HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.a. Reqest to Accept the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota/Regional Council of Mayors Opportunity City Pilot Program Summary ReportAGENDA ITEM: Request to Accept the Urban Land
Institute of Minnesota Regional Council
of Mayors Opportunity City Pilot Program
Summary Report
AGENDA SECTION:
Presentations
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
AGENDA NO. vt
ATTACHMENTS: Opportunity City Pilot Program Summary
Report
APPROVED BY:
na1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota
Regional Council of Mayors Opportunity City Pilot Program Summary Report.
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting: September 15, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
The Urban Land Institute of Minnesota (ULI) and the Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) partnered to
provide a pilot program to evaluate the housing policies of cities and prepare current housing data for the
cities. Rosemount was selected as one of the five cities to participate in the pilot program. The City
Council is asked to accept the ULI /RCM Opportunity City Pilot Program Summary Report.
SUMMARY
The Urban Land Institute of Minnesota (ULI) and the Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) partnered to
provide a pilot program to evaluate the housing policies of cities and prepare current housing data for the
cities. Rosemount was selected as one of the five cities to participate in the pilot program. The other four
cities selected are Brooklyn Park, Minnetonka, Richfield, and Shoreview. The five cities were selected to
provide a variety of different suburbs from fully developed communities like Richfield to fast growing
suburbs like Rosemount.
City Staff has been working with ULI /RCM staff for the last two years to conduct the Opportunity City
Pilot Program. Staff from the five cities have gathered a number of times to discuss the housing programs
that the individual cities participate in, to review the housing data prepared for each city, and compare the
differences between cities. Individually, each City's staff met with the ULI /RCM staff to review the
housing plans and programs of the City and to determine recommendations for future planning and
programs. On May 19, 2009, ULI /RCM staff presented the housing data for Rosemount at a joint
meeting of the City Council, Port Authority and Planning Commission.
Cathy Bennett from ULI will be present at the September 15 City Council Meeting to provide a brief
presentation of the Opportunity City Pilot Program and the summary report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota Regional Council
of Mayors Opportunity City Pilot Program Summary Report.
Program Goals /Outcomes:
The goal of the Opportunity City Pilot Program is to
build on the collaborative relationships among
Regional Council of Mayors (RCM) and Urban Land
Institute (ULI) professionals to identify and implement
best practices that support a full range of housing
choices for economic stability and regional prosperity.
The City of Rosemount is one of five metropolitan
suburban communities selected to participate in the
ULI MN /RCM Opportunity City Pilot Program.
Rosemount's Mayor, William Droste, is an active
participant in the RCM. The Rosemount staff
contributed countless hours in the collection of
information, evaluation of tools and strategies and
coordination related to the housing audit.
By working together and learning from each other, the
expected outcome of the process is to develop an
approach that identifies local housing tools and
strategies that can serve as a model for other cities and
be brought to scale at the regional level. In addition,
implementation of new tools and strategies will enable
suburban cities to better prepare themselves for the
future through preservation, rehabilitation and
production of quality housing units, use of regulatory
incentives, incorporating sustainability and connecting
housing to jobs and transportation networks.
Process: The Housing Audit:
1.) Review of the housing framework.
2.) Analyze the Community Change Report as it
relates to demographic and household data.
3.) Review and evaluation of existing city tools and
strategies surrounding the preservation and
production of housing choices.
4.) Identification of specific recommendations for
local implementation.
Attachments to the summary report include: Housing
framework review, community factors questions, Community
Change Report, program review detail, and performance
review template.
Rosemount's Story
The City of Rosemount is one of the oldest third -ring suburbs
in the Twin Cities with a population of 22,450 residents.
Originally a village in 1875 with a farming history and later
adjoining the Federal Gopher Ordnance Plant and the
University Research Center, the City started suburban growth
in the post -WWII era for those who wanted a small town
environment within the surrounding agriculture community.
Over the past 60 years, Rosemount has evolved into a
developing single family community with new housing
surrounding the historic downtown. Few apartments were
needed until the 1990's.
The current housing sector makes up more than 85% of the
City's tax base. Housing affordability within owner occupied
older homes, limited apartments, and newer town homes is
planned to provide the basis for young professional and young
family growth to more than 42,000 people by 2030. This
growth can help to stabilize the Rosemount (and nearby)
schools, wherein an estimated 2,800 to 3,200 households with
children are needed to retain the current base of facilities.
There will continue to be extensive growth of new single
family detached housing stock as well as mixed opportunities
for a mix of housing options on the UMORE site which
includes over 3,000 vacant acres in Rosemount. Therefore,
continuing to work with the housing market to provide diverse
new opportunities as well as plan for, reinvest in, and reinvent
the existing homes to meet market demands by offering tools
and strategies that meet the needs of new (and young)
households will remain important. Availability of existing
affordable housing is another issue.
With the exception of first time buyer town homes, there are
few choices for young householders, since existing
apartments are older, having fewer units per building, with
limited amenities. The older single-family homes are
attractive as starter homes and are mostly affordable as first
time purchase options, if available. Aging in place is a
phenomenon that Rosemount has just started to experience.
For the past 20 years, as the young households grow, there
3
Opportunity t€ t ftottrain Report
have always been newly constructed move -up housing opportunities. Rosemount's overall retention rate is
higher than most cities evaluated. If current patterns continue and without a more diverse housing stock,
Rosemount's large 35 to 54 age group will age in place for 20 or more years. Opportunities for mixed uses,
mixed housing types and values will be important as the City ages and evaluates its redevelopment areas.
As the City moves forward, continuing to invest in the neighborhoods and housing stock while providing more
diverse options for young and older households, both owner occupied and rental, is an important community
housing (and economic development) policy and familykhousehold retention strategy. Retaining the existing
schools is an important element of the community's neighborhood plan and social fabric. By understanding the
community demographic balance and supporting enough housing for younger child- raising families, the City will
have a stabilizing effect upon the schools within the community. Helping spur development so that mixed
income and higher density development can occur will allow the City to be economically and competitively
viable, offering a choice of housing types as well as providing housing price diversity.
Rosemount Mayor and Council
o William Droste, Mayor
o Kim Sh ae Cos ri ge n k Councilmember
o Mar DeBettigrnes, Counalmem
o rJeff.Wersensel, Councilmember
o Bills, Councilmember
C ity of Rosemount Sta
o Dwight Johnson, City Administrator
o Kim L Community Development Director
o Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
JLI Min nesota Consulting Team
o Caren Dewar, ULI Minnesota Executive Director
o Cathy Bennett, Bennett Community Consulting
O Dennis Welsch, Center for Policy Planning and Performance
O John Carpenter, Excensus
Thank you to the following participants in the ULI MN /RCM Housing
Initiative Opportunity City Pilot Program.
4
Urban Land Institute of
Minnesota/
Regional Council of
Mayors
Opportunity City Pilot
Program Summary Report
City of Rosemount
Urban Land Institute (ULI) Mission:
ULI provides responsible leadership in the use of land and in the creation of thriving
communities worldwide.
ULI Minnesota Mission:
ULI Minnesota actively engages public and private sector leaders in land use planning and real
estate development to learn, network and join in meaningful, strategic action. The future holds
many challenges and opportunities; we need the diversity of ULI Minnesota's professional
community to meet them wisely.
Regional Council of Mayors (RCM)
Supported by ULI Minnesota, the nationally recognized Regional Council of Mayors represents
Minneapolis, Saint Paul and 36 municipalities in the developed and developing suburbs. This
collaborative partnership provides a nonpartisan platform that engages mayors in candid
dialogue and peer -to -peer support, and builds awareness and action for a more connected,
more sustainable and more prosperous region.
2
City Housing Goals and Policies:
The Opportunity City Pilot Program has five key themes
in support of a full range of housing choices:
Production of housing units that support varied
resident life cycles and incomes.
Preservation and rehabilitation.
Use of regulatory incentives
Sustainability
Jobs /housing balance connected to
transportation systems.
The review of the City of Rosemount's policies indicates
support for these key themes. The various community
goals are incorporated into the City's 2008
comprehensive plan and are summarized below.
Diversify housing stock —new, infill, redevelopment
Encourage life cycle owner and renter
opportunities.
Create "move -up" housing to retain families as
they grow.
Support redevelopment in the old town center
that provides opportunities for social interaction.
Create neighborhoods that provide recreation
and protect natural resource open space.
Create and locate different housing styles in
appropriate areas
Maintain existing housing stock
Support maintenance and code enforcement.
Encourage quality materials and design.
Provide a mix of housing types and values to
accommodate a mix of incomes
Target programs to families and seniors in need
through partnerships with Dakota County CDA.
Review land use and zoning ordinances to allow
housing diversity.
Promote the development, management and
maintenance of affordable single family housing
and apartments.
Maintain and enhance "home town" character of the
City
Support walkability and neighborhood
interconnection.
Provide housing that meets the changing resident
needs.
Encourage green building.
Target density and scale that creates and
preserves neighborhood character.
5
Evaluate Community Factors:
In every city, there are internal and external factors that
challenge the city's ability to provide a full range of
housing choices. In Rosemount, some factors were
evident, as determined through interviews with staff
and review of city documents.
Reliance on housing market and need to diversity land
uses
Over 85% of the property tax value within the
community is based upon housing.
The volatility of housing values can have a
significant impact on tax capacity and ultimately
local budgeting.
Middle- income housing is the predominant type
Smaller, older single family homes, if well
maintained, are attractive to growing families.
There is a limited variety in apartments mostly
1 -2 bedroom, same style.
In lieu of new apartments, there are many new
single family attached ownership housing
opportunities for young professionals and young
families.
There is a limited supply of housing for lowest
income young and older residents.
Community opposition to rental and affordable
housing
The city has experienced negative perceptions
by residents regarding rental and affordable
housing.
Reliance on County Community Development Agency
Dakota County CDA provides funding for
affordable and housing rehabilitation.
While Dakota County CDA has been very
responsive to any city request for projects and /or
funds use of existing programs are limited.
Transportation \Transit Limitations
Limited transportation and transit service.
Program Review:
Rosemount partners with the Dakota County
Community development Agency (DC -CDA). The
partnership supports a variety of housing programs for
home renovation and redevelopment as well as
affordable low income family and senior housing. The
programs target a wide range of household incomes
and specific housing issues from health and safety items
to large renovations and infill development. Old Town
Center redevelopment has been a key priority for many
years and has resulted in new mixed use multifamily
units targeting the young and older population. The
following is a summary of the programs reviewed as
part of the housing audit.
Single Family Reinvestment Approach. Several
programs target single family renovation. The DC -CDA
invests an estimated $125,000 in single family
renovation annually.
CDBG deferred home renovation loans. Targets
health and safety renovation and serves lower
incomes. The City's older housing and population
base is a good market for the use of the program,
but funds are not being fully utilized. The City
residents use approximately 5 percent of the county-
wide funds annually and contributes approximately
$375,000 in city tax revenues to the County HRA
levy. The average loan was approximately $17,000.
Senior Housing. The DC -CDA, in cooperation with
Rosemount, targets senior affordable housing through
its Senior Housing Program.
Supports older adults over age 55 with household
incomes of approximately $49,200 or less for a
family of two.
Provides rental apartment housing for rent at $640
for one bedroom and $810 per month for two
bedrooms.
The most recent units within Rosemount are the 44
unit Cameo Place development.
Family Housing. The DC -CDA, in cooperation with
Rosemount, targets family affordable housing through
its Family Townhouse Program.
Supports families with incomes of approximately
$48,540 or less fora family of four
Provides rental housing for Tess than $700 per
month.
The most recent units within Rosemount are within
32 unit Carbury Hills development.
6
Scattered Site Family Housing. The DC -CDA, in
cooperation with Rosemount, targets scattered sites for
affordable family housing throughout the City.
Supports families with incomes of approximately
$61,500 or less for a family of four.
Provides rents based on not paying more than 30%
of adjusted monthly income.
There are 31 scattered site units in Rosemount.
Old Town Center Stonebridge Apartments. The DC-
CDA, in cooperation with Rosemount, provided project
assistance with city issuance of TIF, CDBG, and tax
exempt bonding for this downtown redevelopment
project.
Foreclosure Program. The DC -CDA, in cooperation with
Rosemount, provided homeowner foreclosure financial
assistance as well as acquiring properties in foreclosure
for resale through its "Silver Lining Program" or the DC-
CDA land banking program.
