incomes. During thc first ttzree months of 2000, averagc rents in the Twin Cities metropolitan area increased to $742 a month, an 11.5% increase over the same period in 19997 The median price of closed home sales in the Twin Cities metropolitan area reached S145,000 in May of 2000, an increase of 10.8% from May of 1999. ]u comparison, the Faintly Housing Fund points out that ownership of even a modest three bedroom home priced at S I13,000 is out of reach for households with a single wage earner employed in a job such as a school bus driver, receptionist, or bank teller. The average rent for a two bedromn apartment (at $822 a month for a two bedroom apartment in 2000) also exceeds affordability limits for workers employed in such jobs. The housing market is being driven by our strong economy. The Twin Cities has benefited tremendously from this, but the strong economy pushes up housing demand as well as production costs. Both have the impact of increasing the price of housing. On the demand side, higher incomes, a growing population and lower interest rates push up the price, size and quality of housing being built. Per capita income in the metropolitan area in 1998 was 123% of the national average, the fifth highest metropolitan area in the country. Growing population and smaller household sizes also increase pressure on the housing market: it is estimated that the number of households in our region will grow by ' Stcgman, Qucrcia and McCarthy, 2000. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--5 270,000 between 2000 and 2020, all of which will need housing. Consumer expectations have changed. Nationally, the median size new home built in 1998 was 44% larger than the median size new home in 1970. The proportion of new homes with'two or more baths increased by 94%, with four or more bedrooms by 37%, while those with fireplaces increased by 74% and air conditioning by 144%. On the supply side, the strong economy tightens the labor market, which increases construction costs, and creates bidding wars for land, which pushes up the price for land. In the ownership market, this can lead to bigger and more expensive homes. In the rental market, these forces have led to a decrease in production in multifamily housing: permits fell from 6,160 per )'ear in the 1970s and 1980s to 1,010 units per year in the 1990s.6 The resulting vacancy rate today is 2%, among the lowest in the nation. A five percent vacancy rate is considered a healthy market. Low vacancy rates drive up rents. They have also created a situation where an estimated $14 million of Section 8 housing choice vouchers are going unused each year. Section 8 vouchers are a "demand side" solution to affordable housing, because they supplement a renter's income. However, the supply of rental housing is so Iow, landlords can find renters to occupy all of their rental units without having to accept Section 8 vouchers. Renters who use Section 8 vouchers are being turned away, and these same renters are forced to rent their housing without the aid of the vouchers. This places a tremendous burden on the household budget, which in extreme cases leads to choices between paying for medicine or rent (an estimated one-third of those eligible for Section 8 are elderly), or to homelessness when rent payments become too expensive (women and children are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population). ~ Maxficld Research Inc., 2000. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--6 Affordable Housing Can And Must Be Synonymous With Quality Housing III. Findings Our goal with affordable housing is to strengthen our communities. We want to build strong neighborhoods. This can be achieved by ensuring that those who wish to live in our communities can afford to do so. We must not accept solutions for affordability that produce cheap, poorly designed housing that quickly deteriorates, impoverishing both its inhabitants and the neighborhood. Quality housing ill our view is housing that is: I) long-lasting; 2) indistinguishable fi'om neighboring market rate housing; 3) designed to fit the neighborhood context; and 4) well-maintained and managed. There are many fine examples of such affordable housing being produced in tile Twin Cities today. We do not believe that cutting corners on construction, design and management is tile way to produce strong neighborhoods. Mixed Income Developments Offer A Preferred Alternative For Providing Affordable Housing We have learned from past mistakes about ibc great harm that results when the poor arc isolated in pockets of poverty within neighborhoods. While mixed income developments have 5,et to be fully embraced by the marketplace, we conclude that the best way to provide housing for people of all incomes is in mixed unit developments. Older ueighborhoods, with their mix of large and small homes interspersed with small apartment buildings, are a testimony to the success of this approach. This can be achieved today by developing a mix of housing in large scale developments, such as West Ridge in Minnetonka, by mixed income buildings like Creamette rental apartments in Minneapolis, or by scattered site ownership housing such as that built by Habitat for Humanity throughout tile Txvin Cities. Higher Densities Are Necessary To Increase The Supply Of Affordable Housing Tile availability of land and how it is zoned affect the supply of affordable housing. First, more compact development can reduce the per unit cost of housing. For example, a study by tile Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) which examined four metro area cities showed Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force---7 that increasing density to 4.8 units per acre saved between $2,000 a unit in infrastructure costs (where the existing density was 3,5 units/acre) to nearly $10,000 a unit (where the existing density was 1.6 units/acre).? Second, land use restrictions such as large .lot sizes or lack of zoning for rental properties, limit opportunities to build affordable housing. Scarcity of land can result, which may force prices up. Third, we believe that the health of our cities and region is tied to a mix of housing, for the young, thc elderly, workers, single people and families. With growing populations, this can only be achieved with more compact growth. Opponents of higher density housing associate it with unattractive or incompatible development, or with enviromnental degradation. We have reviewed examples of new models of affordable housing, which focus on integrating affordable housing into the neighborhood through sensitive design and by using mixed income, rather than exclusionary, development. We conclude that there need not be a trade-offbetween density and good design; there are many examples of well-designed and attractive higher density properties. Likewise, there need not be a trade- off between environmental protection and higher density. An emphasis on good design will result in affordable housing that is attractive and compatible with the neighborhood and sympathetic to the natural environment. A counter argument to higher density developments would be to make land more readily available and therefore less costly. We reviewed a number of studies on the impact on urban growth restrictions on the price of land and the supply of affordable housing and found the available evidence to be inconclusive. First, while restrictions on land supply do generally act to increase the cost of land, other factors, such as income and location, interact with land supply to determine the ultimate price. Second, it is not clear what impact the Twin Cities' metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) boundary has on land prices, since this line is set by cities to guide growth, not contain it. Third, our goal is to accomplish housing choice in all cities, and it is debatable whether relaxing the MUSA boundary would provide an effective solution to the provision of affordable housing in any cities except those on the urban edge. Fourth, compact growth saves agricultural lands and allows farm production to take place closer to the markets, saving fuel and time. Builders Association of thc Twin Cities, 2000. Dcnsities arc net densities calculated by dividing the number of housing units by thc total acreage of thc site minus stormwatcr treatment areas. I'dayors' Regional Housing Task Force--8 We support the approach of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth Strategy, which aims at using land more efiSciently and cost- effectively. The strategy underscores the importance of linking new affordable and life cycle housing with existing and growing employment opportunities, with existing and planned transit service and with the availability of retail and personal services. We believe that this type of growth will build strong individual communities as well as a prosperous region. Most Affordable Housing Will Not Be Produced In The Marketplace Without Incentives In all markets, there is an "equilibrium" price for products below which a product, like housing, will not be produced. Strong demand and increasing production costs push up equilibrium prices. Supply below the equilibrium price is not produced. Demand below thc equilibrium price is not satisfied. While this is not problematic for the vast majority of products, it becomes a serious problem when the good is a basic need, like housing. Of course, thc housing market is very complex, offering multiple products in a multitude of locations, and it is highly influenced by government policies ranging from federal tax law to local land use decisions. The cost ofhousiug can be reduced, and we recommend a number of policy changes which would enable the marketplace to make housing more affordable. Given/he great need for affordable housing, we nmst enable the marketplace to produce as much affordable housing as possible. But it is important to stress that these cost reductions, as important as they may be, will never be sizable enough to fully eliminate the need for subsidies to produce affordable housing for all income levels. Developers who spoke to the task force confirmed that most affordable housing will require financial assistance. The strong demand for higher priced homes provides developers with ample opportunity to make a profit~ without the complications typically associated with producing affordable housing, such as complex financing arrangements and political opposition. In thinking about the need for financial incentives Estimated to bc 9.23'0 of tl~c sales pricc of single family homc~ i? the U.S,, in The T~tl~ About Re. gulalo~a, t~r~ic~s lo ]/mzOir, 4flb~n'M,;h't~, ~,'nf I a Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--9 Funding Partnerships Are Needed The Effective Solution Will Be A Regional Solution to develop affordable housing, we must recognize that tltrough the federal mortgage interest deduction and/or the property tax structure, virtually every homeowner in Minnesota receives a subsidy for their housing, making it more affordable. To produce housing for all income levels, subsidies are needed. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency estimates that it would cost $500 miIIion a year to alleviate tile housing cost burden for those paying more than 30% of their incomes on housing. For example, in the fall of 2000, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is helping finance 275 units of affordable rental housing. On average, these units rent for $735 a month and are affordable to households at 46% of median income. Private financing only supports 24% of the development costs of these units. The average financing gap is $103,000, of which S65,000 is filled with tax credits and $38,000 with deferred grants or loans. Thc enormous amount of money needed means that no single sector or government jurisdiction can do it on their own. Thc public, the private and non-profit sectors all must contribute. 'Local, state and federal governments all must contribute. We remain concerned about long term affordability. Given the substantial investment of public dollars to make new rental properties and some ownership homes affordable, it is important to find mechanisms of ensuring that these properties remain affordable for long periods of time. Public investments in housing should be able to be recaptured and reinvested if there are capital gains when the housing is sold. There are models of achieving long term affordability, such as covenants, deed restrictions and land trusts. However, these are complicated and difficult to bring about, especially if the properties are owned instead of rented. Partnerships can help explore and test new models for long term affordability. We are a regional economy. Effective solutions to affordable housing recognize that fact. The city that restricts thc supply of affordable Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--10 Cities Should Have The Flexibility To Customize Their Affordable Housing Strategies housing restricts thc supply for tile entire region, drives up prices in tile regional housing market, or forces other cities to build a disproportionate share of such housing. If cities of our region cannot supply enough housing for workers, we may start to find that businesses leave to areas where such housing is more readily available. Cities that restrict the supply of affordable housing foster sprawl, increasing pollution and traffic congestion that harms the livability of our entire metro area. Most cities in our region recognize thc importance of providing affordable housing in their communities. In 1998, 101 of 143 metropolitan cities chose to participate in tile Livable Communities .Act program. These cities established goals that collectively would add 68,553 affordable ownership homes and 12,885 affordable rental homes by tile year 2010. These efforts should be recognized and rewarded with financial incentives that help produce and retain affordable ]lousing. We endorse tile Metropolitan Council's role and approach in encouraging cities to cooperate in building a strong regional housing market, not through mandatory rules and regulations, but through planning and financial incentives. Empirical evidence suggests that in regions with a multitude of local governments, competition between cities suppresses local government spending on housing, whereas itttergovcrnmental incentives positively influence local spending for affordable housing.9 Exper/once with tile Livable Communities Act seems consistent with these results. Therefore we are supportive of the current approach to affordable housing. However, it should be strengthened by using cities' progress in building affordable housing as a criterion for tile distribution of other financial assistance provided through the Metropolitan Council and state agencies, such as transportation funding and pollution clean up. Cities' past efforts in building affordable housing should be credited when making these funding decisions. Cities should have tile flexibility to customize their affordable housing strategies, provided that tile strategies supply quality housing for people ~ l~asolo, 1999. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force---Il of all income levels and at all stages of life, and that they conform to the metropolitan Regional Growth Strategy. The cities in the metropolitan area vary considerably, and each has different needs and opportunities. Cities differ, for example, by the size and make up of their population, economic base, stage of development, and natural environments. Cities' needs for affordable housing will differ accordingly. Flexible strategies require flexible resources. A report of The Center for Housing Policy calls oil the federal government to provide a "menu of flexible housing resources"l° which will enable localities to customize their own affordable housing strategies. \Ve concur with this, and believe that flexibility should be a principle for the use of state and metropolitan resources as well. Flexibility will help ensure that we are building affordable housing and strong communities. Cities Need Technical Assistance For years the federal government played the primary role in financing affordable housing, using a combination of federal programs and federal tax incentives. This has changed. Federal funding once supported the production of more than 500,000 additional housing units a year (in 1976) through direct appropriations to the Department of }lousing and Urban Development. Today the primary emphasis of direct appropriations is not on production, but on supplementing the incomes of poorer households so that they can afford housing. In addition, the reach of federal tax incentives aimed at spurring the production of affordable housing was curtailed in 1986. The overall result from these changes at the federal level is a shift in responsibility to non-profits and local governments. Tile impact of this shift in responsibility is enormous. Housing production is expensive, time-consuming and complex. Housing finance is an arcane and extremely complicated field. New housing products aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing, such as mixed income developments and land trusts, require painstaking attention and care: Quality design and the accomplishment of multiple objectives, such as higher density and environmental protection, are arts as well as sciences. Community involvement and support are also a mandatory part of the housing development process today. ,o Stcgman, Qucrcia and McCarthy, 2000. /',~ayors' Re~]ional Housing Task Force--12 Another emerging area of responsibility for cities is their role in setting expectations for and facilitating sound property management. Skilled property management and maintenance are critically important to the quality of any residential property. Some aspects of good property management unfold with the operation of ihe property, such as careful tenant screening, and ensuring that human and social services are readily accessible to tenants who may require them. Others are set in place with thc development of the property, such as design that deters crime, or the establishment of proper reserve levels to ensure that funds are available for the maintenance of rental properties or property held iu common through homeowners' associations. Cities can play an important role in setting the stage for good property management through their involvement in the development process and through ordinances that encourage good management practices. In many cases, cities have neither thc staff nor tt~c expertise to negotiate and guide housing developments successfully through complicated financial structures and development agreements. In other cases, such as ensuring that properties arc well managed, cities are taking on new roles. If every affordable housing development represents a new learning curve, progress will indeed be slow. Cities throughout the state need assistance and tools that share lessons learned and available expertise. Likewise, apartment managers and owners, developers and home builders could potentially benefit from programs designed to improve skills in producing and managing affordable housing. The good news is that many fine resources exist. But cities would benefit greatly if there were "one-stop shopping" for guidebooks and information, training workshops, educational seminars, and forums. There is also much to be learned by sharing local experiences with one another. We concur with thc U.S. Conference of Mayors' emphasis on educational and policy summits (see Attachment B) and believe that such action should be formalized here in Minnesota. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--13 Human And Social Services Play A Limited But Important Role For some people, a decent place to live is an important part of improving their life circumstances, but they also have other issues that must be addressed. Good housing must b~ supplemented with human and social services as needed. The types of services vary, and can range from day care, parenting skills, job training and referral, housekeeping skills, budgeting and literacy programs. It is critical that a menu of services be readily accessible to residents. Landlords are not in the business of providing such services, nor should they be. They should recognize, however, that the availability of services will improve the integrity of the housing for all who live there. Landlords should act as facilitators, enabling service providers to identify and serve residents' needs. Human and social services providers should package their services to tailor them to thc needs of residents and to improve accessibility. Another issue is one of problem tenants. Tenants who have been evicted need help to correct their problem behaviors, so that they will have decent places to live and so that rental properties are not disrupted by their behavior in the future. Emerging efforts in this area need 1o be supported by tenant services, landlords, the legal community and nonprofit service providers. I'Jayors' Regional Housing Task Force--14 Provide Leadership IV. Recommendations Local officials must be "ambassadors" for affordable housing. We must work hard at ensuring that more affordable housing is provided, just as we work bard at ensuring that jobs, schools and parks are provided. Worn myths, such as "affordable housing destroys property values" must be overcome. For example, a recent study by the Family Housing Fund found little or no evidence that tax-credit rental housing erodes sun-ounding home values.~ \Vc must welcome rental properties as a key component of housing choice in our cities. We must spread the word that affordable housing means housing for teachers, police officers, receptionists, nursing aides and travel agents, and the many others who serve and contribute to our communities, TI:e lack ofaflbrdable housing for workers has become a major issue for the business community. Thc Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, for example, has established its own task force ou affordable housing. The business community can show leadership by speaking out for affordable housing and letting citizens and political leaders know that affordable housing is an imporlant economic issue. The business community can also be effective at the local level. Far too often, affordable housing developments lose by a narrow one vote margin in city council chambers, because tbcrc is no one there to speak in favor of the development. The presence of thc business community would send a strong signal about the economic importance of affordable housing. We know from experience that the presence of local business leaders has a positive effect on the outcome of local affordable housing decisions. Local faith communities have an important role. In many cities, faith- based organizations have bccn instrumental in bringing communities together around the issue of affordable housing, promoting an understanding of affordable housing, and working with residents to resolve concerns. Other faith-based organizations help produce afibrdable housing. \Ve welcome and encourage the continued support and leadership of faith-based organizations. Family ltousing Fund, 2000b. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--15 The task force will: · Encourage mayors to take leadership roles in national organizations, such as the League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, to promc~te efforts related to affordable housing. A current opportunity is the five-point plan developed in partnership between the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Mortgage Bankers Association. Information about this plan can be found in Attaclunent B. · Endorse the HousingMinnesota Campaign and encourage cities to participate. · Meet with the editorial boards of tile txvo metropolitan newspapers. A press packet will be developed for suburban mayors to use with their local newspapers. · Co-sponsor a briefing session for tile Minnesota congressional delegation and staff, addressing thc need for affordable housing in Minnesota and the importance of federal programs. (Possible parmers are Fannie Mae, thc Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Council, the Family Itousing Fund, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the Minnesota Chapter of the National .Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, thc Association of Metropolitan Municipal/ties, the Mimmsota Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and faith-based organizations such as MICAH and ISAIAH.) · Develop and pilot a fact sheet for task force members' city councils. The infonnation would include: city-specific new' census data about the demographics of those already living in each city (as a means of suggesting the types of housing needed), responses to questions such as the impact on property values, and the impact on cities if affordable housing is not built (studies of the Family Housing Fund), and regional information on projected population and job growth. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--16 Ensure That Local Planning And Zoning Enables Affordable Housing The task force encourages cities to: · Engage in a process that assesses the needs and opportunities for affordable housing (see for example, Burnsville's "Housing White Paper") and develop a customized strategy for building affordable housing. · Work_jointly with one another, to raise visibility and support for affordable housing. · Engage residents in me~qningful planning processes, well before a vote is needed on specific developments. The task force encourages the business, faith-based and non- profit communities to: · Become more actively invoh, ed in supporting the development and management of affordable housing in their communities, and in reaching out to residents to address their concerns. Cities designate land usc, establish zoning ordinances and impose permit and development fees. We heard evidence and agree that certain local requirements (such as large minimum lot and house sizes, setbacks and street widths) reduce density and thereby increase tile cost of a lot and the home that must be built on that lot to cover the cost of the land. Lower densities may also coutributc to high infrastructure costs, as described above. However, we doubt Whether smaller lots, in and of themselves, produce smaller homes or affordable housing. Sometimes developers/home builders simply build large houses on smaller lots. We also found evidence that some cities' zoning regulations are inconsistent xvith their land usc plansi--it is not possible to achieve the densities stated in thcir land use plans when zoning and subdivision regulations are applied. A study of four growth cities by tile Builders Association of the Twin Cities revealed that the density goals for two cities were not achievable under existing zoning and subdMsion requirements. (The other two cities did not have stated goals.) In one of the cities, for example, the comprehensive plan called for a development Mayors' Regional ttousin9 Task Force~17 goal of 4.9 units per acre. When zoning regulations such as setbacks and street widths are applied to the design ora development, only 2.1 units per acre could actually be achieved. To fulfill Land Planning Act requirements, and to be true to the housing and land use goals cities adopt in their comprehensive plans, cities must make their zoning ordinances consistent with their comprehensive plans, including the densities for residential development called for in their plans. The densities at which land is guided for development must be achievable in the zoning ordinance. Efforts by cities would bc strengthcncd or hastened considerably if complemented by efforts of other jurisdictions and organizations, as recommended below. The task force encourages cities to: · Work with the Metropolitan Council through the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to jointly develop a survey of local governments in the urban service area to gather baseline information pertaining to communities' zoning and subdivision regulations. Thc survey would take place once cities have had the opportunity to revise their ordinances to make them consistent with their updated local comprehensive plans. We ask that this survey be conducted in 2001 and that the results be reported to all cities and the broader community. · Ensure that local zoning and subdivision regulations make it possible to achieve the affordable housing and density goals set forth in land use plans. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires this. We recommend that cities self-monitor their progress in achieving their stated goals, and report the results publicly to citizens and to the Metropolitan Council. · Establish higher densities, but ensure that the higher densities help cities achieve their affordable housing goals. We encourage cities to develop standards and guidelines for residential development that is more compact and that produces housing which is high quality, attractive, and at least 20% affordable. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--18 · Adopt and use flexible land usc regulation practices such as adjustable requirements, zoning overlays and special zoning districts. Such practices can promote the production of quality affordable housing by enabling more compact growth and fostering design solutions to meet residents' concerns and to ensure that a development fits well into the neighborhood. Flexible practices can also help create or enhance a town center or central destination by encouraging mixed-used developments which include an affordable housing component. · Adopt new standards for the widths and design of streets (sec Attachment C.) The task force requests the State Legislature to: · Revise state law to make it easier for local governments to rezone land, by eliminating thc supermajority requirement and veto power by adjacent landowners in cities of the first class. We recognize riffs is a sensitive issue but believe that it is important to begin discussions about tile repercussions of this law for residential development and the future course of our metropolitan area. Change Government Policies And Practices To Reduce The Cost Of Building Housing Development fees. Our review suggests that some local practices may add to the cost of housing, This is supported by thc work of others who have examined affordable housing production. Some of these practices have been identified with firm evidence; others are more anecdotal in nature. We found that development-related fees vary considerably from community to community. Although fees can add several thousand dollars to the cost of housing, it is not clear that fees keep housing from being "affordable." However, for families on the margins of being able to afford a house, the fees can make a difference. The BATC study, for example, suggested that a $10,000 increase in tile price of a home puts the house out of reach for 40,000 families. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--19 We focus our recommendations on avoiding unnecessary fee-related costs, noting that requirements across different levels of government may be duplicative, that there is at least anecdotal eyidence that some cities set fees above the costs they are incurring, and that some items J~unded_ by fees, such as parks and trails, wo~uld perhaps be better funded by an alternative financing ,source. Howev'er, in order for serious progress to be made in this area, there needs to be developed a body of evidence that goes beyond anecdotal. A survey of municipal fees by The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities shows that fee structures vary widely, and one might conclude that the higher end fees are cxcessive. In one city,, water connection fees were extremely high--a cost that adds to tile cost of building housing. However, the com~ection fee was offset by lower ongoing water service fees to the home owner. Without further study providing a truer comparison of municipal fees, cities will not have the information they need to set fees that are fair and reasonable. Property taxes. While property, taxes are not a production cost per se, they are capitalized into tile cost of providing rental housing. The effective tax rate for rental properties is at 3.2% for the ),ear 2000, compared to an effective tax rate for homesteaded properties of 1.4%. If rental properties paid at the same rate as homesteaded properties, their tax burden would decrease by $138 million in the year 2000. The property tax burden has an impact on the production of rental units: it bas been estimated that it rcduccs the amount of mortgage that can be supported by $6,700 to $11,300 per unit. Compact growth. We also found that more compact groxvth can help reduce the per unit cost of housing. Recommendations related to achieving higher densities are provided in the section above. The task force will: · Support efforts to reduce the class rate for rental properties, provided that the loss of revenues is compensated in some manner (for example, tlu-ough the state's 1% for affordable housing recommended below), and that incentives are created for the production of affordable rental housing. If these Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--20 provisions are not met, homeowners and businesses xvill bear a greater property tax burden with,no gain in affordable housing. · Support efforts to reduce tile property tax as a source of funding for education, as a means of reducing property taxes for all housing. The task force encourages cities to: · Review their development and permit fee systems, to ensure that they arc fair and equitable for all residential development, that the fees are commensurate with benefits received, and that the fees arc no greater than tile cost of tile services provided. · Ensure that their internal plan check processes are timely, consistent, and do not result in last minute costly changes to building construction. · Waive fees for affordable housing developments whenever possible. The task force requests: · Tile Metropolitan Cotmcil and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to jointly commission a study of tile impact of municipal fees on affordable housing. This study should involve representatives from cities and home builders, and should identify and focus on those fees which have the greatest potential ilnpact on affordable housing. We ask for this study to be completed by March 1, 2001. · The Department of Administration to ensure that the building code process in Minnesota has thc capacity to quickly utilize new proven technologies that reduce the cost of housing construction. · The League of Minnesota Cities to convene state and local officials to ensure that codes are applied consistcntly across jurisdictions. Mayors' Re§ion~l Housing Task Force--21 Secure Additional Funding As described above, reducing the cost of housing helps make it relatively more affordable, but cost reductions will not ensure that housing is available for people at all income levels. Substantial sums of money are needed to ensure that all residents of the metropolitan area have access to affordable quality housing.: We strongly believe that property taxes as a source of funding for affordable housing subsidies are ~ot the solution. Wc support the decrease in property tax class rates for rental units, with qualifications, because rental properties should not be more burdened with property taxes more than ownership housing. However, property taxes, as the source of funding for city services, are strapped. Raising property taxes (as a source of funding)makes housing generally less affordable. Cities have been diligent about using local financing sources to fund affordable housing. Since the Metropolitan Council began gathering data under the Livable Communities Act (LCA), cities participating in the livable communities program have always spent more local funds on affordable housing than is required by the Act. This should continue, but must be complemented with strengthened commitments from other levels of gover~maent. Federal appropriations for housing fell from $93 billion in 1978 to $26 billion in 1999. The switch to reliance on federal housing tax credits and private activity bonds has not compensated for this reduced level of spending; neither have been increased for inflation, and therefore these sources are worth a third less today than when they were first instituted in 1986. State appropriations today, of $124 million for the current biennium, are at their highest level ever, although the appropriation pattern followed that of the federal government during the 1980s, with a sharp decline and low levels of spending throughout the 1980s. The Inclusionary Housing Account of the Livable Communities Act has been highly successful in helping fill the financing gap for a number of mixed income housing developments. However, its one-time appropriation of four million dollars is depleted. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--22 We call on all levels of government to work with cities to make affordable housing possible. We also look to the private and nonprofit sectors to join with us in funding affordable housing. Finally, we must make better use of existing resources. Of concern is that at least $14 million a year of Section 8 funding is currently going unused. Use of these housing choice vouchers could help existing renters better afford their housing. In particular, an estimated one-third of those who usc Section 8 vouchers are households headed by someone 62 or older or disabled. Changes in the Section 8 program make it more attractive and convenient for landlords to use, including renter education programs, flexibility in the number of Section S households a landlord chooses to rent to, thc ability to treat assisted renters the same as unassisted renters with respect to security deposits and non-renewals, and assistance in obtaining rental histories. The task force wilD: · Support the efforts of those advocating that the state dedicate I% of/ts general fund budget to afi'ordablc housing, which would provide around 5230 million per biennium. The task force encourages cities to: · Publicize the availability of Section 8 money and information about the program's new features and who benefits. The task force requests the State Legislature to: · Dedicate a portion of thc mortgage registry tax to affordable housing. Receipts from this source rise when the housing market is strong and prices are pushed upward, providing a logical connection between this tax and the need for affordable housing. These funds should be flexible, to support the variety of needs in different communities and should be distributed through the Metropolitan Council's livable communities program. Options include: a) Redirect a portion of existing tax revenues to affordable housing. b) Cap the existing distribution of tax receipts at an amount based on the-average annual receipts over a defined time Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--23 period; make excess funds available for affordable housing. · Dedicate most of any increase in' the private activity bond cap to housing. · Revise state law to make housing revenue bonds a more effective tool for financing affordable housing that is built as part of mixed income developments. · Rcappropriatc funds for Inclusionary Housing Account of the LCA. The task force requests the federal government to: · Increase thc caps on private activity bonds and low income housing tax credits, and index them for inflation. These are critical and urgent needs, since these tools provide the major source of financing for affordable housing in this country. Because the caps have not been indexed for inflation, their dollar value is worth a third less today than in 1986 when they were first instituted. · Return to tile business of producing affordable housing in xvays consistent with the vision of affordable housing described in this report. · Support the initiative of tile U. S. Conference of Mayors to develop a national policy for reinvestment in cities which addresses issues such as incentives and strategies for transit- oriented mixed-use development, tools and incentives for the development of affordable housing, and tax credits for employers who provide housing assistance. The task force requests 'the business community to: · Adopt funding programs which improve the affordability of housing in their communities. The task force would be supportive of corporate tax incentives for those who do so. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--24 Invest In Skill-building And Expertise We believe strongly that it is importmit not only to make affordable housing available, but to make it successful. As described above, the production and management of affordable housing involve a wide range of expertise, including financial, architectural design and engineering, market studies, legal issues and property management. If cities are to take command of the growth processes in their cities and take heightened responsibility for affordable housing, they must have access to the needed expertise and skills, There arc many excellent resources available, but nowhere arc these available in a readily accessible and coordinated mallncr. Throughout these pages wc are encouraging people to think in new ways about affordable housing--especially with respect to mixed income developments. This means that affordable housing development sometimes challenges existing expertise. There is much cities can learn from each other as they try new things, and these lessons should not be lost as we proceed. A resource center which captures, shares, and helps cities institutionalize these lessons would speed progress on affordable housing production throughout the state. The task force requests the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the Minnesota Multi Housing Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Minnesota Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and the Builders Association of the Twin Cities to jointly develop a coordinated system of technical assistance that will assist cities throughout the state and perform functions such as the following: · Add to the information base in important areas, such as convening developers and housing experts to identify how to get developers involved and interested in building affordable housing, or exploring methods for ensuring long term affordability. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--25 Develop A Support Structure For Those In Need Of Services · Convene a group of professionals to develop model ordinances and guidelines to promote best practices for property management and maintenance, With special attention paid to mixed income developments. The charge of such a group is found in Attachment D. · Facilitate mixed-income developments by developing a guidebook for cities based on local case studies. The guidebook should address issues such as: subsidy levels required for different types of housing, zoning and land ownership options, the complexities of thc financing process, mechanisms needed to ensure the provision of affordable housing, how to clarify expectations of developers, means for ensuring long term affordability, the role of design guidelines in ensuring quality outcomes, and models for providing human and social services when needed. · Provide training to guide cities through the process of negotiating development agreements with developers/builders, or understanding thc complexities of m/xed use, mixed-income developments. · Develop a model housing rehabilitation program, including code enforcement ordinances, inspection programs, design and technical advice, partnerships with community organizations and loan pools. This could include the development of a joint remodeling plan book, such as A Remodeling Planbookfor Post- IFIFII Houses, cosponsored by a consortium of fifteen metropolitan area cities. We have staled that people of all incomes and life circumstances should have affordable and dignified places to live. We have affirmed the benefits of mixed income, rather than exclusionary, housing developments. We have stated our goal of building strong communities and described affordable housing as being quality places to live. In order for ail of these to be accomplished, we stress the importance of Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--26 providing human and social services to the limi~.cd segment of the population that needs help beyond the p/-ovision of a decent place to live. We find this issue to bc integrally connected to the task force's charge to identify ways to improve the supply of affordable housing. In order to build more affordable housing, we must be able to show that affordable housing can be done s. uccessfully. Some small portion of affordable housing requires services to be successful. The task force requests: · Faith communities to extend their work on affordable housing beyond production, into exploring how they might support services for those in need. · Nonprofit agencies to explore possibilities for working with problem tenants so that the5' can secure stable housing and contribute to healthy housing envirouments. · County social service agencies to rethink how they might coordinate or repackage their services for those living in affordable housing dex, elopments that may need such services. This should include participation in the planning and development stages of new housing. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--27 About The Task Force The Mayors' Regional Housing Task was convened in May of 2000, at the request of the Metropolitan Council. It is composed of mayors from sixteeu cities, representing th.e spectrum of development capacities found in the metropolitan area: central cities, first ring suburbs, developing cities reaching capacity, cities on tile MUSA edge, former fi'ecstanding growth centers, and urban reserve communities. The charge to tile task force was to determine what must change to achieve regional and local affordable housing goals and to develop proposals for policies, programs and legislative recommendations to achieve the goals. The task force formed four committees, to explore issues and consider options. These were: Land Usc, Zoning and Regulations; Public Awareness; Funding and Partnerships; and Design, Siting and Management. Karen Anderson Mayor, Mim~ctonka Elizabeth Kautz Mayor, Bumsville Grace Arbogast Mayor, Brooklyn Park Jay Kimble Mayor, Stilhvater Robert Burlingame Mayor, Maple Grove Nancy Mancino Mayor, Chanhassen Cathy Busho Mayor, Rosemount Sandy Martin Mayor, Shoreview Peter Enck Mayor, New Hope Thomas Ryan Mayor, Blaine Tom Gamec Mayor, Ramsey Sharon Sayles Belton, Co-Chair Mayor, Mimleapolis William Hargis Mayor, Woodbury Joy Tierney Mayor, Plymouth Jean Harris Mayor, Eden Prairie Duane Zaun, Co-Chair Mayor, Lakeville Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--28 Acknowledgments The task force wishes to thank those wlio generously shared their time and expertise: Mary Anderson, Mayor, Golden Valley Chris Becket, ISAIAlt John Duffy, President, Duffy Development Kevin Filter, President, Glaser Financial tIoward Goldmau, Director of Minneapolis Muhifamily ltub,/IUD Tina Goodroad, Planner, Bumsville Todd Graham, Regional Analyst, Minnesota Department of Economic SecuriLv Kit I tadley, Commissioner, Minnesota l lousing Finance Agency Chip I lalbach, Executive Director, Minnesota I lousing Partnership Laurence ttannon, Sen/or Vice Pres/dent, Res/dent/al Analytics, GVA Marquette Advisors CheU'I Jacobson, Communications Coordinator, Dakota County Community Development Agency Gary Laurent, President, Laurent Builders Doug Mayo, Director of/lousing Development, CommonBond Gerald Mildner, Ph.D., School o£Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University Bill Morrish, Director, The Design Center for Ame~ ican Urban Landscape, University of Minnesota Chris Nelson, Ph.D., City Planning, Urban Design, and Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology Bob Odman, Director, Multifimdly Division, Mimresota I lousing Finance Agency Jodi Nelson, MICAtt Janet Pope, J.L. Pope and Associates Gene Ranieri, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Ron Rankin, Community Development Director, Minnetonka Steve Seidel, Executive Director, tlabitat for llumanity Jim Solem, Former Administrator of the Metropolitan Council Missy Staples Thompson, Director, Minnesota Partnership Office, Fannie Mae Mark Ulfers, Executive Director, Dakota County Community Development Agency Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director, Roseville Tim Whitten, Vice President of Architecture, Rottlund ttomes The work of the task force was facilitated by Stacy Becket Consulting, w/th the assistance of Metropolitan Council staffmembers Joanne BarTon, Barbara Engstrom, Guy Peterson, Elizabeth Ryan and intern Eric Whittington. Publication assistance by KE Madson Productions. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--29 Sources Journals/Periodicals/Newspapers Asaberc and tluffman, 1997: "Hierarchical Zoning, Incompatible Uses and Price Discounts," Real Estate Economics, v. 25, n.3. Victoria Basolo, 1999: "The hnpacts of Intercity Competition and Intergovernmental Factors on Local Affordable ttousing Expenditures," ttousing Policy Debate, v. 10, n. 3. Jan Bmekner, 1990: "Growth Controls and Land Values in an Open City," Land Economics, v. 66, No. 3. klan Cho, 1997: "Congestion Effects of Spatial Growth Restrictions: A Model and Empirical Analysis," Real Estate Economics, v. 25, No. 3. William H. Frey, 2000: "The New Urban Demographics: Race, Space & Boomer Aging," The Brookings Reviexv, v. 18, n. 3. Jack Goodman, 1999: "The Changing Demography of Multifamily Rental Itousing," ttousing Poll%, Debate, v. 10, n. 1. Stephen Mayo, 1997: "Effects of Land and Housing Policies on Market Performance," Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Mgy, Arthur Nelson, 2000: "Effects of Urban Containment on Housing Prices and Landowner Bchavior," Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, May. Susan L. Podziba, 1992: "Consensus-Based Planning Helps Transcend NIMBYism," Land Lines, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, May. Pollakowski and Wachter, 1990: "The Effects of Land Use Constraints on Housing Prices," Land Economics, v. 66, No 3. Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 2000: "Apartment Rents Skyrocket, June 13. Star Tribune, 2000: "Itome Sale Prices Hit New Record," June 13. The Southwest Journal, 1999: "Affordable Housing," Nov. 1, 15, 29 Stegman, Quercia and McCarthy, 2000: "Housing America's Working Families," New Centut3, Housing, v. 1, n. 1, The Center for Housing Policy, June 2000. Richard Voith, 1999: "Does the Federal Tax Treatment of Housing Affect the Pattern of Metropolitan Development?" Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, March/April. The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2000: "Financing New Urbanism Projects: Obstacles and solutions," Housing Policy Debate, Fannie Mae Foundation. Wilder Research Center, 2000: "Toward Housing for All," Findings, January. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--30 Reports and Guidebooks Advisoly Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, 1991 :"'Not in My Back Yard:' Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing." Affordable ][-lousing Investors Council: "Guidelines on Deal Points." Affordable Rental Housing Task Force, 2000: "Affordable Rental Housing: Opening doors For Private Dcvclopment'And Prese/x'ing Existent Housing Stock," January. Tile Association of Local I]ousing Finance Agencies and the National Association for County Community and Economic Development, 1999: "A Guide to Effective Property Management in Affordable ttousing," March. Borough of Manhattan, 2000: "A Time to Build: Report of thc Manhattan Borough President's Task Force on Affordable Housing," January. Builders Association of thc Twin Cities, 2000: "Fees, Infrastructure Costs, And Density...Their hnpact Upon The Twin Cities Regional Growth Strategy." The Capitol Region Council of Governments, 1998: "CRCOG Regional Housing Policy Executive Summary," The Plan of Development for the Capitol Region of Connecticut, January 28. City of Bumsville, 2000: "Housing White Paper," Februa/3' 23. City-County Task Force on ]tomelessness, 2000: "Report & Recommendations," Hcnnepin County Office of Planuing & Development, April. College of Management, Metropolitan State University, 2000: "Civic Confidence Survey Executive Summary," June. Congress for the New Urbanism and the U.S. Det3artment of ltousing and Urban Development: "Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design." Design Center for American Urban Landscape, I996: "Making ?lousing Home: A Design Guide For Site Planning Quality ttousing," University of Minnesota. Dorfinan, Schloffand Dorfinan, "Thc Effects of Land Usc Regulations on Housing Costs," Minnesota Association of Realtors. Family ttousing Fund, 1999: "Homelessness and Its Effect on Children," Decelnber. Family Housing Fund, 2000a: "Working Doesn't Always Pa), For a Home," August. Family Housing Fund, 2000b: "A Study of the Relationship Between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities," prepared by Maxfield Research, Inc., September. William A. Fischel, 1990: "Do Grov,,th Controls Matter?: A Review Of Empirical Evidence On The Effectiveness And Efficiency Of Local Goverument Land Use Regulation," Dartmouth College, Hanover NH, May. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--31 Gerloff, Johnson and Musty, "Cape Cods and Ramblers, A remodeling Planbook for Post-WWII Houses," City of Fridley, Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2000: "The State of the Nation's Housing 2000," Ilarvard University Roderick J. Lawrence: "Interpretations of Itousing Quality in Western European Countries: A Comparative Research Project," Centre univcrsitaire d'dcologie humaine, Geneva, Switzerland. The Kids Mobility Project, 1998: Project Report, March. The Law Offices of Goldfarb & Lipman, 1998: "Anti-NIMBY Statutes," San Francisco, April 6Barbara L. Lukennann and Michael P. Kane, 1994: "Land Use Practices: ExclusionaD, Zoning, De Facto Or De Jure?," Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. Maxfield Research Inc., and Griffin Residential Services, 2000: "Apartment Market Report 2000." Metropolitan Council, 1999: "Report to the Minnesota Legislature on Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing in the Twin Cities.Metropolitan Area," December. Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators, 2000: "Report on Affordablc Housing," April. Minnesota Center for Survey Research, 2000:"199%2000 Twin Cities Area Survcy" and previous editions, University of Mim~csota. National Association of ttome Builders: "The Truth about Regulator,:, Barriers to Housing Affordability," New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing: "Mount Laurel Background." National Association of State and Local Equity Funds: "Best Practices for Asset Management and Compliance Monitoring." Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency, "A Good Place to Live!: Housing Quality Standards & Inspection Criteria." Portland Metro, 2000: "Regional Affordable Housing Strategy," June. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000: "State of the Cities 2000." \Voodbury Police Department: "\Voodbury Multi-Housing Crime Prevention Program," 1" edition. Books Ernest R. Alexander, 1988: Density Measures a~d their ReIatio~ to the Urban Form, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. John Emmeus Davis, 1994: The Affordable CIO,. Mayors' Regional Housing Task Force--32 lnternet resources Miscellaneous "Affordable Housing Strategy Sessions Summaries," www. ci.ann-arbor, mi.us/ framed/commdev/ahslist.htm. "The American Settlement Pattern of the 21"'Century: Where Are The "Sub"urbs Going?," E. M. Risse, www. srfartgrowfl~.org/library/risse.html "Fiscal Disparities Pool Grows 10% After 2-Year Decline," Citizens League Minnesota Journal, xx~vw, citizenslcaguc.nct/mj/2000/O l/ fi seal_disparities.btm. "h~clusionary Zoning Around tt~c Countrs;" www. inhousing.org/ USA%20Inclusionary/USA%201nclusion.htm "The Massachusetts Anti-Snob Zoning Initiative," ~ ww. nlihc.org. "Metropolitan Land-Usc Reform: The Promise and Challenge of Majority Consensus," }tenry R. Richmond, www. brookings.cdu "Modernizing State Planning and Zoning Enabling Statutes: A course syllabus," www. planning.org "San Francisco's Bond Referendum," www. nlihc.org. "Saving Afl'ordable Housing: The Elements Of Success," Shelterforcc Online, www. nbi.org/onlinc/issues/90/succcss.html. Peter Cahhorpe: "New Urbanism and Ibc Apologists for Sprawl," essay, publication unknown. Kit Hadley, 2000: "The Big Plan: llcalthy and Vital Communities, Partnerships for Affordable Housing," presentation, March 7. John Kari, 2000: "Density: Perspectives and Definitions," Metropolitan Council. Mich~xcl Stcgman, 2000: "!lousing Minneapolis-St. Paul's Working Families," Center for Community Capitalism, PowerPoint presentation. Eric Whittington, 2000: 'q, Vhat Is Qua/? ttousing?," Mctropolitan Council. Property Management AndMaintenance Task Force The task force should include representati~es fi'om a,uartment owners and protgerty managers, local officials, financing agencies, housing advocates, tenants' rights advocates, social service agencies and uonprofit service providers. Charge Thc charge to the task force is to develop a set of model tools, guidelines and ordinances for best practices in property management and maintenance. Many resources for this task already exist; some are listed in the sources section of this report. An outline of MHFA's management monitoring process is attached to this charge as an example. In carrying out its charge, thc task force should address the following: · Address the issues set forth below, · Focus on rental properties and mixed income developments, without overlooking issues pertaining to townhomes and single family residences, aud identifying any special lnanagement needs of mixed income developments. · Determine how cities could most effectively institutionalize the models, recognizing that these means ma)' vary with the extent of city participation in a housing project. · Determine what type of resources or assistance should be made available to landlords/cities trying to implement the models (e.g., design review). · Consider a wide range of products to provide guidance, e.g., model leases, model criteria for development agreements, model screening procedures, model ordinances. · Identify and resolve any possible conflict between the models and Section 8 requirements. · Suggest means for balancing the need for financial reserves (or assessments or association dues) which ensure funding for long-term maintenance, but may impair the feasibility or affordability of the project. · Evaluate the potential for a metro-wide tenant screening and application process, to reduce the hurdle of cash application fees for Attachment D prospective tenants, to minimize the likelihood of problem tenants moving from property to property, and to minimize duplicative processes by multiple landlords (e.g.? credit checks). Issues Experience and Reputation of those Involved · Developers: conduct investigation of developer's financial and criminal records. · New developers: visit on site. · Property managers: Conduct background check and financial reviews; on-site visits of current properties; analyze existing prol)crty management experience. · Establish guidelines for vetoing the property manager and accountants. Require or encourage training. Look for Iow turnover among property managers. Financial · Reserves: su~cicnt to fund future cash flow problems and provide for capital improvements; include operating, replacement and rent-up reserves at minimum of 4-6 months o£projccted operating costs plus debt service plus annual replacement reserve (nSnimum $250/unit/ yr.); establish escrow account for taxes and insurance. · Ensure adequate insurance coverages. · Property underwriting and expenditures: review rent projects; cnsure proper documentation such as market stud>', appraisal, Phase I environmental and engineering study. · Develop guidelines for equity disbursements and use of construction contingency. · Incorporate requirements into project level legal documents. Reporting and Monitoring · Incorporate reporting requirements into project operating agreements. · Conduct annual visits to inspect for physical management, condition of neighborhood, comparable properties, services for tenants, quality control check of tenant files, use of common spaces, financial reports and compliance verification. Attachment D Design · Review design for crime-deterrent features. · Ensure that materials and design feat{~res are long-lasting and do not impose burdensome maintenance requirements. Property M[anagement · Screening process is critical: must be fair, easily understood and uniformly applied. · Develop tenant guidelines and attach to every application. · Application process should include: requirement that application be filled out completely; separate application for each roommate; proper identification; rental history; verification of income and employment; credit check; interviews strongly encouraged. · Rental agreement is key; rcsident's handbook also a good idea. · Establish different "rules" for common areas. · Get tenants involved in community activities/apartment watch. · Develop performance standards for: occupancy rates, rent collection, turnover time, almual inspections, average time to respond to complaints and work orders. · Development and implement a comprehensive maintenance program of the following types: annual, scheduled, preventative, turnover, on- the-spot, resident initiatives, on request. · Properties that perform best seem to have on-site management and excellent maintenance staff. · Require excellent doculnentation of problem tenants in event that eviction becomes necessary. Services · Provisions to ensure that human and social services are available, if and when needed. · How to improve coordination with social service and non-profit agencies. · Consider new models for improving accessibility. Attachment D CIT¥OF MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Marek, Recreation Center Manager Corey Hoen, Recreation Supervisor FROM: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent DATE: February 1,2001 SUB J: 2001 Spring Recreation Programs Thank you both for completing your spring/summer recreation programs lists. Please find attached a complete list of all upcoming programs. This should help us look ahead and plan for ourselves and for our community. The deadline for the 2001/2002 school schedule is Friday, May 25. This will be the same fommt as tile list just developed. If you have any questions please call me. Thanks again for 5'our help. pc: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director g:\park'jcrr5 \01 SprgRccProgramsMcmo Spring/Summer 2001 Programs Club Mid Various Locations Spring Schedule TBA March 26-May 21 Alan Merrick's Goal Keeper/Striker Camp Saturday/Sunday,'April 28-29 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center Fields #2 & #3 3 on 3 Basketball (Adult) 6:00 - 10:00 p.m. Monday' s, March 26-May 21 Chanhassen Recreation Center Gym Alan Merrick's Soccer Camp Monday-Friday, July 16-20 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m. Chaahassen Recreation Center Fields #2 & #3 Softball-Summer (Adult) 6:00 - 10:00 p.m. Monday-Friday April 23-August 17 Lake Ann Park Flag Football (Adult) Sundays, August 19-September 30 5:00-8:00 p.m. Lake Am~ Park Softball Fields Lake Ann Beach Opens June 9 - Closes August 26 Opens Daily 10:30 a.m.-8:00 p.m. (weather permitting) Lake A~m Park Softball (Fall Adul0 Thursdays, August 16-September 20 6:00-10:00 p.m. Lake Ann Park Softball Fields Lake Ann Swimming Lessons June 18-July 27 Various Times & Sessions Lessons provided by Minnetonka Community Education & Services and all questions directed to MCES at 952-401-6801 Dave Huffman 5K Fun Run Saturday, September 15 9:00 a.m. Start Location - Lake Ann Finish Location - Americlnn Adaptive Recreation Various Dates Various Locations Tae Kwon Do On-going Dates Monday/Thursday, 5:00-10:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00 a.m.- 12:00 noon Chanhassen Recreation Center 2 Community Rooms & Gymnasium Babysitting Clinics (2 Classes) Summer Classes Mon/Wed 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Tues/Thurs 9:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center 2 Community Rooms per class Dinner Time Monday, April 16 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center Community Rooms #1, #2 Preschool Sports-Indoor Soccer Moa/Wed, April 2 - May 9 10- 11:00 a.m. & 5:15-7:30 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center Gym Preschool Sports-Floor Hockey Tuesdays, April 3-May 8 6:15- 7:15 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center Gym Dance Ongoing at the Chanhassen Recreation Center Mother's & Father's Day Craft Class Saturday, May 5 8:30-12:00 noon Rec. Center Community Room Pee Wee Tennis 1-2-3 Saturdays, April 28-May 19 9:00-9:30 a.m. Lake Susan Tennis Court Story Puppets Tuesday's, April 17-May 8 3:40-6:10 p.m. Rec. Center Community Room Kids in the Kitchen Tuesdays, May 1 - 22 4:00- 6:30 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center, Cormnunity Room #1 5K In May Tues/Thurs, March 27 - May 3 6:30 - 7:30 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center (Outdoors) Preschool Sports-T-Ball Moa/Wed, Ma3' 14-June 27 Moa/Wed, July 16-August 22 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center Fields Yoga Mondays, April 16-June 4 5:00 - 10:00 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center, Community Room #1 Wednesday, April 18-May 23 9:30- 10:45 a.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center, Community Room # 1 Group Fitness Classes Ongoing at the Chanhassen Recreation Center Run, Jump & Throw Tuesdays, March 27-May 1 4:45-7:30 p.m. Rec. Center Gym Little Rollers Moa, Wed, Fri, May 7, 9, 11 9:30-10:30 a.m. Chanhassen Rec. Center Rink #1 Hocus Pocus Magic Tuesday's May 1-15 6:30-8:30 p.m. Rec. Center Community Room Ventriloquism For Fun Thursday, April 26-May 17 3:40-6:10 p.m. Rec. Center Community Room Tennis 1-2-3 Lessons Saturday's, April 28-May 19 9:45-I 1:30 a.m. Lake Susan Tennis Court Adult "Rookie" Rollers Thursday, April 19 7:30-9:00 p.m. Rec. Center Rink # 1 Awesome Art Adventures Tues, Wed, Thurs, July 31-Aug 2 8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Rec. Center Community Room Little Rollers Tues, Wed, Thurs, September 11-13 9:30-10:30 a.m. Rec. Center Rink #1 Lake Ann Adventure Camp Mon-Fri, August 6-10 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Lake Ann Park Wednesday Wing Dings Wednesday's, June 13 - July 18 12:30 - 2:30 p.m. Rec. Center Community Room In-Line Hockey Camp Mon-Fri, July 30 - August 3 9:00 a.m. - 12 noon Rec. Center Rink #1 School's Out Adventure February 27 - March 1 April 10 - 12 Rec. Center Community Room #1&2 Rec. Center Gym Rec. Center Soccer Field #2 Flag Football Tuesday' s, April 3 - May 1 Thursday's, April 5 - May 3 4:10-5:10 p.m. Rec. Center Soccer Field #2 Pee Wee Tennis Mon-Fri, June 11-15 Mon-Fri, July 9~ 13 9:00-9:45 a.m. Rec. Center Te~mis Court #2 Mini-Hawk Sports Camp Mon-Fri, June 18-22 8:30 a.m.