HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.a. ULI PresentationAGENDA ITEM: ULI Mn /Regional Council of Mayors
Housing Initiative; Opportunity City P
Program
AGENDA SECTION:
Inl SUS i neS
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
AGENDA NO. a
ATTACHMENTS: Powerpoint Presentation, Demographic
Information
APPROVED BY:
010
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Required. Consultants Will Be Making Presentation
on Study Findings
4 ROSEMOUNT
Joint Meeting: May 19, 2009
CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
A consulting group has been hired by Urban Land Institute and the Regional Council of Mayors to
work on a housing initiative for communities. The City of Rosemount was chosen as one of the 6
opportunity cities to participate in the pilot project. The idea is to help communities maintain their
economic vitality and define areas of improvement in terms of available housing. The inventory of
housing existing, population age and mobility, and an assessment of housing programs available
were reviewed. The presentation will give an overview of the community and pose some policy
questions for city decision makers Armed with the information at hand, and the policy direction
from the Council, staff will explore implementation of the housing goals identified.
As part of the inventory and analysis, demographic information about the community, and how it
relates to other metro communities was provided. This information is part of this packet for the
group's information although is not part of the formal presentation. The powerpoint attached
depicts more slides than the time available at the meeting. The presentation will be culled from the
42 slides but will generally review the information contained within the greater presentation. The
group will have the opportunity to ask questions on all of the information provided in your packet,
whether addressed in the formal presentation or not.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item only. The information provided through the pilot program will be used
for future housing discussions relating to the community and provide data to assist in implementing
specific housing goals.
OS119'5009
55 19,209,
Retacu• Goals
Policies
ULI MN Regional Council of Mayors
Opportunity City Program
X11 1�isal�t.� x
P ,r,dI diron ofd
Full Range of
Housing Choices
City of Rosemount
Revised: 05 /19/2009
ULI P,11N \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit Process
Undt -stand Identify Gaps
L //ectivr
Land Use
Strategies
Programs
Recommend
Modifications
Additions
+1NV CM Housing Initiative
Housing Audit
Review of Rosemount Housing Goals Policies
1. Design subdivisior s to create independent neighborhoods.
7. Maintain the rur1 I character of northwest Rosemount.
5/5119'.(x19
t�'nderstand
Community
Change
2. Provide recreational opportunities within and between neighborhoods.
3. Design neighborh ,ods to incorporate the existing environment and
natural resources.
4. Provide a mixture of rental and home ownership opportunities to
provide life cycle he.tsing.
S. Locate the differ( 5/t housing styles within the appropriate areas.
6. Provide workforc s and affordable housing opportunities through
cooperative effort a iith other agencies.
5
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program
What is it? Technical assistance to identify
tools and strategies that create and
support a full range of housing choices,
providing economic stability in a
changing region. Process includes:
Housing Audit
Community Change Reports
Community Site Principles
Expected Outcomes:
Model for other cities
Tools Strategies implemented
Best Practices to share with others
0 5;199009
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit Process
95/19121009
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit Process
05 19 2009
Review City
Goals Policies
2
4
6
Middle Income Housing Predominant
Limited choic os for all phases of life currently, but this will
change.
Limited rental opportunities for young, seniors
Increasing Population Growth
Most housing of nearly same age, but will change
Population moving in from adjoining cities
U -MORE plans large, have impact, but indefinite.