City Official Controls Land Use Strategies. In addition
to specific housing programs, the City uses several
methods through its land use and official controls to
support and promote development and redevelopment
of the City's housing stock and use of land.
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The City uses
the PUD process to accommodate a variety of
densities and transitions to existing neighborhoods.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The City uses TIF
for redevelopment and has a policy that dedicates
20% or more of the housing as affordable housing
units in such projects.
Property Acquisition. The City proactively
purchases property within redevelopment areas of
the city.
Sequential Code Enforcement. The City proactively
reviews neighborhoods annually to ensure that
homes are being properly maintained.
Waive Fees for Affordable Housing. The City has
waived development fees in support of quality
affordable housing.
Rental Licensing. The City supports the use of a
rental licensing inspection program to help ensure
minimum housing maintenance standards. The city
has over 609 rental units, of which 402 are licensed
by the end of 2008. In the past year over 540
property inspections have been done, with
compliance reached on 523.
Community Change —Key Points:
The City of Rosemount has a diverse base of households
with a sizable number of householders in each age
category. The median householder age is 48. The City
enjoys a high homeownership rate for households for
all age groups which, along with an expanding under 35
age group, can provide some stability to local schools,
commercial businesses, and services. With more than
55 percent of the total city householder population
within the 35 -54 age group, the City can expect a sizable
number of middle -aged households that will age -in-
place as they near retirement age. There is concern that
the lack of more diverse young family and senior
housing options may accentuate a recent drop in
turnover among older households age 45 to 74. Low
turnover reduces the availability of housing needed by
younger replacement households.
These and other conclusions are part of the
demographic change report provided to Rosemount.
The following is a brief summary of the key statistics.
[The full change report is provided in Appendix 5.1
Rosemount Householder Ages
Distribution of Households by Howaholder Age (2007)
(Dresser covers 7,07ehousebeld. In 2007
Source: Semmes LLC
•m.rw an000Ya. <o..ce hat a...wed a serno.m.:a. 999.269211661e.7,282.
E)BCEHSUS'•
The majority (72 of Rosemount's households are
younger than age 55 with relatively few (3.8 older
households over age 75.
A large portion of the ownership single- family
detached housing is occupied by those 35 years of
age.
By housing type, 48 percent of renters and 27
percent of owners moved into the City during 2004-
07.
Only 14 percent of all owner occupied single family
detached homes are affordable, based on the 2007
Metropolitan Council's threshold value of $207,800.
Sixty one percent of the owner occupied single
family attached homes are considered affordable by
the same standard. A large portion of those
owners under age 35 (82%) were in the attached
single family homes.
7
Foreclosure rates of 3 percent (195 units) are
consistent with other Dakota County cities.
However, households under the age of 35
accounted for 24 percent of the City's foreclosures.
Over 53 percent of the rental householders have
remained in their housing units for at least three
years indicating stability in the rental market or a
lack of other choices to move into.
Turnover for all age groups and housing types is
larger than most cities evaluated at an average of 5
percent.
During 2004 -07, the City was able to retain 35
percent of residents that moved. This was the
highest retention rate of any City evaluated.
Nearly half of the incoming households came from
homes in Rosemount or adjacent cities while three
quarters of the move -outs relocated nearby,
generally in the same school district.
Rosemount resident workers (8,931 or 91
commute to their jobs outside the city, most on or
south of the 494 corridor.
As of 2006 there were 5,701 workers employed in
Rosemount. Only 14 percent actually lived in the
community.
Y Mo units
Home Value 207,800+(88 units)
s at Herne Woe 6207.800 (78 units)
6
V .t nlee AY gW
.eW. Tat
VYme. unblWaHe Aer,a•
.aomple.few to Nome
Adam.,
Rosemount Homes in Foreclosure Sale (1/2007 to 12/2008)
(Foreclosures by affordability of home and age of householder)
(beta sat covers 195 dwelling))
Source: Hennepin County end Escensus LLC
ist
6
s
IO t Pereenee6Ae W
ferMYrve
12 I L
to >6 n Sl 2' x 9 R Q S 9 5 r 2 X g 8 S 8 g R #zit 8 8 U a
n f0 n Sc 6 Fa R i C
Aause.oNereser
anoa.aayaa.u b..a a9Ua .tevamolw.CO.oa s 2007 6049999. 1XCEHSUSe
Recommendations to Increase the City's Capacity to Provide a Full Range of Housing Choices:
Several key themes emerged through the Opportunity City Process in Rosemount. Overall, the City is managing the new
growth well and preserving its existing housing, but will need to diversify housing types and require quality and higher
densities to meet its projected housing needs in the next 10 to 20 years. The City relies on its partnership with Dakota
County's Community Development Agency (CDA) to address single- family affordable housing maintenance, renovation,
and preservation needs. In addition, the CDA provides affordable new family and senior housing in the community and
adjoining communities. Additional private and city \county investment in the future should be focused on new and the
older apartment complexes. It is essential to ensure that existing programs and any new efforts are properly funded
particularly when there is limited funding and staff capacity. The following is a summary of recommendations resulting
from the housing audit, community change information and review of City goals, policies and community factors.
Communication and Education. Due to the increasing new and diverse resident base, the City and CDA will need to
expand its communication and education efforts regarding their housing programs, ownership and rental opportunities
and expectation for home maintenance. Some examples may include:
Partner with the School District, Faith based organizations and CDA to increase the availability of home renovation,
purchase assistance and homeowner classes.
Provide educational sessions /fact sheets on available home ownership options available in the City with CDA and
non profit assistance.
Increase city \county coordination for a more holistic approach in increasing neighborhood trust regarding
development and neighborhood issues. eg. Brooklyn Park's Neighborhood Action Committee.
Expand connections of the current and future housing opportunities to local jobs by working with employers and U-
MORE to determine housing needs and evaluating links between employment wages and housing values.
Increase partnerships with non profit and for profit resources to expand the City's capacity to address housing
issues.
Program Improvements. Rosemount has built a formidable base of single family middle income housing and should
diversify the housing types, densities and programs to meet future needs as projected in its comprehensive plan. This is
especially true for entry-level housing to young families and for older adults as they age in place and seniors looking for
a "down- sized" home option or senior care facilities. To enhance the existing tools in the tool box, the City should
consider modification and expansion of some programs and their delivery to ensure that they are meeting the needs of
current and future residents.
Evaluate one -stop shop city \CDA approach for financial and remodeling adviser services to reduce homeowner
confusion and increase efficiency.
Continue to fund neighborhood reinvestment in older homes through the CDA. Consider the benefits of
incorporating sustainability into existing programs— expand program requirement to include incentives for energy
efficiency and renewable products.
Evaluate options for providing existing small apartment and homeowner architectural assistance, eg. St. Louis Park's
partnership with AIA.
Provide a housing element into the City Council annual work plan and create an annual or bi- annual report
explaining housing benchmarks and accomplishments.
Apartment Reinvestment New Rental Opportunities. Apartments in Rosemount are some of its most affordable
housing —as well as some of the oldest and physically inaccessible housing. While this housing type serves a great need
for a broad range of residents, particularly younger households, it has few child supportable amenities and many times
lack accessibility for seniors. Expanding the City\CDA capacity to improve the apartment stock while enabling
redevelopment, especially in the old town center, in a sensitive, cost efficient manner that increases value and
sustainability will be important to the future success of City efforts. Surrounding cities are converting condominium
sites into multi family rental sites which will absorb some of the new rental market and set a foundation for future
population changes. Supporting opportunities for additional modern apartment complexes in the City will provide new
choices for young households and empty nesters wanting to remain in the city.
8
Evaluate ways to increase capacity to improve older apartments through deliberate and expansive partnerships with
owners, non profit /for profit organizations that specialize in older apartment preservation /renovation and
redevelopment.
Determine if there are ways to effectively ensure that older apartments become more marketable /sustainable by
combining units to increase bedroom counts, adding modern amenities and energy efficiencies, linking residents to
social services and ensuring proper connections to transportation, parks, recreation and essential services.
Evaluate opportunities in redevelopment and vacant residential areas to add new apartment living options with
modern amenities, design and energy efficiencies. Any new multi family development should provide connections
to transportation options, parks, recreation and essential services as outlined in the ULI MN Community Site
Principles [Appendix 6].
Hold an annual or biannual multi family and senior housing strategy meeting with elected and appointed officials,
developers and local property owners to evaluate community needs, evolving trends and new designs and housing
products.
Land Use Controls and Other Housing Strategies. City leaders have a variety of public tools and strategies they use to
determine their participation in land use decisions, maintenance standards and the facilitation of redevelopment and
renovation. Continuing to be part of the solution and helping to change the way land is used and buildings are
maintained takes strong local leadership and vision. Many decisions that policy leaders make are controversial.
Understanding the long -term effect of those decisions will help prepare the City for future growth and re- growth.
Additional recommendations relating to specific public policy decisions are:
Consider implementing a Point of Sale Program and continue the Rental Licensing programs that help provide
consistent maintenance standards for existing housing stock. Even in a time of economic uncertainty and for cities
where there is a newer housing stock, providing methods to ensure that existing homes are property maintained is
essential.
Evaluate alternate ways to zone land that would better manage and promote redevelopment. Understanding the
components of form -based or performance -based zoning is an option that supports more walkable, mixed -use
development. Form- and performance -based zoning provide a framework for how future uses fit into the
surrounding area through the placement and design of buildings on the site, rather than tying the land to a specific
future use.
Consider the use of third party land use meeting facilitators for difficult development or neighborhood issues, such
as the Corridor Development group within the non profit Twin Cities LISC organization.
Support building and land development requirements that promote sustainability and Tong -term energy efficiency.
Local efforts can help reduce the regional carbon footprint, increase long -term affordability (through lower utility
and maintenance costs) and support healthy living.
Consider the use of Housing Improvement Area local government authority to address older common interest
communities, mobile home areas, and townhome projects to promote an affordable renovation option.
Support long term affordability by incorporating land trust and Habitat for Humanity units within future mixed use
and mixed income developments.
9
Next Steps:
The Opportunity City Program is only the first step in supporting a full range of housing choices in the
community. Key policy leaders need to support next steps that make valuable changes to the way that the
tools and strategies are delivered throughout the City. Many of the recommendations have budget
implications and affect staff resources. Prioritization of the recommendations is essential. The next steps
associated with implementation of the recommendations should include:
Gaining acceptance of the Ul.l MN /RCM Opportunity City report by the City Council, which includes
incorporating community site principles into future land use decisions.
Preparing a work program that outlines the steps and time needed to effectively implement the
recommendations. Determine how the recommendations affect land use codes, program service providers
and staff workload. Include performance targets to track the progress. Setting performance targets and
tracking the progress of local tools and strategies against benchmarks will provide a level of understanding
to public officials and residents that become critical during the annual budgeting process. [Detail on
performance measures as related to housing tools and strategies is provided in Appendix 7.]
Evaluating budget and staff resource implications tied to each recommendation. Prioritizing
recommendations that will have the largest impact in supporting housing goals for a full range of housing
choices.
Evaluating the need to amend the City's comprehensive plan based upon implementation of
recommendations.
Discuss the broader meaning of the demographic data as it compares to current market conditions and
evaluate how the data relates to the region. Incorporate future data updates and the online
neighborhood -level data tool.
A special thanks to the Opportunity City Pilot Program Sponsors.
Without their financial contribution, the program would not be
possible
1 0
ULI MN /RCM
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit
Summary of Rosemount Housing Goals Policies
Growth:
According to the Metropolitan Council forecast, Rosemount will experience an increase of an additional
18,250 residents and 7,450 households between 2010 -2030 due to available land for new housing.
As a developing community, the majority of Rosemount's growth will be vacant land subdivisions. The
City has the opportunity to continue to diversify their housing stock and provide more life -cycle housing
and housing choice. Housing choices will be increasingly important to both current residents and
potential housing consumers in the future.
An additional opportunity it the future development in the City is the 5,000 acre (3,000 located within
Rosemount) property owned by the University of Minnesota that is currently used for agricultural
research projects. Over the next 3 -5 years, the UofM plans to develop a portion of that property for
mixed commercial and housing. The development of this area creates a huge opportunity for the City to
provide well planned mixed use neighborhoods with multiple housing choices.
The Metropolitan Council predicts that there is an additional 1,000 affordable units needed in
Rosemount 2011 -2020 to accommodate a share of the expected regional demand.