- 12 noon Rec. Center Gym Rec. Center Soccer Field #2 Summer Sensations Tuesday's, June 12-26 Tuesday's, July 10-24 8:30 - 11:45 a.m. Rec. Center Community Room Tennis USA 1-2-3 Lessons Mon-Fri, June 11-15 Mon-Fri, July 9-13 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Rec. Center Rink #1 Soccer Camp Mon-Fri, June 25-29 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Rec. Center Soccer Field #2 Basketball Camp Mon-Fri, July 9-13 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Rec. Center Gym Safety Camp Tuesday, August 14 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Lake Ann Adult "Rookie" Rollers Wednesday, July 18 7:00-8:30 p.m. Rec. Center Rink # 1 Summer Discovery Playground Mid June - Beginning August Various Park Locations Adult USA 1-2-3 Tennis Lessons Tues/Thurs, June 12, 14, 19, 2 ! 6:30-8:30 p.m. Rec. Center Tennis Court #1 Adult Level 2 Rollers Wednesday, July 25 7:00-8:30 p.m. Rec. Center Rink # 1 Easter Egg Candy Hunt Saturday, April 14 8 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Rec. Center Community Rooms # 1-4 Rec. Center Soccer Field #2 & #3 Rec. Center Gym Beaver Mountain Water Park Tuesday, June 26 Departs Rec. Center: 12:15 p.m. Returns Rec. Center: 4:30 p.m. Minnesota Zoo Tuesday, July 10 Departs Rec. Center: 12:15 p.m. Returns Rec. Center: 4:30 p.m. Minnesota Vikings Training Camp The date will be determined when the NFL sets the 2001-2002 schedule. TRIPS Apple Valle), Aquatic Center Tuesday, July 24 Departs Rec. Center: 12:15 p,m. Returns Rec. Center: 4:30 p.m. Minnesota Twins Game No Date or Time has been established at this time. G:\park\jerryL2001 SpgSumPrograms School District Office of the Superintendent Beverly A. Stofferahn 11 Peavey Road Chaska, Minnesota 55318 (952) 556-6110 Phone (952) 556-6119 Fax StofferahnB @ chaska, kl 2. mn. us January 31,200i Dear Community and Staff Members, District 112 has a l,ong Range Plan! Your time and energy, invested in the planning process over the past year, has resulted irt a major milestone. I am delighted to report to you that the School Board adopted the enclosed Long Range Plan Framework at their January 25,200I meeting. What a journey this has been and you have been with us every step of the way. Hundreds of community and staff members shared honest feedback with District,112 as well as dreams for the learners we serve. You wore many hats and contributed ill countless ways thronghout tile process as: · Focus group participants (fall 1999) Members of the representative stakeholder Design Team who planned lhe January 2000 Community Planning Forum Community Planning Forum attendees who represented the everdncreasing diversily of District 112 citizens and staff (January 2000) · Key Issue Team members who devoted two days to learn and think deeply about one of five Key Planning Issues and prepare draft action plans (July -- September 2000) · Members of the Long Range Plan Steering Committee who met to integrate prior planning and prepare the Framework for adoption by the School Board (October 2000 - January 2001). As District 112 continues to grow rapidly and face new challenges almost Jdaily, this Framework will be our guide to steer the best com'se toward our Preferred Future. MOre specific plans for the next three years are "under construction" now. There is much work ahead! Please know that your participation truly made a difference in creating a plan that clearly identifies challenges and provides thoughtful and inventive actions for the future. With your' varying perspectives, each of_you made it possible for all of us to more clearly see the whole and keep a long-range view. District 112 learners will benefit from your efforts now and for many years to come. Your continued questions and feedback are welcome. Please feel free to contact Betsy Chase (556-6241 chaseb@chaska.kl2,mn.us) or me with your comments. Sincerely, Superintendent . .., ~ End. District 112 Strategic Direction Mission District 112 will prepare learners to achieve their personal best. Vision District 112 is dedicated to the preparation of life-long learners so each may achieve personal success and contribute to family and community. CommuniO, Values Citizenship:. A quality in individuals whereby each adheres to an has an understanding and appreciation of the rights, responsibilities and privileges afforded our society under thc Constitution of the United States of America; and, where every individual has a willingness and ability to participate in the democratic process in a lawful manner in a society where actions of the individual, group or government are free from bias, favoritism or prejudice. Environmentalism: A quality of care and concern for our surroundings and being willing to help improve and preserve the environment. Generosity: A quality in an individual whereby each is willing to share unselfishly in words as well as action and is willing to serve others without pay; indiscriminate altruism, gratitude and appreciation. Human Worth and Dignity: One's assessment of tile extent to which one is lovable and capable; the personal sense of being valued. Integrity: The quality of strict personal honesty, truthfulness and siucerity in tile condnct of human interactions. Learning: A quality in individuals whereby each strives to learn more and increase personal levels of fulfilhnent and competence throughout life; a condition in which one uses problem solving and reasoned argument to identify, fi'ame and propose new and improved solutions to existing and emerging problems to the betterment of self and society. Respect for Others: A quality whereby each and every individual has an unselfish regard and devotion, fi'ce from pride or prejudice, to the welfare of others, as well as one's self, by respecting others; by displaying courtesy m~d compassion; by appreciating and accepting individual differences and cultural diversities; and by showing regard for and knowing the unique qualities of each person as a valued individual. Respons. ibilit¥: A quality in individuals whereby each knows, understands and accepts the impact and consequences of personal actions and decisions and whereby each tries to fulfill the obligations of self-sufficiency and active commitment to the common good of society. These values have been adopted by ?he City Councils of Carver, Chanhaa'sen, Chaska, and Victoria, the Carver the School Board of District 112, and the Chaska Chamber c?f Commerce. _.1 w 0.. 0 hr' w J E School District DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February '7, 2001 Nancy Martinson, Chaska Chanhassen Youth Basketball Todd Hoffman, Chanhassen Parks and Recreation Torn Redman, Chaska Parks and Recreation Mary Saarion, Victoria Parks and Recreation Gayla Mattson, Community Education Coordinator Weekend Building Coverage District 112 is pleased to announce that xve are now staffing fo]' two regular custodial shifts on weekends at Chaska High School. Our goal is to provide the best security, supervision and service for groups using the busiest building in the District. This has been a combined effort with Buildings and Grounds, Community Education and Co-curriculars in the past several weeks. We will be staffing during regular scheduled hours of building usage. Custodial coverage will no longer be charged to community groups except for large events such as tournaments. These events require additional custodian time providing group needs and clean up of the facility. Building monitors will be scheduled on Saturday and Sundays, at the user group's expense, to insure adequate group security at entrances and in the scheduled group area. Building monitors will also be available to service the group's immediate needs. We have long recognized the need for this level of weekend staffing, and we are now very pleased to be able to provide it at a reduced cost to the user groups. We are striving to provide better customer service at a more reasonable price to community user groups as well as our own District 112 programs. Please feel fi'ee to contact me by phone (556- 6215), letter or e-mail (mattsong(0chaska.kl2.nm.us) with your questions or comments. Don't hesitate to let me know how we are doing. cc Bev Stofferahn School District Early Childhood Center Jim Miller, Principal 110600 Village Road Chaska, Minnesota 55318 (952) 556-6400 Phone (952) 556-6409 Fax February 1, 2001 Dear Family Fun Night Donor, Thank you for your generous contribution to the raffle/silent auction at the Early Childhood Center's Family Fun Night. Once again the event was a huge success. We hope that we can count on your support in the future. Enclosed you will find a copy of the flyer used to help advertise your participation at the event. In addition, your name will appear in the Chanhassen Villager and Chaska Herald. Sincerely, Feticia Lindquist Stephanie Boegeman Jim Miller Principal Early Childhood Center Serving the communities of eastern Carver County through equal opportunity in employment and education. By John L. Crompton park advocates frequently find themselves in competition with residential developers for land in a community. The conventional wisdom which prevails among many decision-makers and taxpayers is that development is the "highest and best use" of vacant land for increasing municipal revenues. This notion is reinforced by developers who claim their projects "pay for themselves and then some.' At a council hearing debat- ing the merits of these alternative land uses, the case made by developers is likely to resemble the following: The residents' property taxes are already too high. Acquiring this land for a park would result in a tax increase since the property would be removed from the tax rolls. On the other hand, if the tract were developed, more homes would produce more tax revenues, which would result in keep- ing out tax rate from increasing. This community, in all good conscience, cannot afford to allow potential taxable property from being constructed." The myth that development reduces property taxes resides deep in the American psyche and frequently has thwarted the conservation efforts of parks and open space advocates. How- ever, the reduction in financial aid from intergovernmental transfers and the on-going resistance of residents to tax increases has caused some elected officials to scrutinized this conventional wisdom more carefully. This has let to a growing number of communities in- vesting in fiscal impact analyses and cost of community service [COCS) analyses. As a result of the se types of studies, parks and open space advocates are now able to respond to the developers' case in the following terms: "It's not true that more development is the answer to our rising tax rate; in fact, it is often the cause of it. If the land were to be developed, it would cost the community more to provide services to the development than the community would receive in tax rev- enues. This deficit would have to be p~RK~ I>0 NOT i)f'M&~l) MUN~.(?!.p&i. $~'Rv~.¢~'$. T#~'¥ COST AC~UZ4Z. T];O~ ~Xp~N$~$ GUT pROve. PI M~Y ~CO~OM~.C G£~£F~.T$. made up by increasing the tax rate. Parks do not demand municipal ser- vices. They cost the community little beyond acquisition expenses but pro- vide many economic benefits. In fact, the projected deficit created by the cost of servicing a development exceeding the taxes received from it, is often ade- quate in fifteen years to pay for the land's acquisition for a park. Parks and open space keep our taxes low and it is in the best interests of the community to acquire the property for a park." Fiscal impact analyses are concerned with the future fiscal impact on a com- munity of a specific proposed develop- ment, while COGS analyses relate to the current conditions base don exist- ing budgets and real dollars. In this way, they provide hindsight from past land use decisions. The findings from these two types of analyses have chal- lenged the historical view that more development generates more net rev- enue for municipalities. COGS analyses consistently report that over a wide range of residential densities, and especially in rapidly growing communities, the public costs associated with residential develop- ment exceed the public revenues that accrue from it. The traditional belief that developments generate sufficient tax payments to pay their way'. The people who reside in develop- ments require services. Natural parks and open space require few public ser- vices -- no roads, no schools, no sew- age, no solid waste disposal, no water, and minimal fire and police protection. A recent monograph published by NRPA [see box on page 67) exposes the development myth by reviewing the results of over 70 studies that have been reported on this issue. The contribution that parks make to minimizing property tax increase was recognized by some in the late 1950s and was articulated by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commis- sion in its landmark report in the early 1960s: The use most often competing for potential park land or open space is residential development, and govern- ments often lose money on such devel- opment - that is, it costs more to pro- vide schools, streets, and other services than is returned in new taxes. Thus, in many instances, placing the land in recreation use may prevent a drain on the community's finances. These early observations have been confirmed recently by many of the findings reported in the increasingly sophisticated fiscal impact and COCS analyses that have been undertaken by numerous governmental entities. The ascendancy of political accep- tance of this viewpoint has been rein- forced by two other factors. First, the climate of fiscal austerity, that is char- acteristic of many jurisdictions, has made local officials more receptive to techniques which may protect them against new spending and tax pres- sures. Second, the rise of antigrowth sentiment in a growing number of com- munities has enhanced the political plausibility of techniques that encour- age growth control. These factors are gradually shifting the burdens of fiscal proof from the opponents to the advo- cates of growth. Cost o[ Community Services Analysis Procedures COCS analysis determines the over- all fiscal contribution of current land uses to a community. It assesses the costs incurred by, and the revenues accruing to, a given public jurisdiction from different types of land use in a given time period, usually a year. COCS and fiscal impact studies have been used as planning tools for over 50 years, but from the perspective of park and open space advocates they had two critical limitations. First, they typically did not include parks and open space. Apparently, it was assumed that unde- veloped land had no substantial eco- nomic value. Second, they were expen- sive, costing over $50,000 to commis- sion which made them non-feasible in many small communities. To address these issues, the Ameri- can Farmland Trust in the mid-1980s developed a relatively inexpensive pro- cedure for assessing the costs and rev- enues of community services associat- ed with different land uses which included open space. The broad cate- gories of land that are used in evalua- tions sponsored by the development, and farmland/forestland/open space. A description of their methodology is given in publications listed on their website and in the NRPA monograph {see box on page 67}. Review of Empirical Findings The monograph reports the results of studies that have used the American Farmland Trust's approach to COC$. These studies were undertaken by 26 differont r,~'~rch t,~ams in 1~ cliff r nt F/.