Limited Funding
No local housing levy must rely on DC CDA which serves the
entire county to address older affordable housing issues
Subsidy requ red to rehab and /or build housing that is
affordable is significant no source of city funds for this
051)9'1109
OS /I4�
0S
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Housing Audit Summary of Key Community Factors
Community Change Report
New Key Demographic Findings
COMMUNITY CHANGE REPORT EMPHASIS:
Household Ages
Housing Usage
(Types and Owner vs Renter)
Housing Retention
Where New Residents
Are Coming Frcrn
Disbibutlon of Householders by age
Under Age 36 —1,198 (18.8%)
Age 35 b 54 3,895 (55.01/4)
Age 65 to 74 —1,732 (24.5 1/4)
Age 75 or more 255 (3.8
Re8M• tinder 35 to 3554 •0.307
Q1Li
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
wr,•wI- Mtw<n
Ow Y•r.r. n•r.r- w..lefr,
7
Distribution of Householders by age
Under Age 35- 28,867 (182
Age 35 to 54 72,281 (49.0
Age 55 to 74 40,737 (27.6
Age 75 or more 7,608 (52%)
Ratio. tinder •14 to 35.94, s 0.371
9
11
ULI MN \RCM Housing initiative
Housing Audit Review of Key Community DATA
Reviewed Key Community Data
City Comprehensive Plan Growth Projects,
Permits, Housing Values /Sales, Jobs, Commute
Patterns
Market Study Maxfield
Dakota County
0 :':9 2W0
A s
(Crelt�/r :nnl. :..;mot• e.
0511912000
OS 14( ?009
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Rosemount Householder Ages
Distribution of Households by Householder Age (2007)
(Dee set coven 7,075hoo.ehotd. In 2002')
Source: Excenste tit
zx ga
.11 <V ,_•m• «u.n<
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
City of Rosemount
RomaMldst Age by Nosing Type (2007)
i 5050 set zrr 'tf 7,0781cros.. Idt•1
40,), (Ctolo
.arye £4•»') y<lsnn 4,7,,
ute pm et
Awtr••t 21. (104
AOetenet 41.25 uses (l10)
r A .11MSt .11 vita (201
Mall. HO,* (1711
b•nho.e (1,750)
Cado (60)
O.per7ripla (6S)
Single Wily De00,ed 14,891
0 seo m (ssl
1.ev<o :car :s.nc
MINUS'
tatt115O0'
e
10
12
ns' 1
4, Nsnee own
782%
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Ros elrlount's Owners and 0,119005
Homansad Status by NOusebold.t Age (2007)
10 •1. set covets 7.C7a hemehulde l
Warm: EanmusltC
[Cris 417% H1%
s t. i 3 3 3 2 1 a
e4444444r.rw sr•c
Nableee*rers comprise
117.7 %of.Il household. and
711.2 %dhow. holds under
rheas.M2S.
10(199.55-
(,8/95/21914
(4 ,040
0410004•N• 270%
014,0■
1t Y• Y
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Rosemount's New Owners and Renters
HaneM ad Steno for Mw.-In Nib 12004 to 2007)
loan s.teewen 707514srsetekle)
Seete:EU.aallt
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Rosemount Moue -ins (2001 to 2007)
3007 New beIder Agin end Tin et Current Address
Mouses mien 7Areneesebolds in 20071
Sena: Incenses Mg
+ve. Adel.
'nafal.: 4sc n44scesa.>wr. s. r:r anr +a•x4 r. /AM
Nero °wows(t.a'W
New Rw15.0 f42a
D t, *U nSOwn.rs (0.525)
D [Muni R.M.H ('4s)
New Cole∎ 42.7% of en Renton
N el Nw 44ere600w rYw we rw,rewwe:
741% H.% Ci.n`/ 7f.7x
gq e X: F 7 3 C 9 L
f E8I95es-
E21Creass.
17
IXOI irM Ratios
Housing Ratios Rosemount and Metro Area Comparisons (2007)
Mr Opportunity Cities
Rosemount
Ratio SFD to SFA 1.51 1.05
Ratio 510 10 5(0 2.31 7,92 3.62 5.49 2.28
Ratio: Owners to Ranters 7,10 1.79 2.38 2.02 5.14
HnusinF, Rath•;
RichIiei Orooklyn park Minnetonka 5horeviaw
Neighboring Cnmml,nities
Apple Ve11ny Mnnwille Fagan Farmington 1Aerial.