As part of the ULI MN Regional County of Mayor Opportunity City Pilot Program there are 5 key themes
in support of a full range of housing choices. These include:
Preservation Rehabilitation
Production of new units of housing providing a full range of housing choices both affordable
and to meet community life cycle housing needs
Use of Regulatory Incentives
Sustainability
Jobs /Housing Match
The following is a summary of Rosemount's goals and policies as noted in the City's 2008 update to the
Comprehensive Plan which supports the production of new lifecycle housing units, housing
preservation, and rehabilitation.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 1 Page 1
Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Goals and Policies
1. Design subdivisions to create independent neighborhoods.
A. Facilitate neighborhood planning for improvements which reinforce neighborhood unity, safety,
and identity.
B. Natural corridors or buffer yards shall be utilized along boundaries of dissimilar housing types
and densities by maximizing the use of existing landforms, open space, and vegetation to
enhance neighborhood identity and integrity.
C. All transitional residential areas shall provide a unique urban /rural character with a mixture of
housing types, but with a relatively low average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, with a
lower density along areas guided for rural residential use.
D. Encourage the use of planned unit developments to protect and enhance natural features, open
space, and to provide appropriate neighborhood transitions.
2. Provide recreational opportunities within and between neighborhoods.
A. Implement the Parks System Plan when locating parks and recreational facilities within
neighborhoods.
B. Incorporate pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with sidewalks and trails as important design
elements.
C. Provide pedestrian and recreational trail connections with the adjacent land uses.
D. Trails shall be planned to connect public areas and create pedestrian pathways within natural
corridors.
E. Design medium density housing with private amenities and open space for the residents of the
medium density housing.
3. Design neighborhoods to incorporate the existing environment and natural resources.
A. Streets shall be designed to follow the natural contour of the property and shall provide
necessary vehicle connections throughout the geographic area.
B. Steep slopes shall be protected from development.
C. Development near wetlands and woodlands shall follow the Wetland Management Plan and
Tree Preservation Ordinance to ensure their preservation /protection and incorporation into the
natural landscape design of each development.
D. Clustering of housing units shall be designed into planned unit developments and the
transitional residential area to conserve the land's natural resources.
4. Provide a mixture of rental and homeownership opportunities to provide life cycle housing.
A. Maintain the city's partnership with the Dakota County cluster for the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act (LCA).
B. Encourage the construction of a variety of single family home sizes and styles to increase home
ownership opportunities.
C. Encourage the development of owner occupied medium density housing.
D. Provide ownership opportunities for seniors with access to transit and public /institutional
facilities.
E. Provide rental opportunities for young adults and recent college graduates returning to
Rosemount.
F. Provide an opportunity for student housing near Dakota County Technical College.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 1 Page 2
G. Implement a rental inspection program to ensure that rental properties are maintained.
5. Locate the different housing styles within the appropriate areas.
A. Disperse medium density residential throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods
of medium density residential.
B. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to avoid entire
neighborhoods of high density residential.
C. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network.
D. Locate high density residential in conjunction with downtown and the commercial areas along
County Road 42 to create mixed use neighborhoods and transit oriented districts.
E. Provide opportunities for seniors to live near their children and families.
6. Provide workforce and affordable housing opportunities through cooperative effort with other
agencies.
A. Work with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and
federal agencies to provide workforce and affordable housing opportunities.
B. Work with Habitat for Humanity and similar organizations, along with Dakota County
Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and federal agencies, to provide
affordable housing opportunities and to redevelop and rehabilitate older homes in the City.
7. Maintain the rural character of northwest Rosemount.
A. Discourage the placement of structures on top of exposed ridge lines.
B. Allow clustering where natural areas and active agriculture can be retained.
C. Maximize the retention of vegetation, maintain natural Iandforms, and minimize lawn areas.
D. Define, during the platting process, building envelopes that avoid the Location of structures in
areas needing to be preserved.
E. Protect open space or conservation areas with conservation easements. These tools are
intended to be used for environmental and scenic resource protection, not public access.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 1 Page 3
ULI MN /Regional Council of Mayors Opportunity City Pilot Program
Housing Audit Framework City of Rosemount
Establish a Framework The first step in the housing audit process was to review and
evaluate examples of key tools and strategies that are being used by the City in support of a full
range of housing choices. Rosemount staff completed an exercise that reviewed and evaluated
these examples of key tools and strategies. City staff was asked to indicate the current use by
the city, rate how well it was used in the city; and briefly describe its use. If the city did not use
the tool or strategy they were asked to indicate the reasons why. The rating system was
developed to understand the level of use in the context of local planning and action as 1.)
proactive to prevent and or provide early intervention into a solution to an issue; 2.) organized
response anticipating the issues and reacting to those issues or 3.) crisis response by reacting
to a specific issue and /or crisis. The following is a summary of the key tools and strategies and
the city's response.
a. Ability to Capitalize on Market Activity
i. TIF (proactive)
TIF has been used to provide needed and affordable housing within Downtown Rosemount.
ii. Tax Abatement
The city has not used tax abatement.
iii. Housing Levy (reactive organized response)
City taxpayers contribute to the Dakota County Community Development Agency for housing
assistance funding.
iv. Zoning Policies Regulatory Incentives (proactive)
The City identifies areas that are appropriate for various densities and uses Planned Unit
Development and other zoning measures to provide the appropriate densities and transitions.
b. Generating Capital leverage outside funding sources
i. Tax Credits (reactive organized response)
While the City does not actively seek out tax credits, it will support tax credit applications made
by Dakota County CDA.
ii. Pre development and Acquisition Funding (proactive)
The City and Port Authority acquires property for redevelopment.
iii. State, County and City Bonding
The city has not used bonding.
iv. MN Housing Funds (reactive organized response)
The City supports organizations that apply for these funds for housing projects.
v. Local Employer Funding
The city does not required and /or has a program for local employers to support homes
purchases.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 2 Page 1
vi. Housing Trust Funds
The city does not have a housing trust fund.
vii. Other (proactive)
The city actively pursues grant funding (Metropolitan Council Livable Communities
Demonstration Funds) for affordable housing projects and supports Dakota County CDA
projects within the City.
c. Preserving Recycling local programs
i. Preservation and Rehabilitation of Older Ownership and Rental Properties
(reactive organized response)
The City supports, advertises and participates with the Dakota County CDA for housing
preservation and rehabilitation.
ii. Renovation Loans and incentives (reactive organized response)
The City supports, advertises and participates with the Dakota County CDA for housing
preservation and rehabilitation.
iii. Down payment assistance (reactive- organized response)
The City supports, advertises and participates with the Dakota County CDA for housing
preservation and rehabilitation.
iv. 1 Time Homebuyer assistance (reactive organized response)
The City supports, advertises and participates with the Dakota County CDA for housing
preservation and rehabilitation..
v. Land Trust, Habitat for Humanity
The City does not have land trust and Habitat for Humanity units.
vi. Preservation Codes Point of Sale, Rental Licensing (proactive)
The City has a rental inspection and licensing program as well as a sequential inspection and
code enforcement program where the entire city is reviewed for properties that are not being
maintained.
vii. Aging in Place Programs
The City does not have aging in place programs or strategies.
d. Expanding Development Opportunities
i. Support of Mixed Use Development (proactive)
The City has multiple mixed use neighborhoods and has more planned for the future.
ii. Development Guidelines (proactive)
The City has Downtown Development Guidelines that explain how mixed -use buildings can be
designed.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 2 Page 2
iii. Use of Publically Owned Land for Housing Opportunities (proactive)
The City and Port Authority have acquired various properties for housing.
iv. Rezoning of Land for Housing Opportunities Flexible Zoning (proactive)
The City has used Planned Unit Development and simple rezoning to accommodate the
appropriate mix of housing styles and densities.
v. Support of Higher Densities Density Bonus Programs, smaller lot sizes,
smaller street widths, cluster development (proactive)
The City supports mixed -use and mixed- housing neighborhoods to provide life -cycle housing
options.
vi Identification of Sites (proactive)
The City acknowledges and advocates for housing projects.
e. Reduce Red Tape in Support of Housing Diversity
i. Zoning policies that support diversity in housing types (proactive)
The City uses Planned Unit Development to provide for mixed uses and supports life cycle
housing to provide for housing during all stages of life and incomes.
ii. Expedited permitting and review policies (reactive crisis response)
The City community development and engineering staff work with developers and applicants to
provide the assistance needed to expedite projects.
iii. Fee Waivers for affordable housing (reactive crisis response)
The City has waived fees for projects that provide quality affordable housing.
f. Expand Efforts to Support Sustainability at the Local Level
i. Energy Efficiency (reactive organized response)
The City staff is actively educating itself on energy efficient and green building techniques to
serve as a resource for residents and developers wishing to construct green.
ii. Land Use Efficiency (proactive)
The City Code requires mixed use, pedestrian and transit oriented, public spaces and open
space, natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and connectivity with existing
development. The Planning Commission and City Council reviews development proposals for
the incorporation of all these elements.
g.
Connect housing choices to jobs and transportation networks
i. Commute Patterns (proactive)
The City works with Dakota County and Minnesota Valley Transit Authority to maximize the
transit and transportation options available to Rosemount residents.
ii. Employment Connections (proactive)
The City has constructed their 2008 -2030 Comprehensive Plan to provide a balance of jobs
available to the resident's employment.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 2 Page 3
h. Help Residents Succeed
i. Promote Homeownership Homeownership Classes (reactive organized
response)
The City supports, advertises and advocates the Dakota County CDA programs.
il. Foreclosure Prevention (reactive organized response)
The City supports, advertises and advocates the Dakota County CDA programs.
iii. Crime Free Multi Family Housing (Proactive)
The City Police Department has crime free program available and offices trained in maintaining
crime free housing.
iv. Neighborhood Engagement (Proactive)
The City has numerous departments that interact with neighborhood associations and
organizations.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 2 Page 4
1
ULI MN/RCM
Opportunity City Pilot Program
City of Rosemount
Housing Audit Community Factors
The housing audit includes the evaluation of numerous factors that limit a city's ability to
provide a full range of housing choices. The factors are examples suggested by the Center
for Housing Policy. Information regarding the housing factors for Rosemount was gathered
through discussions with City staff and the multi family study group.
1. What are the constraints on new development and redevelopment that prevent the
market from responding efficiently to increased demand for housing?
Access to transportation is indirect with large land uses that will be difficult to
redevelop such as the refinery.
Developing city with large acreage outside of the MUSA.
2. Is there community opposition to new development either generally or affordable
housing specifically?
Overcoming the perceptions of affordable housing with regard to being
unappealing visually and attracting undesirable social issues to the city. After
development was built there were no complaints and the project is a success.
3. Is the City experiencing deterioration of older homes due to neglect or lack of financing
for repairs?
Limited issues that are addressed through sequential code enforcement process
and access to Dakota County CDA loan programs for home improvements.
4. Is there a lack of coordination between housing and transportation planning
There is a lack of control over the planning and implementation of non -city
transportation corridors to address local needs. The city has considered an opt
out program that would feed into existing park and ride areas.
5. Does the City have difficulty accessing financing for various expenses, such as to
rehabilitate older homes?
ULI MN /RCM Opportunity City Program City of Rosemount Appendix 3
The City is fortunate to have access to housing funding from the Dakota County
CDA which has been responsive to local needs. Currently does not have an EDA
or HRA levy and do not plan to use this authority in the near future to address
housing issues.
6. Is there a shortage of land on which to develop?
The City has approximately 5,000 acres of undeveloped land including the 3,000
acres of land in the UMore development area.
7. Is there a low- density development pattern that constrains supply and make it difficult
to build affordable homes?
Average single family density is 2.3 units per acre. The community is less
concerned with higher density than with the development type such as rental
and /or multi family.
8. Is there activity by investors to purchase and "flip" properties for a profit?
The city relies on the Dakota County CDA to monitor and address foreclosure
issues.
9. Is there a proliferation of predatory loans and /or sub -prime loans that may not be
affordable over the long -run?
The city relies on the Dakota County CDA to monitor and address foreclosure
issues.
10. Are there challenges faced by existing homeowners affording their housing costs?
No issues observed and the city would refer residents to Dakota County CDA for
assistance.
11. Is there insufficient funding for affordable housing?
The city relies on the Dakota County CDA to address affordable housing needs in
the City.
12. Are there lower incomes in the City?
The school district headquarters provide over 100 jobs in the City.
Many other employees are commercial oriented and contract workers. Employers
have not expressed a concern with attracting employees.