~URE' 1. THE' ME'P%,~hi £05T, ~£R POLL&R RE'VE'NUE' $1.25 1'0 pROVe. Pi' ptlSt%C Source: American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, Technical Assistance Division, Northhampton, MA F[61.IRE' 1. &hr 'f,.I.I. tlSTR&T'X.VE' f. OM~&R'J.$Ohi OF THE' ~E'T COST OF SE'Rv'X. ht6 & RE'$'LPE't4T't&I. PE'VE'LO~ME'I'4T &NP & 1,4~TttR&I. ~Rg &Re,~, On the 50-acre site, assume a density of three homes per acre and a property tax rate (school district, city, county et. Al.) of 2-1/2% of market value on .these $200,000 homes. Thus, annual property tax revenue equals $750,000 (50 x 3 x $5,000). Assume that the cost of servicing these residences is 15% higher than the property taxes received (figure 1). Thus, the annual net loss to the community for servicing this residential development is $112,500 ({115 / 100) X $75,000}- $75,000). If the operation and maintenance cost of the 50-acre natural park is lower than $112,500 per year, then it is a less expensive option to service than the housing development on the same site. states. The main commonality among the studies is that most of the selected communities were relatively small and incorporated farmland in their tax base. Given the diversity of locations and research teams involved, the results are remarkably consistent. They confirm the results reported by more elaborate conventional fiscal impact studies, which consistently document the net deficit of most residential development and recommend attracting commercial and industrial development to offset these deficits. However, they offer the additional dimension of demonstrating the relatively positive fiscal impact of farm and forestland, open space and parkland, when compared to residen- tial land use. These elements tradition- ally have been omitted from fiscal impact analyses. A summary of results from over 70 COCS studies is reported in Table 1. It shows the median cost per dollar of revenue raised to proved public ser- vices to each of the three different land uses. Thus, forever $1 million in tax revenues these communities received from farm/forest/open space uses and from industrial/commercial uses, the median amount they had to expend was only $370,000 and $290,000 re- spectively, to provide them with public services. In contrast, for every $1 mil- lion received in revenues from residen- tial developments, the median amount the communities had to expend to ser- vice them was $1,150,000. The results of these studies indicate that favoring residential development at the expense of open land does not alleviate the financial problems of communities. Indeed, it is likely to exacerbate them. A more detailed review of the COCS and fiscal impact case studies revealed three useful additional insights. First, communities with larger and rapidly growing populations appeared to expe- rience greater net deficits on tfieir resi- dential land than did communities with smaller, more stable populations. Bedroom communities, which are characterized as places from which people commute to work to commer- cial/industrial establishments located elsewhere, are particularly vulnerable to the taxation increases likely to accompany new residential develop- ment. Such communities have no com- mercial/industrial base to mitigate the costs of servicing new residential de- velopments, making substantial tax increases to existing residents almost inevitable. Second, the use of a broad residential development category which was adopted in alt of these studies, often obscures substantial differences within it. Thus, many studies have shown that the more sprawling the growth, the higher the cost. For example, in Wright County, Minnesota, the net annual deficit between taxes paid and the cost of services required was found to be $490 for developed home lots larger than one acre, and $114 for quarter acre lots. Similarly, in a study of Loudoun County, Virginia (The location of NI~PA headquarters}, which is the fastest growing county in the Washington, D.C. area, it was found that public costs were approximately three times higher ($2,200} per dwelling where the density was one unit per five acres, than where the density was 4-5 units per acre {$700 per dwelling). This reflects the increased costs associated with such services as school buses, emergency service response times, road provision and repairs, garbage pick-up, and utilities when homes are spread out. While sprawl often contributes to net deficits so, on the other hand, do lower-rent apartments and larger (four and five bedroom) housing units also tend to result in a net fiscal deficit. This occurs because the dominant cost centers of local governments are educa- tion and social service expenditures. Together these two centers on average account for approximately 50% of local government expenditures. Building on this observation, a third insight was the major role of education in accounting for the residential prop- erty deficits. The impact on school costs is especially pernicious because in many states the subsidy that a local school district receives from the state declines as assessed valuations in the district increase. This means that the deficit fiscal impact of residential prop- erty is accentuated, because by increas- ing the tax base it triggers a reduction in the revenue that school districts receive from the state. Porks and Open Space Implications The data from these empirical stud- ies, group publicly owned parks and open space with privately owned agri- cultural land, forestland and vacant lots. However, the revenue implications associated with this non-developed land are quite different in the public and private sectors. Revenues accruing to the city from publicly owned land are likely to be minimal - limited to net receipts from admission fees, con- cession, grazing rights, or lease income from tenant farmers. In contrast, even if the private lands are protected by conservation easements and taxed at their use or productive value rather than their appraised value so property taxes are low, they still yield some tax revenue to the community. Residential development is the most common alternate use proposed for potential park and open space lands. Thus, because only nominal revenue is likely to accrue from public park and open space lands, the key fiscal impact issue becomes, ~Will the net costs of purchasing, maintaining and operating the land as a park or as open space be greater than the net costs associated with servicing a residential develop- ment that may be constructed on that site?" Evidence in the NRPA mono- graph {see Box) suggests that the pur- chase cost is likely to be paid for by increases in proximate property values. Hence, the fiscal impact comparison involves only the park or open space land's maintenance and operating expenses. Fig[~re 2 presents alternative scenar- ios for the; uses of a 50 acre natural site, and applies the data summarized in Figure 1 to illustrate how to under- take the comparative fiscal impact analysis. IN the context provided, the illustration suggests that if the annual cost of maintaining and operating the site as a natural park is less than $112,500, then it is likely to be less of a financial burden to the community than if the 50 acre site is developed for houses.- Further, investment in parks and . open space does not incur the external- ity costs that accompany residential · development -- traffic congestion, noise, crime, pollution, infrastructure deterioration, and changes in commu- nity character. The COCS methodology does not include quantification of the costs of these externalities, but presum- ably they add to the appeal of using land for open space rather than devel- oping it. Conclusions Communities striving to reduce the tax burden s on citizens may not fully appreciate the increase in the scope and level of services that will have to be provided to different categories of land use. The costs and benefits of parks and open space have largely been ignored by fiscal impact studies in the past. The results reported here pro- vide evidence of the need to include parks and open space in the fiscal and economic discourse. These kinds of analyses have caused some communi- ties to consider purchasing land for open space or purchasing conservation easements, rather than incurring the losses likely to accrue from develop- ment. The procedures used in these studies were intended by the American Farm- land Trust to "simplify" the complex and expensive process involved in undertaking traditional fiscal impact analyses. The trade-off involved in using the simpler procedures is that there is some reduction in level of accuracy. However, the consistency of the results, and the magnitude of dif- ferences between residential and open space use, is so striking that debate over nuances in the methodology is rendered redundant. The evidence clearly indicated that creating parks and preserving open space can be a less expensive alternative to develop- ment. A strategy of conserving parks and open space is not contrary to a community's economic health, but rather is an integral part of it. These types of findings provide park advocates with a credible entree into the economic development discussion and enable them to position parks as being a meaningful component of eco- nomic development. By showing their relative fiscal strength compared to res- idential development, advocates can refute the notion that parklands are a drain on local resources. The results challenge the assumption that develop- ment of land is its "highest and best use," which often thwarts park and open space advocates. The intent in this paper is not so sug- gest that one type of development is a superior land use to another, because some combination of all three land uses (residential commercial/industri- al, and open space) is needed in viable communities. Rather, the intent is to point out that using land for parks and open space is relevant to discussions concerned with enhancing a communi- ty's fiscal health. The goal is not to pre- vent growth, but to encourage a bal- ance between development and open space which is tends to get lost without these types of analyses. These types of studies moderate the dialog by giving parks and open space a higher profile in the economic development debate. · WEgT 20 T&$LI. 1. 9ROgi.RT¥ T&Xi.~ 9A,¥ Tgi' A,N~U&L I;)i.$T FOR Incremental Market value vatue of attributed Zone each home to the park 0utside_the_pa~k's_influence ................... $200,000 ......... $._ 0 ..... A (20 ¥0 prem urn) ............................. 240,000 ......... 40,000 ..... 4,800 . . 800 Aggregate Incremental amouot of Total propert7 property tax property taxes incremems taxes attributed to given 70 at 2% the park home sites $4,000 .... $ 0 $._ 0 56,000 B_ L~.0% p~emium) ..................................... 220,000 20,000 ................ 4,400 ...... 400 .............28,000. CL(5% premium) .210,000 ............ 10,000 .................. 4,200 ................200 .............. 14,000 F1.GURI. 2. Tgi. ~iVI.~TMI.