773
Ratio: Owners rn Renters 4.71 1.766 7.40
Note: 190 57nple innJly rn.mrhod
5FA (u••hpusc tondos, Mobile NVmco, met ot /t plex/4 plows
3.17 3.67
7.94 5.57
7 -Coon
5.33
2.58
Dakota Co.
7.55
377
5nurc.: 6aeensus I
051199
115!19.2111(]
05 19:200
u
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Rosemount Housing Turnover (512004 to 512007)
Percent of es)stln0 end. That Turned Over by Homestead Status
Teel5f 1. f 11 Mann S 7M ymoeerboni e e n 5:200 end 612007)
Spurr. Exc.lna LL:
4444^ eIM N-4e0 .now r•y
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Ro,066a49ntH0mes M oredosure5a)e (1,(2007 /2000)
(Raedesur.ssy enerdabIal• of home and age of hptu.leWa)
fo+•eee 0.0.1. uS dwellings)
Sestet Yeeeisee Cetmay end [aaresa tit
EMRUS•
1 1 3 R R D 4 0 1 2 9 2 3 0 2 8 R 9 u 2 e 9. R c 3 c e R
r....4n.rr.aw.
•errerwlmm.wneeesreee sruore .,.,rnmrr e.r EXCEMate
14
16
18
Where
Rosemounrs
households
came from
i5 I9 /20()
e
04/19 2109
11 +19.2009
ULI MN \RCM ou
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Household Origins and Destinations 2004-2007
Households
that came
from Inside
Rosemount
Evaluate the
Effectiveness
Housing
Programs
11 P.
Household
moves that
were retained
in Rosemount
19
ULI MN \RCM ou
Community Change Report
Key Demographic Findings
Data can be used as an evaluation tool over time to ensure
that Rosemount's new housing strategies are
having their intended Impact:
regeneration of younger homeowners,
affordable options for lower income workers,
expanding move -up options /retention,
more life cycle opportunities for the anticipated
expanding base of senior households.
05'192009
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit Process
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
H ousin g Audit— Fvaluate Program Effectiveness
D C -CDA Housing Program Outcomes that Support
Rosemount Goals
In FY 2008 (through June), Rosemount residents
received 4 DC -CDA Housing Rehab Loans, 4% of
the county -wide total for the year.
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.
21
23
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Housing Audit— Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Variety of DC -CDA Housing Programs that Support
City Goals
Renovation
Deferred Loan Program
Energy
Senior Housing
Redevelopment through CDBGs, TIF
Family Affordability
Foreclosed Properties
Dakota County Neighborhood Stability Funds
0; 19.2009
05/19 2009
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Housing Audit );valuate Program Effectiveness
22
Foreclosures:
195 foreclosures
occurred in
Rosemount from
2007 -2008. The DC-
CDA has developed
programs, utilizing
federal funding, to
acquire and resell,
acquire and hold, or
demo and land bank
such property.
24
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit Process
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Housing Audit Official Controls \Land Use Strategies
05 18 211114
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Opportunity City Pilot Program Housing Audit Process
05.10'2908
Review the City
Land Use
Str tegies /Official
Controls
Key Findings Official Controls\ Land Use
Strategiys
Rosemount has adopted a growth management plan.