2 ULI MN /RCM Opportunity City Program City of Rosemount Appendix 3
Non Mobile Homes
83
83.8%
Mobile Homes
16
16.2%
Dakota County CDA
Housing Program
Summary
July 08-
June 09
Percent
of Total
County
Usage
City
TOTAL
Apple Valley
13
13.1%
Burnsville
26
26.3%
Eagan
5
5.1%
Farmington
0
0.0%
Hastings
7
7.1%
Inver Grove Hgts
8
8.1%
Lakeville
13
13.1%
Mendota Hgts
0
0.0%
Northfield
3
3.0%
South St. Paul
2
2.0%
West St. Paul
15
15.2%
Rural /Other
3
3.0%
ULI MN /RCM Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit
Rosemount Program Evaluation Summary Appendix 4
The City of Rosemount is served by the Dakota County Community Development Agency for
housing renovation, affordable home purchase and foreclosure assistance programs. The City's
contribution to the CDA through the County HRA levy is approximately $357,000 annually. This
supports resident access to county and state housing programs as well as the development,
ownership and management of affordable rental and senior housing in the City. The use of the
housing programs were evaluated by reviewing the use of funds compared to other cities
within the County and is summarized as follows:
CDBG Non -MH
CDBG Mobile H.
MHFA Non -MH
MHFA Mobile H.
MHFA Fix -u
HOME Non -MH
.Rem e f
59
11
5
5
TOTAL:
99
In FY 2008 (through June),
Rosemount residents received 4
DC -CDA Housing Rehab Loans, 4%
of the county -wide total for the
year.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 4 Page 1
City
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
Total
Avg.#
Apple Valley
12
15
7
13
47
12.9%
12
Burnsville
12
16
9
26
63
17.3%
16
Eagan
8
14
3
5
30
8.2%
8
Farmington
5
3
3
0
11
3.0%
3
Hastings
5
6
11
7
29
8.0%
7
Inver Gr.
Hgts
7
18
4
8
37
10.2%
9
Lakeville
3
4
3
13
23
6.3%
6
Mendota
Hgts
0
6
2
0
8
2.2%
2
Northfield
N/A
N/A
5
3
8
2.2%
2
South St.
Paul
0
4
6
2
12
3.3%
3
West St. Paul
14
23
13
15
65
17.9%
16
Rural /Other
2
1
5
3
11
3.0%
3
TOTAL:
75
118
72
99
364
100%
91
PERCENT:
20.6%
32.4%
19.8%
27.2%
100%
Mobile Homes
13
24
11
16
64
17.6%
MHFA Rehab
15
13
8
14
50
13.7%
HOUSING REHAB CLIENTS BY CITY
July 1, 2004 June 30, 2008
Dakota County, MN
Files Issued Each Year (past 4 years)
For the 4 year period (2004 -08), Rosemount residents received an average of 5 Rehab Loans per
year; 5.5% of the county -wide total. The average loan was approximately $17,000.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 4 Page 2
Summary of Dakota County CDA Projects in Rosemount:
Carbury Hills 32 unit family affordable townhouse project
Cameo Place 44 unit senior housing project
Scattered Site Public Housing 31 units throughout the City of Rosemount
Stonebridge Apartments 108 units
DCA also owns a vacant parcel directly north of the Dakota County Technical
School which is a future opportunity for a mix of housing.
The DCA projects in cities surrounding Rosemount include:
Apple Valley 110 units senior, 66 family, 51 scattered sites, with 60 more senior
and 40 affordable units approved for an area near the Cobblestone Development
Lakeville 202 senior and 99 family units as well as 22 scattered site homes
Farmington 25 family housing units and 7 scattered site units
Inver Grove Heights 111 senior and 54 family units as well as 11 scattered site
units
Eagan 246 senior and 76 family units as well as 30 scattered site units.
The DC -CDA has provided a total of 1,165 affordable units (729 senior, 360 family, and 75
scattered units) within Dakota County including Rosemount.
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 4 Page 3
In addition, the City of Rosemount inspects all rental properties in the City and has a proactive
code enforcement program to ensure quality maintenance of the housing stock.
590
435
92
63
ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Appendix 4 Page 4
E
Z 'J
V%
c
v o
1
z
5 Pa
crcl
o rt
C
M
g
o
Fr)
tft
v
�c
3 n
c flimp"
ax) o
0) -41
-p
0 n D
0 (1)
c 3
D CrQ 0
z N
0 77 3
1"M
F 73 m N c -I VI o v c
a 3 o m t m
0 00 s.,1 C)1 C11 W N I-A r•r O a) V o o
l
I O N E fD m r=r' 3
1 2 2 2 r.i. pq c 3 fD M M a O
o 0 33 "0 30 O
3 c c c G Q o a
i Oa co T
a) a o a° 3• -a 0 3
o o o a� r* m a" rt 7 5 o 0.
C N N CU S au E O o c CD M
A N' Q N a N
O N T O D Q Q o O_ CD N N M r•r O N
e-h
m x m fD o co
O -1-. a m c -a c
m 3 3 g 2 z_ Oa
p as m c„ a.)
Q a. r* S 'Q
a, O a
o 3 x CU N
o x o rto
00
N area C in
a.
3 c a
m D.- n.
13 Cr o o NM N o
N p c n N t"
0 0_ t" to CRa O
O 3 W
3 fD QJ u' OQ
u 3 •0 o o 3 3
V) 3• 3 u, n
n,Oa o O a O
"0 n (D N 3
r•r kn. O N n
n N -7‘ fD n
fD '"e N (�D
c7) ea
CD ar
W
N
a)
C)..
a)
3 e c Gl O
o Q
C r+ (D v m
dq' a) I-
(D r
N C a
rF 0 O
Cl N rt
a) m 0 N
a)
fD' O A Q. a)
r 0 .0 c CL
C Q r-h N 3
N
O
o
O N N N c
r (D o 3
3
c
a) N Q N C
0. NO N'
2 O a) 0
m 5 N N s 3
O
ti_*. a) (D O
n 0.)
O S Citt
(D
Cu vs O N Q O
vs v, n O M 3 0
P.
v) M P C 0
Cu M Q fft 11)
e, a) N (D
(D aQ N
C.1 v 0
a4 O N' n
I O
z
z
O
O
3
a)
4-1
n
(D
0
rP
0
(D
a)
0
0 N
(D
Q.
C o q
(D
0)
0.
(D
N
N
e�F
O
0
r0
0
fr a)
n C
7,
(D
Q
CI.
o
vi v°
O
O
c
3
(D r-r
3
ro
FD
O O
O
XJ m
O v n
CD
Q m N
CPQ v 1
o f+ a)
C Dal A
N n
(D 3
O aq
v
(D r a)
3 v)
011 a) CD
•-P
s
O.
n Orq
;n Oh O
O CO
C n
N. O Q
C cl
cu r+
(D (D O
N 3
D
rr a)
N
a) O
O_
rr r i
O
O so
(D
rF 0
rD
-s
vt
1
0
N
0) cc,
S
0- 0
Q
CD (1)
CI
fD
-0
O
(D
3
rD
c r( o
(D aQ
3 CD
o
fD 0- atl
O
—w
O
H
O
0'C
cu
O
0
co
O
rD
0
Q
0)
0Q
0Q
fD
rD
Q
N
G.
O
3
rD
CfCI
rD
fD
rD
O
cr
0
c
oQ
rD
N
co
to
m
'f7
3
3
rD
S
O O
CI) In (D
r•
O
o z °1
o_
(0 S
0 CU
CfQ
O U1
W U'1
o
CL
A O O h
3 0
3 co fD
(D n
n 9^
fD �G
O (A
H O
N C
c v t^
U1
0
E C.
fa 0)
c 3 rD
ol
o a0 (D
v ss
(D 0) S
O j rD
O O 0)
Q n
rD m
0 y
0) 0
aQ 0) -h
fD CfQ
O' U9
'r3 r) 3
t!1
fD 'd
O
G
fD rD rD
r7
a
fD O
0. n C C D
O o •G
D 0 rD
G..
m
r
n
tet
z
G
1
<255
M-26
27 -28
29.30
31 -32
3334
M -36
37 -38
39-40
41-42
4344
45-46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
59-80
61 -62
6364
65-66
67 -68
69-70
71 -72
73-74
75 -76
77 -78
79-80
81-82
83-84
65+
N N
0 0 0 8 0 H
Count of Households
Ul
0
0
0
CT
0
M fD
n o 3
O O
m V N 0
0 co
m o .c am r n
to v O_
e p nn Q.
r7 H 0
G m
v aq
rD
O
O
V
wa rD a
c 0) c D c
aQ
o
c
0) O O
ata rD
N fD N
tr' rfl 3
r+ fD Q) rh
O w— 0„
n r+'
000
(D fD (D
TrD
rD 1,
rD fD
0
0)
re CD
o
aQ
CD
fD
v 0 3
r 3
o 0
O o aQ
0 O
rD rt
tD
o)
O rD
0.
co
txt
N
(A S Q
a c 0 N.
A. N
5' co Esz
cm rD o c
0)
X 3' ((0 z
N
O 3 0-
3 fD cs, fD
5. H
m
cu
cis
CD
5
ro
c
0
s
0
C
v'
0
Q
v'
N
D
0.
0
rD
X
C)C
m
N
Q
CD
rh
Di
a4
7'
DJ
fD
3
r+
0.
N
D)
0.
CD
co
vs
O i n
O
d
rr
fD
O
3 o
0 s
0 o
O 0.
C Q
rD
s
O 0
Q O J
N
DJ S
a) H
S N
O
A
tD
fD N
LO
(0
S O
fD S
DJ co
fD
CD
O (D
W
(!1 0-
CV 't
0. rD
CT
OD
O 3
fD fD
C2
n. A
us M
O
of C
U4
0.
0
0
0
c
Z
0
0
0.
m
(1)
3
v
N
0
.I,
10 1,0 to to tQ Z
m m m m co m O.
as cn A CAI N m
01 01 01 to alcn"
P• r+
0 0 0 0 0 1C
N
-AL N Ca? V (O
(C? Lk) (0 (fl V W
CO (0 (O CO O .b. .-L
CA) .A (O 0)
CO CJ1 0)
0)
Q�pp
0) -4 N co 0
C. s.) N Cfi (T) W N
N co (o (o
CTI 411. CO .A
..a
r
y
MAL
Mai
,.a
40
W
co
O
O
N
O
A
O
O
0
0
0.
co
rr
to
3 O
v, s
C =F O n
N o 7r 0 •C ��-r O
O to V CD
F
A
cu
DJ
o ms
C CZ C
Cr CA
ID G.
m A
x
nJ
v' rD
c 1.01
Z
0
C vs
CD
fD
St
O S
DJ
Q
O S
fD
DJ
a 0
A
CU
cr
cD 3
0 to n
c o S
0_v' O
M O
A
°Q
c. 'D
v'
0
t/'1
CAI
C
CA
ati
rD
W
."4...f.: N
in
A t3
r+ N T
M D O
A
O
Q
r+ 3
O TD
O S 011 S ta
S fD
C n
N O
fl. fD C `r-h
N G {/1
P.* O Q
r O cu C
N
(D f fD OQ
H N D 4
p O 01 O
O 7r
Z. N O
LA
N
A Si rD S O
cu 04
CM V O
r+ nr
0 a Q
O
01 0 10 >T
C tD
f D 3 D o l l
(D m
0 -i
°7 3
0.
c
w
S N
O
C
L3ro
an rrD
Q 0 O
su O
N FC
ED 3 v 0
3 n
O
riq
P N O
D.
r19 y 7
Household Count
A W I
a o
d O
r
C �D v, ...50, O 0 .O H a .O u9 g 0 O rDD 7' d r 3 O d O C n N
r+ O 01 O cD 07 O (111 N O to "G I A
01 01 O S C A O N m S .c 0D M p 01
fD K Q rf. Cy
M fl. m S iS O n 'a (I) 1 0 S C C Q N M O CD n S 0
a4 f� Cr A d W O
f0 Cu r+ 0. O a 3
Q CM `G d 3 0= m C O r+ S
r 3 -0 r* (b a A d 3. rc c
fD (D N 3 01 M 01 H N
A O 0/ N rt 7 3 O O cit
73 to c o_
((DD (IQ rat 73 I
c w 3
rl) (D 73 CU (D
o
0�
0
O 0 N cD
a
0 a s s
O 0
-4 N.
r*. O of
tD
c c n 3
u9 (D cn 3 c3
0'o O N 0 v+
(D
of O A 0J 00
r aro (D S
O N -1 CU
(D N 3
V' O O O 0
Z S s Uo
C O 0
fD (D OI H
O S 0) (D
S ri.