~IT CYCLE' A,~OC'L,~,TI.I;) _./ www.ective~orks,or~ recreational and open space amenities, contemporary conventional wisdom among many elected officials and deci- sion makers is that open space and park land is a costly investment from which a community receives no eco- nomic return. The social merit of such investment is widely accepted, but social merit amenities frequently are regarded as being of secondary impor- tance when budget priorities are estab- lished. One approach to rebutting the con- yen(tonal wisdom is to demonstrate the effect of the proximate principle. The premise of this principle stems from lhe observation that people frequently are willing to pay a larger amount of money for a home located close to an attractive park or open space area than lhey are for a home further away. The increase in home value means that owners of these properties will pay higher property taxes. In effect, this represents a "capitalization" of park land into increased property values for proximate land owners. In some instances, if the incremental amount of taxes paid by each property that is attributable to the presence of the park of open space is aggregated, it will be sufficient to pay the annual debt charges required to retire the bonds used to acquire and develop the park. In these circumstances, the park is obtained at no long-term cost of the jurisdiction. This principle is illustrated by the hypothetical 50-acre park shown in Fig- ure 1. It is a natural, resource oriented park with some appealing topography and vegetation. The cost of acquiring and developing it Ifencing, trails, sup- plementary planting, some landscap- ing} is $20,000 an acre, so the total cap- itaI cost is $1 million. The annual debt charges for a 20-year general obligation bond on $1 million at 5% are approxi- mately $90,000. A projected annual income stream to service the bond debt was based on the following assumptions: · If properties around the park are 2,000 sq. ft homes on half-acre lots (4-0 yd x 60 ydl with 40 yard frontages on the park, then there would be 70 lots in Zone A (30 lots along each the 1,210 yard perimeters and 5 lots along each of the 200 yard perhneters). "Assume total property taxes payable to city, county, and school district are 2% of the market value of the property. · Assume the market value of similar properties elsewhere in the jurisdiction be}'ond the immediate influence of this park is $200,000. · Assume the desire to live close to a larger natural park creates a willing- ness to pay a premium of 20% for properties in Zone A; 10% in Zone B; and 5% ii1 Zone C, and thzit there are also 70 lots in Zones B and C. Table 1 shows that, given the above assumptions, the annual incremental property tax payments in the three zones from the premiums attributable to the presence of the park amount to $98,000. This is sufficient to pay the $90,000 annual bond debt charges. The flows of this investment cycle are shown in Figure 2: (il the council invests $90,000 a year for 20 years (annual debt charges on a $1 million bond) to construct or renovate a park; Iii) which causes the values of proper- ties proximate to the park to increase; (iii} leading to higher taxes paid by the proximate property owners to the council; (iv} that are sufhcient to fully reimburse the $90,000 annual financial investment made by the council. There are three additional points worth noting which may further strengthen the economic case. First, this illustration assumes no state or federal grants are available to aid in the park's acquisition and development. If there were available to reduce the com- munity's capital outlay, then the incre- mental property tax income stream would greatly exceed that required to service the debt payments, Second, the incremental property tax income will continue to accrue the community after the 20-year period during which the debt charges will be repaid, at which time the net return to the community will be substantially enhanced. Third, there is evidence to suggest that investment in parks affect the comparative advantage of a community in attracting future businesses and desirable residential relocators such as retirees. However, the proximate capi- talization approach does not capture tile secondary economic benefits attrib- utable to park provision that accrue from such sources. The Empirical Evidence The research evidence validating and supporting the hypothetical scenario described above is substantial. The results of any single study are easily challenged. The cumulative insights gained from multiple studies, however, reduce such skepticism. Their accep- tance is increased in situations like this where the studies have been carried out for more than a 100 year period, in varied settings, by researcher from dif- ferent disciplines, using a variety of techniques. Given his legendary inspirational role in the architecture, design and popularization of parks in the United States, it should come as no surprise that the earliest empirical validation of the proximate principle was reported by Frederick Law Ohnsted. The work of Olmstocl and o re,, cH- was responsible for establishing con- ventional wisdom. As a result, from the earliest days of urban park develop- ment in the 1850s through the 1950s, there was an insistent, almost inviolate conviction among park and open space advocates of the legitimacy of the prox- imate principle. This conventional wis- dom was also espoused by elected offi- cials and was Persuasive in convincing decision-makers to invest in parks. In many ways, the early studies were na'/ve, reflecting the undeveloped nature of the statistical tools and research designs in the early years of the field. The increased capability of computing in the late 1960s and 1970s enabled more sophisticated statistical anals, ses to be undertaken. These gen- erally confirmed the findings of the ear- lier studies. A detailed description and discussion of the results is provided in the monograph described in the box on page 67. Among the conclusions were: · The empirical evidence from 20 of the 25 studies reviewed supported the premise that parks and open space con- tributed to increasing proximate prop- erty values. In four of the five studies that did not support the proximate principle, it was suggested that the ambivalent findings may be attribut- able to methodological limitations. · The support extended beyond urban areas, to include properties that were proximate to large state parks, forests and open space in rural areas. · The conventional wisdom that creat- ing large state or federal park or forest areas results in a net reduction in the value of an area = s tax base was not supported. · Parks embracing primarily active use recreation areas showed much smaller proximate increases than those accom- modating only passive use. · The magnitude of the proximate effect will vary according to size, usage and design of park lands, but a positive impact of 20% on property values abut- ting or fronting a passive park area is a reasonable guideline as a point of departure. · The proximate impact of park land and open space is likely to be substan- tial up to 500 feet, and in the case of community parks is likely to extend out to 2000 feet. 6reenways and 6elf Courses In addition to reviewing the impact on parks and open space, the mono- graph considered the evidence relating to the impact of greenways and golf courses on property values. In the 1990s, there was an explosion of interest in developing greenways. The rationale underlying the proposi- tion that greenway trails may positively influence property values is different from that associated with parks. Unlike parks, any added property values is not likely to come from the views of nature or open space with a property owner enjoys because in most cases, especial- ly in urban trail contexts, there are not such vistas. Rather, any added value derives from access to the linear trail. It is a trail's functionality or activity potential that is likely to confer added value, not the panorama of attractive open space. The literature investigating the proxi- mate principle in the context of green- ways is spars, but a consistent pattern emerges from it. There is broad con- sensus that trails have negative impact on either th? _s_a_leability of property (easier or more difficult to sell) or its value. There is a belief among some, typically between 20% and 40% of a sample, there is a positive impact on saleability and value. However, the dominant sentiment is that the pres- ence of a trail has not impact on these issues. Almost 1,000 golf courses incorporat- ed as central features of real estate developments were constructed in the U.S. in the 1990s. Developers include golf courses to increase the land values in their projects and to accelerate the absorption of real estate, i.e. to see their lots nmre quickly. Contemporary golf courses exemplify the important role of "edge" in maxi- mizing real estate values. Traditional ahnost rectangular shaped courses, similar to the shape of traditional parks, have been discarded in favor of linear courses which can accommodate much more real estate frontage. Lots and houses throughout a gold-course community bring substantial premiums over comparable lots/units in non-golf developments. The golf course developers' strategy mirrors that which has been advocated by supporters of public parks and open space for over a century, i.e. parks are an investment not a cost because they generate more property taxes for a city than it costs to service the annual debt charges incurred in creating the ameni- ties. The high visibility, large number, and success of these golf course devel- opments demonstrates by analogy to governmental stakeholders and deci- sion-makers the viability of the proxi- mate principle in the context of park land and open space. · Documenting the Benefits NRPA has published a 116 page publication t/tied The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property V~lues and the Property Tax Base. The publication reviews the principles and empirical evidence relating to the economic impact of parks, open spaces, greenways, and golf courses on property values. The economic impact derives from two premises. First, these amenities often increase the value of proximate properties, and the resultant incremental increase in revenues that governments receive from the higher property taxes is frequently sufficient to pay the acquisition and development COsts of the ameni- ties. ' . The second premise is that development causes public expenditures to increase, because the costs to a community of servicing residential sub-divisions usually exceed the property and sales tax revenues that accrue from the development. Thus, conversion of open space to housing often results in an increased tax burden on existing residents, The publication reviews and synthesizes a convincing body of evidence, dating back almost 150 years to pioneering work by Frederick Law Olmsted', which suggests the con- ventional wisdom that park amenities offer no economic returh'is wrong. This is the second publication in NRPA's series documenting th~ economic benefits of parks and recreation. The first monograph, published last year, was titled Measuring the Economic Impact of Visitors to Sport Tournaments and festival Events. The publication can be obtained from NRPA by calling (703) 858-2190. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 890 G9' Cemer Drive ?0 Bo. ri47 C/~,u:/,,~sse,. ,Uim~esota 55317 PhOllg 952 932 ] 900 Go,cra[ Fax Y52. Y3Z52~9 £,gi~m)ri,g Dcp,~rtmc,t Fax 952.~3Z9152 Bt6Idi,g Dep,rtme,t Fax 952.934.2524 Site MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher. City Manager FRO M: DATE: SUB J: Todd Heft'man. Park & Recreation Director January 31. 2001 Establish 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fcc Schedule Please find attached a draft rcso!ution recommending esmb!ishnmnl of the 2001 park and trail dedication fees. Residential single lhmily/duplex and multi- family/apartment rates were raised $I00 for parks and $33 for trails in 1997. Over the past 36 months, land values in Chanhassen have appreciated approximately 25%. Staff believes the recommended fees accurately reflect current land values. No rate increase is recommended fbr commercial/industrial properties. These uses generally produce only 10-20% of local park visits, A survey of current fees tYr seven surrounding communities is attached. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Cily Council approve the attached resolution dcd~c,t ou fees. establishing 2001 park and trail · ' o i ATTACItMENTS 1. Proposed Resolution Establishing 2001 Park & Trail Dedication Fees. '2. 2001 Park Dedication Rate Survey. CITY COUNCIL ACTION (2-21-01) Councilman Labatt moved approval, Councilman Ayotte seconded, and all voted in favor and the motion can'ied 4-0. g) park\Ih',2001 parkdcdfces-e.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2001 PARK AND TRAI:L DEDICATION FEES WHEREAS, the City determines park dedication fees and trail dedication fees based on land values, density, and a park acreage standard of 1 acre per 75 people. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council that park and trail dedication fees collected with building permits fees be established as follows: Residential Single Family/Duplex Units Multi-Family/Apartment Units Commercial/Industrial Property Trail Dedication Fees Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this __ ATTEST: $1,500/unit $1,250/unit $4,500/acre One-third of the cost of park dedication fees of February, 2001. Scott A. Botcher, City Manager YES NO Linda C. Jansen, Mayor ABSENT 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fee Survey Total Park and Trail Fee City Single Family , Multi-Family Commercial/Industrial Chaska 1,500 unit 825-1,175 unit 8,000 acre Bloomington 4,300 unit 2,500 unit $142 per user based on local formula Eden Prairie 2,100 unit 2,100 unit 6,000 acre Minnetonka 550 unit 500 unit 2,400-3,000 acre Shakopee 1,800 unit 1,500 unit 3,880 acre Shorewood 1,500 unit 1,500 unit N/A Victoria 1,250 unit 1,250 unit 2,500 acre Recommended Chanhassen 2,000 unit 1,667 unit 6,000 acre Current Chanhassen 1,600 unit 1,333 unit 6,000 acre