Use of P12 nned Unit Development (PUD) for mixed use
and redevelopment projects
TIF Policy creates redevelopment fund sources if there is
no affordable housing in the project
Commitm r.nt to annual DC -CDA funding which supports
housing redevelopment, rehabilitation and affordability
Rental Lic:;nsing Programs helps to ensure minimum
housing maintenance standards
Headed in the Right
Directions... Continue to
Identify Gaps
Ob ervations /Options
.'onitnr the
IIo zr;in„ /tlarket for Change
25
27
29
11x'19 _01)9
115119_1109
05 142.009
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Housing Audit Land Use Patterns
ULI MN \RCM Housing Init alive
Housing Audit Official Controls \Land Use Strategies
Key Findings Official Controls
Rental and Housing Code 2008
Housing type \density changes in
the next 20 years from:
70% SFD and 30% SFA to
50% SFD and 50% SFA
Post 2007 Dank oer Cooarehmsive Plan
Tramiiond: Single Frit Detached 12 uritslacrel
Lon Density: Sa1gle Famly Detached (2,35;Miami
Reds Density :Single Family Ameche d such as Totnhomes (7 u dtslacre(
Hph Density: Apartments and Condos (20 unirilacrei
Noble Homes
:WA
332
208
540
332
191
523
0
3
3
0
17
17
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
Orderly growth management as overall theme for housing and infrastructure
(9,000+ new units by 2030);
28
Will this be a change by the market or mandated by the city?
Opportunity is NOW to provide diverse types and density of housing
(planning) for future generations What can the city do to impact future city
housing choices and create an image as an "constantly regenerating
opportunity city"?
30
Connecting neighborhool s via parks, schools, college, by trail, sidewalk,
nature greenway, digital links similar to the ULI MN Community Site Principles
Aging -in- place, and "older senior" housing market will be growing. Since the
data has shown young and old use the older housing, will it be important to
continue to preserve \improve existing housing for future regeneration of
neighborhoods?
To attract entry level youn families
and retain existing schools requires
2,800 -3,200 affordable housing units
Is this important to the City
05 1'0'_00v
Use of County CDBG /CDA funds for renovation:
Why are the funds not widely used?
Are there other marketing methods to get the funds
used more efficiently?
Are the income limits for these programs too low for
Rosemount residents?
05/19 :1159
05
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initia ve
Observations /Policy Questions
Connect programs with sustainability
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
For New Development, is the City's approach to
Expand community marketing Image of diverse,
Ilfe -cycle housing options
31
Increase diversity of housing types, values, and densities
33
Enhance long term ownership affordability by Land Trust
and Habitat models
35
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
How can the city target potential new residents mid career
"move- backs" from surrounding communities and match living
working in the community? U -More is an opportunity (16,500
potential units)
How to ensure success of Old Town Center? Mixed use housing
redevelop. \rehab
What are the options for the mobile home area (180 units)? unit
by unit repair and \or replacement plan
What is the value to ensuring quality demographics? Consistent
updates, neighborhood level information, matching Excensus data
with District 196 demographics
05 192009
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
Why is it important to provide support for
Apartment Reinvestment Increased
Choices? most affordable housing, young
household housing choice, future ownership
households
05/10/2009
Increase opportunities additional units
Continued reinvestment in older apartments
through partnership with DCA
05/192009
32
34
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Polity Question
Long Term Creating a Jobs /Housing Balance
Is there a need to identify ways to connect current and
future housing to jobs in the community?
Continue to work with employers and institutions
to determine housing needs
Evaluate link between employment wages to
housing values where are the gaps?
Review options for housing that is next to public
transportation /pathways /bike paths
36
ULi MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
Official Controls\Land Use Strategies
Is there a need to provide long lasting effective programs to address
maintenance before It becomes a larger issue?
Are there benefits in a Residential Inspection Before Sale and /or
vacant housing inspection programs helping to provide
consistent maintenance standards for existing new older
03 19/100
housing stock
Would the city benefit from preparing master plans for
development area before development is proposed?
Performance zo ling overlay specific district plans
What are the alternative building trends or construction methods
that can be incorporated Into local policies to support sustainability
and affordability?
Housing Ratios Rosemount and Metro Area Comparisons (2007)
ULI Opportunity Cities
Housing Ratios Rosemount Richfield Brooklyn Park Minnetonka Shoreview 7-coun
Rat o; SFD to SFA 2.31 7.92 3.62 5.49 2.28 5.33
Ratio: Owners to Renters 7.10 1.79 2.38 2.02 5.14 2.58
}lousing Ratios Mule Valley Burnsville Eagan Farmington Lakeville Dakota Co.