CD (0 N C.+ Q.
n co O cm
fl U'i CIO fD
'C (0 tu (A
01 0) cu CL
N C 0)
0u 0) CD rt C.
a)
CL fop n a) O
"p n -I 3. N
o (D S
O- O 0. 0 n
fD a) 61 N
(l O M (p
cu 3- 3 0
a 0 '.o o.
O p •t r•r
CM S O 5• (DD
(p O co N O
(D n C 0)
Q —1 2 Q ((0
0 fp ((DD (�D
(D
in -4 O O R.
a_, (A O-=
O C_ s n
n (D S
cm in c 0
1 c v
0 CO d
O
co (0
3 5. 0 3
y •C Q H
3 P
3
O
N `G
0
T
3
5
yo
2
0
3
(o
0
(D
d
(D
00
v
V
(D
n
(D
0
0J
0
v7
(D
S
0
Q.
0)
G.
v
CO
N
(D
1
(D
0
0)
0
(D
O
Q
c
O
CL
(D
e-F
(o
0)
Ott
(D
0
-n
W
U'1
<25
25-26
27 -28
2930
31 -32
33-34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
4 1-4 2
43-44
45 -46
4 7-4 8
c 4950
51 -52
0 5354
ro 55 -56
57 -58
59-60
61-62
63- 64
65-66
67 -68
6970
71 -72
7374
75 -76
77 -78
7980
rPt
81.82
Z 83-84
8
Count of Households
8 8 8
Y
0
3
r+
tD
co co
N r+
M A
O c
C
N "t
7
coo vi
T 3
c O
N a.
m
0
N pp
N
O
O
V
O O
3
in
A
O
01
0. -p
CU 13
O
(0
0
c
0
a
0)
rn
D
0
0
F-�
O
3
C d
CD (DD co
0)
O
0) .0 -I,
r7D O DU
O s n
O
fD
f7 O
N
LA S O
A
G of
CD
rr
N
Q p i o
X O .ti fD
13 3
o
O1 fD
r* n f1
p
N Li
r
N O
f_ -s
to
fD
fD
O 0
or
C. n
N
fD
Q
tD
5
fD
co
S ,C
N lT
0
fD
fD lD
to
to N
5
N d
O
O t2
N
O
v
CU
CD
s
0
0 rD
to 0
0
N H
fD
O
N
fD
_TI
10
V
fD
n
fD
O
M
O 3
fD
O
f9
3M
92
0
00
fD
fD
0
C
fD r
fD
H
0)
fD
ffe
O
3
fD
to
5
n
fD
N
O
O
H
0
o!
0)
to
d
ffl
<25
m
25-26
3D
27-28
0
29-30
31-32
33 -34
c
n 35 -36
37-38
co 39-40
m 41-42
c 43.44
0 ov
0 45 -46
C
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
a c 53-54
S 55 -56
ro 57 -58
59-60
0.
61 -62
ro 63-64
65-66
67-68
69 -70
71.72
73-74
75-76
77.78
79-80
i1 81-82
let
83.84
85+
g
Count of Households
0 0 0 0 0 0
tO
0
0
W
11
N H
2:6 Mk
03 p
I0
0
'O 7 S
o o
3 n c n c
f D (9
01 O 0 O
t3- =A •=1: 0_ 0
N H tZ -s
(/1 H H
3 fD e-F (7A
M 00 0 tiQ
d
91 3
rh
z
rD
0
rD
S /MD
0_ (VD
N
In
Cra O
S
O fD
U7 Q
fD
O cu
O o
ro H
33
o0 N o
O 0
O r
3 m
N rt. n
o
S -G
C r-* 5
r'f C S D O
O m
3
N CD O
0
00 C
00 c,
O
C sZ
O 3
D UO
fD
00 y
0 3
C
r*
•-e•
N
c
w
<25
25 -26
27 -28
29.30
31 -32
33.34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
59-60
61 -62
63- 64
65 -66
67 -68
39.70
71 -72
73- 74
75 -76
77 -78
79-80
81-82
83-84
441
so.
85+
Count of Households
S
6
Q
m
m
es
O 4A
III OQ
A CD
41
34
O"4
C M r
fY
X Q, a.
0
C 7 f
h o
r- no
n m Oy5
`r
o
t'D cu
or
m
n co
m
0. rt
on
0,
O
O) lD Z 'C
m
O
N X
r* o (D
n; c
irt CO
z
Ott Q.
n a
o (D 70
n O N
0 3 O
C lo Lel
rt (D
H M"
!1 O
C Q.
O rn
O
S
'a O
fD
O Q-
9. 3.
—i O
co
(D
n
(D W
N
O O
e. O
0 0)
eY
O (7
1
O O
0
0 m
m
O
0. O
a
0 3
O (D
5 (D
O O
O m
C. N
M
S
ru
O (8
N
A
0
7
C
(D
0.
O
(D
<25
25 -26
27 -28
29-30
31 -32
33-34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
5160
61 -62
63-64
65 -66
67 -68
39-70
71 -72
73.74
75 -76
77-78
79-80
n 81 -82
Z
83-84
85+
Count of Houseeholds
O O
O 0
Elm m Z Z
w x f
hp 5 5 x x x d
=_=x 0 3
M N
N M 3 C
Z O to
S w a cp O
O E o c 3
E. x A
x CP O
x 0 3 co g
o M N O
N w 4 10 y
tD 1-
c C
ast V 3
O
2 5 Z
o f
sn
o o N
o n A
Cr 0 0 0 (D C 0 r
C eM c A
d (D m O O O N 'a
0. ro O O d4 c
Q-
O x c. (D
3 a (D
s OJ
Q O (D CM Z UO 0 3
Dl w (D (D O
(D (D 09 7
wer
O.
(0
O
z
N
rP
fD
0
l0
00
0
O 3
fD
O
0,
0
W
l0
O
C
VI
(D
0
0.
0
00
(D
IM
0
0
5
00
O
Q
Cu
nT
d0
CL
or
(D
Q
O
m
O
Q 5
Cr Q
P: O
o s
S p.
O (D
m
O
(.14 i/1 l
O (D
3
00 r+
0 0
O 0)
ao
(D
(D
0-1 O
n
O C
a
0. C.
S N
(D
o d°
(D
d0
N
C..
F fa
A
fp
S
0. 0
O
3
0. N
O (D
0-
CD C G
O S
c
(fl
0
(o
0.
N to
S O
m o
o
C
fD
N
PPI
z
<25
25 -26
27 -28 l
29-30
31 -32
33-34
36-36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53.54
55 -56
57 -58
5360
61 -62
63-64
65 -66
67 -68
39-70
71 -72
73-74
75 -76
77 -78
7980
81 -82 I
83'84
0 o 0 0
Count of Households
0
0
N N w
8 0 8
0
CO
0
0
0)
(D
0
3 S
S
o
3 N
m O
N Q
y
rF
S
0) 0
C
O N
(D
V S
0
Cu 0.
x N
0
00
(0
3
VI W p 7C
V1 o m
o, N 3 r.
fir C (D rD
A LE) Q
(D C- l0 3
G- N
W
O m W
o _n V -h
7 F
Cu N_ cu 3
r1 CL
04 o W
(D
Z" o r 8
m. 3 C r, B
a) N a m
C (D 1Z !Z
7
.-i• S ri
Cr
c1 S S o o,
(8m 3 s
o
o, (D
C D o o_
O O -I D o 0
5. O. a, (9% 3
O)
ut
.-G 8) C
y rt e-+ 3
(D CU S 3
S 00
S S
(D
C O Q fa
C C. D,
a -1 O 0
S
A. O O
C'
(D D
cu 3
LA
((DD (DD rr
o
S
C• M I'D N
M m S
o (D N O.
o, O O,
8) O (D
O C D) 0,
Q MI Q. a)
Cu 1 N CD
Cr 0 M-
C
(D CM ,C (D
o SN
3 o O 7
3 w o
c
0 o m m
i c
n, (D (D
S -.1 Q
(D 3 C
O- C 7
o o_ D m
3 (D Q
(D w C'
.n.) (D O (D
u'1
<25
25 -26
27 -28
29.30
31 -32
33-34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55-56
57 -58
5960
61 -62
63-64
65 -66
67 -68
39-70
71 -72
73-74
75 -76
77 -78
7980
rx'1 81 -82
83-84
G
ion 85+
Count of Households
0.
tn S'0 SSao
3 c c1 vc vc o
o, -'gym o�Qd'"
Q- -•„o o,o o
A. 0. o. 0. o,
(D 3- 0. (D O
N N N -4, (DD N N
Q- "h
n (D .=4: d0 (D
(D 3 0 3 S p S
7 OD (D C
m• m. a) D) 7' 7 ut
.-1. 0>a
S OCI
(D
rn z
D
0
rn
D
0
0
V
T
1
Z
0
N
0
0
rD O
00
0 p z
c N O
(D rn 0 vi
N Uo 0
D h v O
.1 O
O rt O
3 i■
fD O
ro
n c
S
O fD (D
rt Q
rD
s rD o0
K (D c. (D
11
r c D3
09 c
c
Oq z •C
(D m
Q V1 N
O 3 n
(D
a).. o (D.. Q
3 n
O O 0 3
(D (D
fD (D
N
c a
O
O
O 0)
C. 0.)
O ((q (D
fD S 3
U1 w 0) -c
(D O�
a)
fD 0
f D o
G rD (D
m 3
a) O
rD
O
a 7," Oq
0) S
cr
n CD
co o
o
O (D a
co VI 0 a.
m
c
O
c
a) 0 0
V
<25
25 -26
27 -28
29-30
31 -32
33-34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43.44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
5360
61 -62
6364
65 -66
67 -68
39.70
71 -72
73.74
75 -76
77 -78
7380
81-82
83-84
A
0
o
Count of Households
v o w 0
0
m
0
c
0
O.
Vf
z
O0
fD
0,
3
!y
tD
O
G
on
Q
V
v
II MMES..
5 N's 0) -CT 3 n O
S p O O a j n
O N V -s (D Cr: Q n c
3 Sa, 0 �v —o n- v.
v 5-1 O o Er C C O S CD Fi
G.
7 to d �i ;G (ND 3 -3 0 3 0 (D S 3
p
g n C 0 e rD ac
,p 0 v'. 0) 3 N (D
N N-< c 5 rD a-
00 2 n act 0_ n fD 3
V S N
0 0- N
X N
0 VI "CS 0) X
fD
0_ 01 n 0
O fD O 0- TI 5
n Cr
--t+ fD
3
O o ri. N 7Q
CL
S N
fD F.; co N cm
O 00 S -1, r+
O d
0 n c 3
N
0 fD -1
3 D 0 r fD
rD N Q Cu el.
N n
j fD (DD O
rr
0 S
H fD S fD
C 0) 0
N rs Cr N
o r, fD Y.
0 N
O O CM N
O cu a)
rr oq C (7Q
fD vvi CL fD
c o
m O p
N 0_ C'
,..i. S C
CU fD fD 0� al'
-0 0)
es X
N n
D? .-r r fD
-1, F S F. 0_
O O O 0 S
N 0
S fD C
N
v+
C10 -1
M S O C' 0
O
Cu N O -t
CL O fD CS
fD fD fD
fD f7 C
O O 0
N fD 0 7
fD S
0
0 C 0 0 LA 5
c 0 N.
O
v O CfQ '•r
.v 0 N fD
Ui In
O S
f9
3 (D
O -I fD
O O
1.4. 0 N
fD
CL N D
O n
O N
0
Uq
<25
25 -26
27 -28
29.30
31 -32
33-34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
59.60
61 -62
63-64
65 -66
67 -68
39-70
71 -72
73-74
75 -76
77 -78
79-80
FPI
n 81 -82
83-84
Count of Households
0
CO
ee
o -I O
n tD
c
3 O
E
O1 CD
V 0.
o VI
3 fQ 0
ti M
TI
cr
0
r f 0 11
-11
3
n 0)
3°.
r O 0
o f 0
O
o oo)
7 rc
O
w O O
O
A
A
cu.., 'C S 0 S 0. 0.1 -1
fD f M D 'i f (43 0 0. O 3
0) 0" 0' 0. C1 w
0- S 0 0 3 0 S
cal 0
0. S f 1 O r+ n
O H v,---
,;111
ell
f3D y (DD of
C fD ri CR1 fD C S
O 0 COQ 0 3 x S C
N 0Q Ft (D N
O '•r C 0) 3 4'Q
fD
s n S 3
m o
N
(D n fD
r S
3 n
0 ar
(D 'V -IN Q'0
(D O r+ to n)
0. 0- a
o n (D pq 3
v (D
3 -I Ul
O to 111 C.