Ratio: SFD to SFA 155 1.85 2.25 3.42 3.67 2.55
Ratio: Owners to Renters 4.21 1.76 2.98 7.99 5.57 3.27
Note: SFD Single Family Detached
SPA* Townhouses, Condos, ,Mobile Homes, and Duplex/3- plex/4- plexes
119102(1)'
Ilr:l:i1
!aloe
MmrAUt8
0519
Neighboring Communities
ULi MN \RCM Housing initia Iv
Questions /Comments
Next Steps
37
Source: Excensus LLC
1. Gib f editadt (May 19"
2. Review record and findings, prepare recommendations
3. AtJune Council mtg., receive summary report recommendations
4. Cedde whether to accept the report
5. Consider Implementation steps within the Nty housing plan
6. Establish an annual schedule to review 'the housing plan'
41
ULI MN \RCM Housing Initiative
Observations /Policy Questions
Official Controls \Land Use Strategies
115
What type of development could the City add to meet the new
Comprehensive Plan projections for SO% SFi) and 50% SFA by
2020? continue to support common wall construction, reduced
lot sizes, pathway access to natural amenities, smaller setbacks,
smaller street widths, etc. such as in the Brockway area
Is there a need to reduce city fees to target lowest income
affordable construction? Waive permit fees \assessment costs
tie to lowest incomes at or below 6096 AM!
How will higher density (rental and ownership) help to attract
younger households now in the future?
ULI MN \RCM Housing initiative
Site Evaluation Principles for Reviewing New Sites
ULI Minnesota "New Site" Principles
Create housing opportunities and choice
consistent with comprehensive plans.
Create a positive community image
Foster a sense of place
Match housing and jobs
Create or links to walkable neighborhoods
Provide access to nearby transit or transportation choices
Create a mix of land uses
Provide for compact building design efficient use of infrastructure
Ensure long term success and marketability
Require energy efficiency green building techniques
Instil community stakeholder collaboration
0519:2109
38
40
City of Rosemount
Demographic Change Report
Housing and Households
(2004 2007)
ULI MN /Regional Council of Mayors
Housing Initiative Opportunity Cities
Excensus LLC
May 7, 2009
tXCENSUS`K
2009 Excensus LLC, M Rights Reserved
Summary of Findings
The City of Rosemount is growing rapidly in response to single family home construction. Along
with this rapid growth, Rosemount's household base is becoming increasingly concentrated in a
narrow demographic range, with half of all householders now 35 to 54 years of age. Household
turnover is low with just three percent of homeowners choosing to move from their home in
2007. Aging may become a concern as existing households remain in place and younger
replacement households are unable to find available housing. Keeping a demographic balance
will help maintain public school enrollment levels, keep local commercial businesses
prosperous, and stabilize the demand for community -based services. Initiatives aimed at
stimulating turnover and expanding the mix of move -up housing can help the city achieve this
long term demographic objective.
Data Methodology and Validation
Supporting Graphs and Maps
1. Householder age profile and trends
2. Housing usage
3. Households in Foreclosure (2007 -08)
4. Income patterns
5. Household turnover
6. Offset for households "aging -in- place"
7. Household retention
8. Where households are coming from and moving to
9. Resident access to jobs
2
Excensus Tracking Data Methodology and Validation
Residential tracking data spanning four consecutive years (2004 to 2007) and
providing household demographics, housing usage history, and turnover patterns.
1. Methodology
Master resident address file (all mailable addresses 7- county metro area)
All addresses mapped to property parcels (in GIS environment)
Household profiles built from major state and local administrative data sets (through
data sharing agreements)
Current property and dwelling data matched to each household using the address -to-
property parcel association
Four -year data history:
Optimizes coverage and consistency
Permits tracking of residential moves and housing decision making
2. Validation and Qualifications
"Ground truthinq all household addresses must match to a property parcel with
residential ownership and building valuation or be cross matched to multiple sources.