713 Fs
vs 3 A (D
3 O C a
3
illr Q- 1 W (D
0) r 0 F'' r+
F-� to
Q (D P. (D (D
m 3 n to
3 3 (D
0) 0 c S
O)
0 CD 0 3
0 N
C N (D S Ql
VI IA
0 (D C
3 0 c 3
MI Q 3 3 e-'
4) (D N
3 3
(D to S D
O
N I 04
Q. 0)
fD
(D 1 S
1 ci. N tra (D Q
o 1
ID
3 (D to
r+
(0 vs CM
a S S
(D F
1
Q C Cr
N to us
3 3-
0) O O
1 (n Q
0) 3
0
4 (0 O
3 0) 3
3 (D M.
Q tn j t e
O O
o c M
3 13 1
3 N
t O
.e)
fD
3
Q
3
7(1
N
0
W
13
(0
(D
O
r*
(D
C)
0
C
(D
0
0.
t/1
to
3
0)
0)
1
3
(D
r+
N
S
(D
3
O
rT
lJl
C1
Q1
0
0
-4,
0)
0)
3
fD
rt
C
0)
(D
<25
25 -26
27-28
29-30
31 -32
33-34
35 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
5360
61-62
63-64
65-66
67 -68
39-70
71-72
73-74
75 -76
77 -78
79-80
81 -82
83.84
85+
Count of Households
CT 0)
0 as
M
3
O
r?
O
CD
0)
1 5
(D
0
C
lA
0
Q
(D
1
4)
O4
(D
0
-h
<25
25 -26
27 -28
29.33
31 -32
33.34
36 -36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42 i
43-44
45 -46
47 -48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55 -56
57 -58
5160
61 -62
63-64
65.66
67 -68
39-70
71 -72
73-74
i
75 -76
77 -78
7980
81-82
83-84
8S+
Count of Households
n N n
O r+ 0
8) tD
0
S
CD
O
in 15
C
to
fD
fD
S
0
Q
cu
in
in n CU
N
C v, H
CT r+ 0)
,:.f m 8)
r O N
fD 0) 04
O O C
C
fli Q "0
cu o M.
CD 3 Cr
0
0 m S
0)
C tD d0
-1 fD
O 0 J
S 0
O 0 G.
CD C vs
-s to
n Ga su
C CU CD
C' a,
o s.
in O f
08 0
.v C n
to O
m 3
S '0
O fD
0_ X
VI fD
0) vi
08
fD
in
V
U1
.0
D
M
r+
fti
CI
LA'
o)
,3
0)
A.
3
fD
r+
fD
T)
7
0.
3
TD
to
O
O
U9
W
fD
fD
0
O
c
f8
Q in
5. O
0)
Z3
0)
3
CD
rt
0)
0.
a'
fD
fD
0)
r+
r+
f0
0)
3
CD
0)
0.
lZ
1
CD N
-fi
of O
M CU
O •ro
O 0)
0) S
ao
rD
cu
fD
rD
o
to
f�D
to
0)
ZT
CD
0 0 -1
0) r+
t t X ((8 S
fD
O O s X Q to O
a. 0- v, 0)
f�D
M-% 0) 3 O
Q-
X r+ 0) 0)
00 f 3 z
D
M
O
O
ca.
O
00
0
CD
O
n
0
N
c�
0
cD
0
3
m
v) 0 W O
0 O ID
`1 L (D n
cn -1 O
e-1-
O
CD
r-+
c (co
r-i•
cn
a) Q�
r (D
Y
1.3
O
O
N
0
O
00
air �7 �7 v p
N �'4 4 R5 At 7 m tin 7 V
v N N N m 4' I 'm 0 C
Affordability measure based on the N
Count of Households
A N O CO CA Zs r, 0 N A Ch CO Q
N
Rosemount Home!
(Foreclosures by aff
Source:
o
IN
le
5'
6.
6;
3!
ith
m
1pol
Zvi
Sec
7 t
he
7:
7:
7E
77- 78
79-80
rori n 81-82
F
en
u
,its)
,its)
Z 83- 84
G 25+
v+
k
S
O
w C
3 D
O_ D cm C 0 0 0 5 C s N 0) O? O 4 of 2" 0 3
O
V s .a O n O- ti; C H O V 0 F, H
0 p (D D ON Z O m 0i r+ oo o 3 p 0� cu S
io? (n m o? tr' n 7 o so 0 o
O.
N L S N
00) Q. 01 (D (D 0.) Q O O
C Q X co C
(D e+
O.
Foreclosured Households
s ,i:�
,ms s.■_■
Arr
to a
EMI
E
O
IA"' u
P
®Ci ,.Lr
MJG sib M
NOLO, Pada'
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
rD
S
Cl. 0
0
C
CD
N
VII
cn 'Q 3 3 'a X
m O O (D
Cu n 3 3
,-1. o T_f
3 O O 3
Q.
O 3 3 T 3
N rD m N
m
O (DD 3 0
0
m m S
O m 0 va 3•
3 3 o.) 3 0_
M 3' 3
-t -t
D oo A c
cu 3 cu
p O- r
N
..F, 3
O
u, V m
0, O 3 od
03 W t cJ
UQ
A O N
3 rD m 3
m .-1- 3 3-
-J o 3 c
N s 0 in
3 0 3 3
(D O aca
m
D s
N
H
O O W
C B.
m Do O
O rD
3 S 3
rD O D m
N C.A 0)
rs m 3 aci.
to T
i i• O (0
0. N (Jl
Cr 'v
Cu i m
Oci
cp
o PI
H d m
,p v+ 3
ui
D
Cu 3 CD m
3
D w
co 0 cu
DJ rD
v
of N O
n 'O rD
o m
el (DD n
rt
Q r O
3
O m
c 3' m
trt
M
00
Householder Ages
d •0 0 0 3 r
r, m OJ 3 3 m
O H CD m S O< -i D UU
M
N -I c f rD A
o O rro v c
-h 3 N 3 m it
N m DJ 3 O e C O
0 r+ 3 m °—'cm
O=c) "4. r-I. rD 3
3'
o m 3 3 m 3 3 m
cl 3 o O r r
m
V)
m
m
3
r.
3
O
c
m
3'
O
Q
3
d
m v+
-1+ 3-
oa
o
c
N
m
0
O
D
m
m
H
CS VI o.)
rD me CD
d 0
o v 7
O (D 7
O O.
A
o 12 E 3
Cn 0
rT N
3 rD —I Fs
ct 0 z
S
ti; o
n (D
O D
N c v O.
1.7 N
O O N p
A O v
3 .p, n
3 0 o O p
C 0 N V
rr O 0
13 P
CD 0
z (D
(D 3 CU
O o
0 (D 3
Q 3 0
mt
M. w
(D -1 'o
M
o 7 H
S
•-J O rr
(D -o o
r?
o cp
0 O
N 3
3 0
-0 3
0 (D
P.
fD
O n
m
(D rt
vs
0.
O
n (D 3
0 H N
O N
3 3 mu
C (D
0 O A
S
(D 7 O
N
O
V
S
(D
1
A
G7 S
3 (D
ti
cru
CC
CD co
N co
CA CT
Q O
A A.
Householder Ages
on on
co co
cn cA
c7+ cm
O O
.p.
O m d S m 3 OJ y M C 07
3 0) (D d O as n (D D ((DD in
Q p d4 —I O- OQ O O H S
(D S fD r► 0.
....7 (D cu
O i, p (<D rt en p 0 O- O P.
0 p.) r vi n ;.1.- (D= O S e v
O K (D 5 00 0 0 (D 0) O (D p
v o) N S O d IV O to y r* O
1 y d4 (D N 0 3 O Q
N 0 0 3 0 0) CL, Q S c^ S
O rf S f to (D r)
o Q1 S (D O O -1 W 0_
N to
W
0
E
CD
m
3
0H.O T
o co el•
i
z O
N�o
O y
,Cg -I 5 V)
m s�
M 0 c
e rD
A -4
(11 O
N m Q
t W
w O inumi
C
o cp X °o
ma
ul y0 O
N
O
v o. y
N r�
l2
C
y
N
O
0
N C d
CD no T
a O
ii (D 0 O.
n a 3
O tD N to
O c N
e+ O Q --I O
r rt tD
C v a in
G Mt v
a N
W Uq
CD
CD o, n
0. el cl 7
C rr
O O s
tD Q C
Q X
O 0 O
O
0 0 i
rD
O W C
N
Cti
CD rD
trl N n
C tD O
13 0.
N
cl
0 -I, 0 C
co d
C O
c on
0 2 a
S. s N.
0
0
0 t D
N S a)
0 O
—I, Q. ca t
0 N "S
O 0 rD
aci rD O
-I rD C Z
S i
0 O -o
C N
N Cr 3
ro o,
0 s.
0
0 -G
C
S tD
0 m.
Q O
N O
cu tr)
(D
N in
O
N
rD
Count of Households
<25
T'.
25 -26 o
27-28 3
2430 of
31 -32
a
33.34
35-36
37 -38
39-40
41 -42
43-44
45-46
47-48
49-50
51 -52
53-54
55-56
57 -58
59.60 4
61 -62 1
63-64
65-66 1 EI
67 -68 4 p i p 7
69-70 o v a
71-72 s
73-74 'a H
t ci N
75-76 ee O
77-78 A
79-80 v
m 81-82
N 83-84 4
ESt
r-' -o A S N n —I
0 tD C D O O O n d
O v i
O S O 0 O C
ti, O m Q N
N O a 0
N
tv n C rt 0
O CD fp S al to
O '1 —1 N O 3 o
N O fD Q at tDD
o 0) 3 r►
A rt O
C, -n
s
as rp
try
Cu
fD
ro
rD
fD c
fD
S
O
c fD
(D
fD
fP0
O
O. 7
v) 5.
CID
S O
fD c
O
"0 00
O fD
O
S
W O
c
c fD
O
3 0
O O
(D
c d
r+
on A
O O
Cr
fD
Lis
Cu A
CL
fD
ao
cu
0
W
C1
0
fD
0
Q
r+
fD
0.
fD
W
Cl)
m
O
O.
lJt
O
fD
oa
txv
5
(DD
CD
O.
is
tJ7
0
O
fl.
cu
fD
5
0
c
00
(D
0
fD
0
O.
Q•
(D
(D
fD
O
O
0_
O
O
(D
(D
0
soma.. 5
—41
ot)
c�
r+
at) h
0
171 0
C
n cn
cD
0
a
ti, 70
Cu 0 M vi
at
M.
VI 3 O7 cm S
S o A 3 (D
O 00 -2
S Z 0 Lri H d
O a 0 Q N
N. O OZ cu O
ot p 5 O
Q H N N
t2 n ((8 S O
3 0 3 0
0 S 3 (D
N 0
(D (D H O _Q
fD 3
S
(D O (DD N
Q ORi
a O
CD
<two C
O (p C.
H (A co
0 Oo
-1 (p
H 3• c p 3N� c KSO*
S o f D N C r* C c (D 1 ro
O C C (D r"* S C -O D O (D
to S N m 5 p to 3 r+ S (p O p) (D OD 'y pl N O S
c O to CL to O fp O N 00 0 w z
S (D O
OS r H S O O Q OV O
(D cu A. 03 0 S O S 3 a N 00
dOC S -w, D CCD O N Q O O<
Cu P• g 01 0 S to
(p 4 D 0
0
A
(D
C1
S
s p 0
cu N
r► (8 to
S n
tt
N
(D p1
W
O
Strategic Policy Topics: What can the City do in future years to successfully offset the impact of households aging in place?
Offset For Aging-in-Place (2004 to 2007)
Count of Households
i
Impact of Rosemount Households Aging in Place
Householders that did not move between 2004 and 2007
(Data set covers 4,977 Households)
Source: Excensus LLC
25-26
27-28
31-32
33-34
35-36
37-38
41-42
43-44
45-46
o
8
3
2
re
4
1
�I
6
8
61-62
63-64
65-66
67-68
69-70
2
73-74
6
m
77 -78
3
v.
E
7180
8182
83-84
854
I
ti, 70
Cu 0 M vi
at
M.
VI 3 O7 cm S
S o A 3 (D
O 00 -2
S Z 0 Lri H d
O a 0 Q N
N. O OZ cu O
ot p 5 O
Q H N N
t2 n ((8 S O
3 0 3 0
0 S 3 (D
N 0
(D (D H O _Q
fD 3
S
(D O (DD N
Q ORi
a O
CD
<two C
O (p C.
H (A co
0 Oo
-1 (p
H 3• c p 3N� c KSO*
S o f D N C r* C c (D 1 ro
O C C (D r"* S C -O D O (D
to S N m 5 p to 3 r+ S (p O p) (D OD 'y pl N O S
c O to CL to O fp O N 00 0 w z
S (D O
OS r H S O O Q OV O
(D cu A. 03 0 S O S 3 a N 00
dOC S -w, D CCD O N Q O O<
Cu P• g 01 0 S to
(p 4 D 0
0
A
(D
C1
S
s p 0
cu N
r► (8 to
S n
tt
N
(D p1
W
O
Strategic Policy Topics: What can the City do in future years to successfully offset the impact of households aging in place?
Offset For Aging-in-Place (2004 to 2007)
0
CD
0
7v
(D
r-r
CD
r-r
0
0 N cu S^ —I+ W
O O 0 O 0 3 O N O Ul
3' 3 O c Fop m 5. O c A
a4 O 00 cm 00 S O S rD
s d =VI. S p) O
N (<D C O O N V 3 at 7 (p r+
VI 0 rr M o O pa) (D
O .a d rD A i. V+ Q
O C U O 3 (D= O 3 MI S n
c N H
CC (D O •/l S V1 (r) 'a 0 N V
0 (D y (D o) O of N
m n 3 0" 0 3
O Q S O Cl- 3 n 17Q rp O 0 S
O (D
O O N d0 S
O -0 v+ o Q (D 0 0 0
N< O 5 7c 3 as O (D 3
Q. Q- O O 0
m 5 OQ 7r
3 (D
on N
St rt 0 rD O< v i i O Ol t .00+
r3 0
S 0- P In 4 pi rD
n^ S j (D O n9 A. O O
0 p (D (D Q n C S N m"
O O to 'C O(D O e+ d
<-h S fp 0 3 0 m 0_
V+ d (D O S .-I. cu O 3 S
-Pi O O
A. S O O S N 0 M Q 0 m
(D ,,r+ t con 5. —I O O of d
V, 0 3 3 (1 rna S m r 3
cu cm of (D g r' Di ID
3 r+ 0. in
an
rr M. O O 0 C O S
1 p 5 (D S
O M S M N S N O ,Y S 3 0 d
S (D O Q'
ID m 3 M m' (D N rD (D
it; rD S O 0 0 r
N
O rD.7 pi
-o O (D
Q
ices and Household Retention
Share of Moves Where The Household
Chose to Remain in Rosemount (5/2004 to 5/2007)
Source: Excensus LLC
All Housing Moves by Rosemount Households
With a Metro Area Destination (5/2004 to 5/2007)
Source: Excensus LLC
Total
t
Current Housing
Total
z
�(i)
S
I T
CD
Current Housing
37% 52% 52% 18 %1
33% 57% 57% 8%
31% 23% 23% 0%
0 0% 0% 0%
26% 33% 33% 43%
SFD Multi Family Apartment Unknown]
Type of Housing After Move
1 441 150 50 78
0 3 1 2
119 46 13 23
13 13 1 4
4 4 4 n
1 SFD Multi Family Apartment Unknown
Type of Housing After Move
35°/.1
N
.P.
o
0
N N W
**4 O W W
p o
0 0 o` 0
W
CO
0
0
N W
O (O
0 o
0 o
Total
1 719
N W
co A W O co
A to co rA A"
Total
0 N cu S^ —I+ W
O O 0 O 0 3 O N O Ul
3' 3 O c Fop m 5. O c A
a4 O 00 cm 00 S O S rD
s d =VI. S p) O
N (<D C O O N V 3 at 7 (p r+
VI 0 rr M o O pa) (D
O .a d rD A i. V+ Q
O C U O 3 (D= O 3 MI S n
c N H
CC (D O •/l S V1 (r) 'a 0 N V
0 (D y (D o) O of N
m n 3 0" 0 3
O Q S O Cl- 3 n 17Q rp O 0 S
O (D
O O N d0 S
O -0 v+ o Q (D 0 0 0
N< O 5 7c 3 as O (D 3
Q. Q- O O 0
m 5 OQ 7r
3 (D
on N
St rt 0 rD O< v i i O Ol t .00+
r3 0
S 0- P In 4 pi rD
n^ S j (D O n9 A. O O
0 p (D (D Q n C S N m"
O O to 'C O(D O e+ d
<-h S fp 0 3 0 m 0_
V+ d (D O S .-I. cu O 3 S
-Pi O O
A. S O O S N 0 M Q 0 m
(D ,,r+ t con 5. —I O O of d
V, 0 3 3 (1 rna S m r 3
cu cm of (D g r' Di ID
3 r+ 0. in
an
rr M. O O 0 C O S
1 p 5 (D S
O M S M N S N O ,Y S 3 0 d
S (D O Q'
ID m 3 M m' (D N rD (D
it; rD S O 0 0 r
N
O rD.7 pi
-o O (D
Q
ices and Household Retention
cu
0
07
CD
(D
0
O
D 1
co oa
o
H
O
3 (DD
m
3 O
0 E
lD cu
0 3
C
rt (D
3 M
M
0 O
E. 3
m
ID N
CI (D
ffe
S
I
0.
3•
DJ
(D
O
0
c
fD
l0
O' V
0 0)
tu
n
O
C
c
rt
n
0
co
03
co
0
d
N
N
CO
V
W
0
A
03
0
C71
N
CO
03 W 0 V- N. 0
A V1 0 A V 0 0 V
U1 O 0) A N
0 O N CO O C1
N N 0 N 0 5;
N
N A 0 03 0 0 0 I
0 0 0- 0 0 V
O Na 0 N 0 0 (0
0 N O- •0000+
0 O0N 0000
Co CO -4. CO O
N 47
4) —00
0 0
m a
c
m
1
m
p
7
m
0
03
3
s
m
0)
I0
co
co
m
3
Q
CD
0
0
3)
0)
W
0
d
a
w
N
N
co
a
co
w
co
((1
V
C71
01
>>>m-in ocn
m Q 0
CD. cp
3 3 x o T
o _3
x
O N 0
v v
V 40 A N— 0) N
CJ1 0 N Q1 IV V
N N 0 0
0) O Cn 40 O CJ 0
N+ O W N 0 0 0 A
W 0 N 0) o 0
0 0) 0 0 C
0 0 0 0 10 0 N A
0 0 N+ 0 0 V
0000 0
N CO CO W N 41.
A
IV 3.. N A V
A 06 0o 0 CA 0 CO
m
CO
m
7
0)
3
CD
CO
N
CO
m
C
T
1
0)
3
0)
ti
c
s
0
7
N
A
7
XI
M
3
oft
0
e
3
0
C
0
S
0
sE
a
n
3
7
co
2
C
A
0
s
w
0.
O
n
10
0_
0
co
O_
0.
O
(D
0
C CO
A
m
o 0.
to
0
(n r
r
r
0
0
7
5
ID
9
0
co
O
FD
m
m
0
3
0
0
y
ID
0
Q.
m
3
ID
O
3
m
0
ID
0.
-4
0
ID
'C
O
O
m
1<
N
O
O
O_ a
N 0 O
C
rt
D) (D O
O 0- 70
Q T
0 i 1
5' 47' —I O
3 N d
5. o IT C
r+ O t.p r w
O
I N
3
l V
V N N `V
O in d C a O (D
3 3
11) cu
r G iL
o cl
H O
to 7r N
H 0
ss�
S O CM
•t D)
3 (D
3 0 1
M
n
D 17, a' �1
0 n CD.
O (D (D
H N
O -s
m
K ff.. TO
N
O 0 O
tit a
0 3
0��
t) n
O
3 3
dQ
r+ 3
3 O
m c
O N ID
cra 3
3. O
O 0
N
CD
O-
M
D
n
n
cD4
0
0
E
L
0
cr
0
=r
rD
713
Po
0
rii
3
O
c
P T s
N
CD
v)
0_
CD
n
t
A
m
rD
3
O
CI
(900Z Pue 900 OOZ `ECOZ'ZOOZ JO ono pu osee et eQ to
%Z0 £Z %Z'0 61 %10 ll
9'01'0 L %C 0 17 %I.0 9
0 %3 1 %0 0 %l 9
%0 Z %1 9 %I. '0 L
%VC 49 17Z %P
x'0C 66 CO1'6 %C 1I$'C0 %C 66 6900
GJe ;unoa aleys ;unoQ ways ;unoa
17002 90OZ 9002
%E it 66£
%E•0 6Z
%V Otr
6 /ny 0 617
0 103 1 96
Ct 1
%3•Z 661
%Z'E 96Z
W0E01 266
%Z•£E 990`£
%0 •ZP L£6'£
Wein ;unoa
17002
0 /00' OE 0££`£
LE1
91E
9LZ
9 Z8S
%0 9t9
%0 t 8Z6
o L OOL
0 /nJ •Ss 919
%V 9 111
%Z•0t 1176
Wogs }unoQ
1700Z
%y'1
0 /6VE
%0 E
%0 0C1 1SZ`6
91949 ;unoa
17002
%969
%0' E
%9 Z
0 106 9
%Z -9
0 /60 9
%Z 8
0 /nt%'q
%1= 6
weLis
900Z
9002
9Z£
29
17S
CU/
101
6171
9ZZ
98Z
986
SZO`£
0171`£
;unoQ
,t7C
EZ1
993
OZZ
189
Z69
5817
169
fi£G
Z6L
6L9
;unoQ
peRoptua aJe 3J63tJOM aJayM se ;e;S uI s ;unoo qor
%S
%5
%S-
°kJ O
%6'0
%L
%6Z
0 /a9 1 L
%9•0£
°fay 1717
aJegs
9002
9002
1l
St
817
G9
178
6171
6ZZ
19Z
9E0'1.
0£1'2
016`£
;unoa
%Z ti£ Zj0`£
°NL'1 1S1
%9 1Z
%1'£ ELZ
om17 519
%L•9 969
%L 1 189
%1 ZZL
6 mf� R 961
%46 049
4o0Z COO` I.
wags ;unoQ
9002
%0 Z017 %0•001 126`9
sot's ;unoQ says !unoa
4
u!6u0
33 'neoine snsua0 sn
;unotuesoW ul Will oynn peAoidwg 012 sJavOM aJauM podaa pays a;nwuloa
se3jnos a }eQ
su0fe301 Jay ;O Ily
eMOI
sesueN
mom
ulsua3SIM
vx}osauu!W
suol1e301 Jegl0 IIVI
e1,0sauu!V4 `•03 gp93 anis
e }oseuumi "03 JORIS3
e;aseuuIW "co anypoo9
ezossuui j `•07 awls
stosauuiW "o3 uoi5ulyseM
u ;osauulwl "o3 }loos
sloseuui y mow
elosauum /Casuist!