Summary count validation annual city household totals are cross checked against
accepted Metropolitan Council household estimates. Differences of five percent or
more triggers an additional data review.
7- county metro area context resident turnover and relocation assumes a starting
and ending location within the metro area.
1. Householder Age Profile
and Trends
3
Distribution of Householder Ages (2007)
500
450
409
350
300
250
233
150
100 .i
50
Rosemount Householder Ages
Distribution of Households by Householder Age (2007)
(Data set covers 7,078 households In2007
Source: Excensus LLC
Median Householder Age
In 2007 was 46 years
UMe, Age 35 Age 35 to 54 Age 55 to 74 Age 75*
5n
t� M R 1n 74* A 8 A A AS A is S S R R is
6� M'�m eQ <e<ss A 51Gr'
HouseholderAges
The MetropoHtanCouncil has estimated Rosemount's 2007 household base at 7,104. EXCEi4SUS
City of Rosemount, MN
Householder Age Trends (1990 to 2007)
All Households
US Census Bureau Excensus LLC
Householder Ages 1990 2000 2004 2007
Under Age 25 141 116 104 112
Age 25 to 34 934 1,041
Aga 35 to 44 770 1,667
Age 45 to 54 398 960
Age 55 to 64 299 453
Aga 65 to 74 139 316
Age 75 or More 98 189
Total 2,779 4,742
Total Households (Metro Council 2007)
982 1,084
1,873 1,944
1,525 1,951
845 1,098
462 634
173 255
5,964 7,078
I 7.104
Sources: Excensus LLC (HH Profiles 2004 2007); US Census Bureau (1990/2000 Census)
and Metropolitan Could (2007 Household Estimates)
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows the
distribution of the City's
householders by age in
two -year increments
starting with younger
householders under the
age of 25 at the left and
moving to those aged 85
or more on the right. The
scale on the left shows
the number of households
in each age category. The
higher the bar, the greater
the number of
Householders in that age
category. The chart also
features four key lifecycle
breaks: under age 35, age
35 to 54, age 55 to 74,
and age 75 or more.
Key Findings: More than half (55 of the City's households are between the ages of 35 and 54. There are relatively few
younger households (under age 35) or older seniors (75 Maintaining a balance of ages can provide stability to school
enrollment, the local workforce, and commercial services. As current households "age in place," the City will need to provide a
wider range of housing to retain older households with changing needs and promote regeneration by younger, replacement
households.
Strategic Policy Topics: Multifamily, move -up, and senior housing options to promote a balance of community demographics.
Trends in Householder Ages (1990 -2007)
How to Read the Table;
This table shows
household growth and
aging in the City since
1990, drawing data
from multiple sources.
Since definitions and data
collection methodologies
differ between sources,
this table should be used
to show directional
changes. Note that the
Excensus household total
tracks very closely with
the 2007 total household
estimate released by the
Metropolitan Council of
the Twin Cities.
Rev findings: New construction has generated 1,100 new occupied housing units since 2004 and 4,300 units since 1990. This
growth and the resulting changes in household demographics since 1990 have been driven by single family detached housing
development. A disproportionate number of households are between the ages of 35 and 54. More recent trends show an
increase in senior households related to existing residents "aging in place"
Strategic Policy Topics: Expanding the breadth of housing by type and value can help ensure a balanced and stable demographic
base.
2. Housing Usage
Housing Usage by Householder Age (2007)
Under Age d5
City of Rosemount
Householder Age by Housing Typs
(Data set covers 7,078 households")
Source: Ezaensus LLC
Age35 to54 Age55to74 sge75 or More
Nomahsndv Aae Cdeeeles
5 Apartment 26+ units (106)
Apartmont 6 to 25 units (118)
Apartment <6 units (20)
Mobile Home (171)
Towmhom s (1.750)
credo (60)
Duplex Triplet (65)
Single Fondly Detached (4,729)
e Unknown (54)
•The Metropolitan Council has
estimated RosemouM's 2007
household base at 7,304.
EUCR4SUSw
How to Read the Chart
This chart shows housing
usage for each of the four
lifecycle age segments.
Housing type data is
obtained from county
property parcel data and
cross- checked by Excensus
using land use, aerial
photos, and additional
indicators, such as
presence of apartment
unit numbers. City totals
for each housing type are
shown on the chart
legend and age segment
counts are shown directly
on the bar chart.
Kev Findings: The City's housing stock is dominated by single family detached housing (66.8 and town homes (24.7 Both
types of housing have wide appeal across all age groups. A very small share of the City's single family detached housing (79 units)
is currently in the hands of older seniors (ages 75 or older).
Strategic Policy Topics: Strategies for increasing the range and affordability of housing types.
8
Owner and Renter Housing Usage (2007)
3 300
.1 200
500
400
100
200
%Homeowners:
78.2%
200 2
Rosemount's Owners and Renters
Homestead Status by Householder Age (2007)
(Data set covers 7.078 households
Source: FxcensusLLC
892%
t
Homeowners comprise
87.7% of all households and
73.2% of households under
tTie agi of 35.
91.7%
81.296
C
N 2 m 2 m !n v y v e s^ u UI
NousehoiderAges
The Metropoeten Council estimated RosemtoM's2007 household base at 7,10e. E XCEHSUS'"
New Owners and Renters (2007)
Rosemaunt New Owners and Renters
Homestead Status for Move-1n Ms (2004 to 2007)
(Detasetcorers 7.078hareholdsi
Source: 3aermtrs LLC
New Renters 48.7%of all Ranters
et New Householder that are Hame o gem
74.1% S1.0% 87.1%. 75.7%
Newee.mer
She MetropottenCourahes esDeaiMNascmount's28117 hcaaehetlbeseut7,14e. EXCENSUS"
How to Read the Chart:
The breakout of owner
and renter occupied
housing is shown using a
modified version of the
householder age chart
Homeowners are shown
above the line in blue
while renters are shown
below the line in red.
"Owners" and "Renters"
are identified based on
2007 county property
homestead status.
Kev Findings: Homeowners make up 87.7 percent of all households and 78.2 percent of all households under the age of 35.
Homeownership remains high among households age 55 and older. Currently, there are few rental housing options in the City.
Rental housing is an important resource for attracting and retaining households in need of affordable housing.
Strategic Policy Topics: Since 1990, householders 55+ have increased from 19 to 28 percent of the city's household base. This
group should continue to be grow over the next decade as a percent of all households. These residents will age in place, move, or
relocate to senior housing facilities. How will the City plan /adapt to the changing needs of this growing housing market?
9
How to Read the Chart:
In this chart, the owners
and renters are further
divided into new
households and
householders "aging in
place By definition, a
household is "aging in
place" if it has been at the
same address since at
least 2004. The new
owner and renter
households, in place after
2004, are shown in darker
blue and red.
Kev Findings: 27 percent of homeowners and 48 percent of renters are new in their home since 2004. A substantial share
(79.8 of all new households that have moved into (or relocated in) the City between 2004 and 2007 are homeowners.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Thirty percent of the City's households are new in their homes since 2004. How are these households
made aware of the City's services and expectations?
10
10"
Access to Newer and Older Housing (2007)
Age of Single Family Housing in Rosemount (2007)
Single Family Detached Dwellings by Year Built
(Data set covers 4.537 Owner- occupied sirit le Family Detached Dwellings)
Source: Excensus LLC
76.4 Percent of
Mined, Single
Family Homes were
built In 1980 or later.
%Living by Older SFD Home.:
19.7% 16.0% 44.6% 86.3%
412
f0 s 8 3 U ffi R `9 fa
"lb t m km ee a m e m in 2^21
Househa derA6es
EXCENSUV
Key Findings: More than three quarters (76.4 of the City's owner occupied single family homes were built in 1980 or later.