e;osauuIW "03 uldauuaH
e;oseuum `•03 glom
peAoldua3 aJe SJa)1JOM aJayM sal ;unoa ui s;un0o qor
suol;noo Joy10 Ily
4osauulW 'suivJa
e}oseuull `sulp3
e}oseuum `allina1e1
slosauul J 'swimming
e }oseuU!W 'uol6ulwoolg
eloseuul16 `Aa11eA Giddy
el.oseuulily `lied •;g
e;asauu!W `1.unowesoli
eiosauuws `sttadeauuiW
e ;osauugj `ue6e
paA5olduJ3 .Je zie poM aJayM $UMoj/S09 3 uI s }unoa qor
s q o tieu!J 14
sgorAVeuuJd 1401'
Total Primary Jobs
Total Primary Jobs
Jobs by Worker Age
Age 30 or younger
Age 31 to 54
Age 56 or older
Jobs by Earnings Paid
$1,200 per month or less
$1,201 to $3,400 per month
More than $3,400 per month
Jobs by Industry Type (2 -digit NAICSZ
Home Area Profile Report Resident Workforce in Rosemount
2006 2005 r 2004
Count Share Count Share Count Share
8,931 100.0% 8,402 100.0% 9,251 '00.0%
2006 2005 2004
Count Share Count Share Count Share
2,117 23.7% 2,049 24.4% 2,146 23.2%
b,686 63.7% 5,403 642% 6,064 35.5%
1,129 12.6% 953 11.3% 1,041 11.396
2006 2006 2004
Count Sharp Count Sharp Count Sharp
1,709 19.'% 1,665 19.8% 1,750 18.9%
2,775 31.'% 2,556 30.4% 3,055 33.0%
4,447 49.8% 4,181 49.8% 4,440 48.1%6
2006 2005 2004
Count Shore Count Shore Count Shore
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 22 0.2% 15 0.2% 21 0.2%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 5 0.1% 9 0.1% 7 0.1%
Utilities 20 0.3% 34 0.4% 31 0.3%
Construction 517 6.8% 507 6.0% 560 6.1%
Manufacturing 1,016 11.L% 959 11.4% 985 10.7%
Wholesale Trade 575 6.4% 565 6.7% 577 62%
Retail Trade 987 1 1. 907 10.836 920 10.0%
Transportation and Warehousing 494 5.5% 657 7.8% 670 7.2%
Information 347 3.9% 163 1.9% 410 4.4%
Finance and Insurance 588 6.6% 533 6.3% 695 7.5%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 139 1 .6% 153 1.9% 15E 1.7%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 555 6.2% 495 5.9% 497 5.4%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 279 3.1% 308 3.6% 314 3.4%
Administration Support, Waste Management
and Remsdiation 352 3.9% 355 4.2% 400 4.3%
Educational Services 890 10.0% 463 5.6% 939 10.2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 770 8.6% 905 10.836 796 8.6%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 113 1.3%Xo 112 1.3% 120 1.J%
Accommodation and Food Services 658 7.4% 622 7.496 589 6.4%
Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 243 2.7°k 219 2.6% 253 2.7%
Public Administration 355 4.0% 412 4.9% 296 3.2%
Data Sources
US Census Bureau, LED Origin- Destination Data Base (2nd Quarter 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006)
00
m
W
J
0
E
4)
v)
0
73
4u
0
0
E
W
cn
L
4�
0
4)
Q)
Total Prfnary Jobs
Total Primary Jobs
Labor Shed Report Where Workers Live who are Employed in Rosemount
Job counts in Cities /Towns
Rosemount, Minnesota
Apple Valley, Minnesota
Lakeville, Minnesota
Hastings, Minnesota
Eagan, Minnesota
Farmington, Minnesota
Burnsville, Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Inver Grove Heights, Minn.
Cottage Grove, Minnesota
All Other Locations
Job counts in Counties Where
Dakota Co., Minnesota
Hennepin Co., Minnesota
Washington Co_, Minnesota
Ramsey Co., Minnesota
Goodhue Co., Minnesota
Scott Co., Minnesota
Pierce Co., Wisconsin
Rice Co., Minnesota
Anoka Co., Minnesota
St. Croix Co., Wisconsin
All Other Locations
2006
Count Share
5,701 100.0%
Where Workers Live
2006
Count Share
790
474
38!
375
334
264
220
191
187
127
2,340
Workers Live
2006
Count Share
3,604 63.230
355 6.2%
303 5.3%
278 4.9%
163 2.9%
155 2.7%
155 2.7%
102 1.8%
83 1.5%
55 1.0%
447 7.8%
Job counts in States Where Workers Live
2006
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Montana
Missouri
North Dakota
All Other Locations
Count
5,431
280
4
3
2
1
14.0%
8.3%
6.6%
5.9%
4.6%
3.9%
3.4%
3.3%
2.2%
41.2
Share
95.3%
4.6%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
2005
Count Share
4,757 100.0%
Count
539
284
357
223
199
199
197
132
148
2,173
2005
Share
11.3%
6.0%
6.4%
7.5%
4.7%
4.2%
4.2%
4.194
2.8
3.1%
45.7%
2005
Count Share
2,673 56.2%
343 7.2%
323 6.9%
290 6.1%
189 4.D%
130 2.7%
155 3.3%
85 1.6%
76 1.5%
53 1.1%
440 9.2%
2005
Count Share
4,480 94.2%
260 5.5%
4 0.1%
5 0.1%
5 0.1%
3 0.1%
r
r
2004
Count Share
4,373 100.0%
Count
018
255
248
315
218
193
158
223
147
87
1,911
Count
2,586
260
232
302
172
140
119
b'y
74
51
362
2004
Count
4,148
218
0
6
0
2004
Share
14.1 °4
5.8%
5./%
7.2%
5.0%
4.4%
3.6%
5.1%
3.4%
2.C%
43.7 °,b
2004
Share
59.1%
5.9%
5.3%
5.9%
3.9%
3.3%
2.7%
1.8%
1.7%
1.2%
8.3%
Data Sources
US Ccnsus Bureau, LEO Origin Destination Data Base (2nd Quarter 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006)
Share
94.9 °ti
5.0%
D.0%
0.1%
10%
0.0%
Total Primary Jobs
Total Primary Jobs
Jobs by Worker Age
Age 30 or younger
Age 31 to 54
Age 55 or older
Jobs by Earnings Paid
$1,200 per month or less
$1,201 to $3,400 per month
More than $3,400 per month
Jobs by Industry Type (2 -digit NAICS)
Work Area Employment Profile Report City of Rosemount
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administration Support, Waste Management
and Remediation
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services (excluding Public Administration)
Public Administration
2006
Count Share
5,701 100.0%
2006
Count Share
1,180 20.7%
3,533 62.0%
988 17.3%
2006
Count Share
766 13.4%
1,648 28.9%
3,287 57.7%
2006
Count Share
9 02°,1
13 0.2%
0 0.0%
781 13.7%
1,381 24.2%
202 3.b%
198 3.5%
557 9.8%
18 0.3%
126 2.2%
38 0 7%
222 3.9%
5 0.1
169
1,216
122
50
245
111
238
2005 2004
Count Share Count Share
4,757 100.0% 4,373 100.0%
2005
Count Share
1,121 23.6%
2,962 62.3%
674 14.2%
2006
Count Share
711 14.9%
1,405 29.5%
2,641 55.5%
2005
Count Share
19 0.4%
10 02%
0 0.0%
802 16.9%
1,38E 29.1%
181 3.8%
142 3.0%
279 5.9%
7 0.1%
116 24%
42 0 9%
230 4.8%
4 0.1%
172
o27
112
34
220
111
263
3.6%
13.2%
2.4%
0.7%
46%
2.3%
5.5%
Data Sources
US Census Bureau, LED Origin Destination Data Base (2nd Quarter 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006)
2004
Count Share
1,049 246%
2,721 52.2%
603 13.8%
2004
Count Share
680 15.5%
1,264 26.9 °i0
2,429 55.5%
2004
Count Share
11 0.3%
17 0.4%
0 0.0%
703 16.1%
1,232 28.2%
256 5.9%
151 3.5%
249 5.7%
25 0.6%
85 2.0%
151 3 5%
207 4.7%
5 0.1%
55
611
119
34
273
103
85
1.3%
146%
2.7%
0.8%
6.2%
2.4%
1.9%
ULI Minnesota /RCM Opportunity City Pilot Program
Community Site Principles
1. Creates housing opportunities and choice
mixed housing types
mixed incomes
mixed uses
2. Creates a positive community image
design guidelines
integrates within the existing community
complements city's long range comprehensive plan
3. Fosters a sense of place
distinct and attractive
community gathering spaces within site and /or within walking distance
front doors to the street
homes are oriented with eyes on public greens and /or "play" spaces
buildings directed away from hard edges (freeways and industrial uses)
integrated into and directed toward existing neighborhood
4. Matches housing and jobs; both existing and future jobs
price points (rent /purchase price) are affordable for workers in the community
tie housing types, prices and location to jobs in retail, commercial and industrial sectors of the
city
5. Creates or links to walkable neighborhoods
connection to pathways and /or sidewalks
access to essential services such as convenience food stores, parks /open space and
recreational areas with a convenient and comfortable 5 to 10 minute walk (standard guideline
of I to Y2 mile distance)
6. Provides access to nearby transit or transportation choices that are convenient and a comfortable 5
to 10 minute walk or 30 minutes bike (standard guideline is 1/2 mile distance for walking and 2 -5 mile
for biking)
7. Creates a mix of land uses within the site or within a walkable distance of the site that includes:
housing, retail, office, restaurant, daycare, medical
civic, educational, social and recreational uses (examples: community centers, social
services entities, schools and parks /sporting centers)
Appendix 6 ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Community Site Principles
Page 1
8. Encourages compact building design and efficient use of infrastructure to support long term
sustainability
density that allows project to be financially feasible
site that has access to existing infrastructure roads, water, sewers
maximizes green /open space
provides opportunities for multi purpose \multi -use infrastructure such as storm water
serving as greenway and /or water amenity
locate new developments near natural amenities with flexible buffers based on community
surface water management and other environmental protection plans for wetlands, critical
slope areas and /or land identified as habitat for a threatened or endangered species
9. Ensure the projects long term success and marketability through the review of:
financial feasibility cost of land, rents, sale prices, lease rates, permitting time and cost
Demographic market evaluation who will live and shop there, are the uses already in the
market?
10. Provides energy efficiency and /or green building techniques
site allows building orientation with the greatest potential for passive solar heating and
cooling and maximization of day lighting
use of green materials (examples: natural, renewable, locally sourced, durable)
storm water on site that serves as an amenity
minimize impervious surfaces
employs water conservation strategies
11. Encourages community and stakeholder collaboration
planning process that includes positive public participation
guidance and input from school districts
Appendix 6 ULI MN /RCM Rosemount Opportunity City Community Site Principles
Page 2
ULI Minnesota /RCM Opportunity City Pilot Program
Program Evaluation Model
Evaluation Model for Program Effectiveness:
Providing a method to evaluate how public funds are being used has become significant and
instructive in recent years due to limited financial resources and increased public scrutiny. In
addition, setting performance targets and tracking the progress of the programs against
benchmarks will provide a level of understanding to government officials that become critical
during the annual budget process.
Cities that incorporate meaningful measures of performance within their housing plans realize
significant benefits, which increase as the system evolves and improves. Performance
measurement can:
Strengthen decision making at all levels. Timely and relevant reports on performance lay
the groundwork for sound decision making. In addition, performance measurement
systems enable decision makers and staff to diagnose the lack of performance, identify and
address causes for lack of performance, and track improvement.
Enhance program outcomes. Performance measurement helps provide focus on achieving
results. Effective performance measures should be directly relevant to the program goals.
Improve communication of outcomes to key audiences. Quantifying achievements and the
impact of the programs helps to demonstrate positive results to both public officials and
residents.
Each City program should include a specific goal over a period of years. The goals for
performance measurement should be quantitative (numbers) and measurable. Evaluation of
the goals should be done consistently both in time and with the same method of evaluation.
The following is a sample model that can be used to evaluate the performance of existing and
new programs understanding that in some circumstances a qualitative (comments, ideas)
nature or public policy issue may skew the quantitative performance results but still achieves
the public interest and overall goals of the program.
ULI MN/RCM Opportunity City Pilot Program Appendix 7
Suggested Evaluation Model
Program
Sample
Goal
Evaluation
Method
Performance
(results)
Improvement
Methods
Low interest
Loan Program
Provide xx
number of loans
to households
below 50% of
median income
per year
Review loan
activity
annually
Record results
and compare to
goals.
If performance is
below the goals,
evaluate methods
to make
improvements. If
performance
exceeds goals,
celebrate and
report success.
Code
Enforcement
Program
Reduce the
number of code
enforcement
cases by xx
percent,
evaluate which
are the most
important issue
Review and
report code
enforcement
cases and
case Toad
annually
Record results
and compare to
goals annually
If performance is
below the goals,
evaluate methods
to make
improvements. If
performance
exceeds goals,
celebrate and
report success.
Scattered Site
Program
Increase
property tax
value by xx
percentage after
property is sold
and new home
is constructed
Track
property
assessment
within a
specified
period of
years from
the time
purchased to
the time a
new home is
constructed.
Record results
and compare to
goals
If performance is
below the goals,
evaluate methods
to make
improvements. If
performance
exceeds goals,
celebrate and
report success
Affordable
Housing
Meet or exceed
annual Met
Council
performance
score
Complete
annual survey
to record
community
activities
associated
with
affordable
housing
Evaluate scores
provided by Met
Council.
If performance is
below the goals,
evaluate methods
to make
improvements. If
performance
exceeds goals,
celebrate and
report success.
U L I MN/RCM O p p o r t u n i t y C i t y P i l o t P r o g r a m
Appendix7