Older households (ages 55 or older) occupy 45.2 percent of the homes built before 1980, but only 15.3 percent of all new homes.
There are 63 households (age 75 or older) living in homes built before 1980.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Housing and home maintenance options for older households in older single family detached homes.
New Owners of Older Housing (2007)
100
100
200
Access to Older Single Family Housing in Rosemount
Access to Older Housing Stock by Nbw -nos f 20043o 2007)
(Data set coven 4.537 OwneroccupiedSingle FamlyDeteched Dwellings)
Source: Excensus LLC
14.1 Percent of new Sint,
Family Homeowners Live in
Hones Bulk Before 1980
New HHsth,s time HMIs es Older Homes(1M)
in 243% of All New HHs m Newer Horses pa)
soo I Never Homes p Wesel Mk Older Keynes WO)
II of New Homeowners In Older SFD Homes
i 16.9% 11.1% 259% 75.0%
>E
400 .1
e HousehoiderAges
13 Existing Ms In Never WHIMS (eat)
EXCENSUS"
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows a
breakout of owner
occupied, single family
housing based on the year
the home was built. New
housing assumes a
construction date of 1980
or later. The source of the
data is county property
attribute data as of May,
2007.
How to Read the Chart:
In this chart, owner-
occupied single family
housing is further broken
out to indicate usage of
newer and older dwellings
by new and existing
households. The new
households, in place after
2004, are shown in darker
blue and red.
)(ev Fin. Ines: Households that moved into the City after 2004 were more likely to find newer homes, reflecting continued new
housing development during this period. There were very few options for households looking for older homes.
Strategic Policy Tonics:
11
12
400
350
300
Affordable SF Detached Housing (2007)
100
150
Rosemount's Affordable Single Family Detached Housing (2007)
Affordability based on Metro Council's 2007 Threshhold of $207,800
(Data set covers 4,53E Single Family Detached, Owner Occupied DwellInls)
Source: Excensus LLC
250
51 In Affordable Housing:
250 15 :o% 9.7%
13.9% of Owner Occupied, Sin$la
Family Detached Homes fall
within effordebf Ilty guidellnes
23.7°;
Roo
+O a il s A R T 8 m a 2 ffi R N R A P A V S ii
td 4 m m fit {o i Q e a z o n (f g s ti} 6 A n A n g
s
HouseholderAge
EXCEHSUS"'
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows a
breakout of owner
occupied, single family
detached housing based
on affordability. Using the
Metropolitan Council's
2007 affordability
threshold, all households
in homes with a 2007 tax
value at or above
$207,800 are shown
above the line and the
more affordable homes
(under $207,800) are
shown in red below the
line. Note that this chart
does not include condos
or town homes.
Key Findings: Thirteen percent of all owner occupied single family detached homes fell within the Metropolitan Council's
affordability threshold of $207,800. Usage of affordable housing is weighted toward older households that are living in older (pre
1980 homes). A total of 39 households (ages 75 or more) are living in affordable single family detached homes.
Strategic Policy Topics: As housing prices have declined, does the City have more housing units that now meet the Metro Council
definition?
New Owners of Affordable SFD Housing (2007)
300
Access to Rosemount's Affordable SFD Housing (2004 to 2007)
Ttrnover and Single Family Detached Home Affordability (2007)
(Date set coven 4S38Singie Family Detached, Owner- Occupied DweJIngs)
Source:Excensus
Y ow Ia..
22.s%ado
250
1 200
1 150
100
so
0
50
fro N-.HHe Live in ia! %of
the Alienable Homes
150
200
230 1 13.9%
300
N d5 7;
HouseholderAges
NSW MH su mum mamma;
OEr
-D EidstfngHH /$207 {31009)_.._
aFHHN►feHome4590)—
!J 8 B R R d R' i R lint s el
03 4
EXCENSUS"
How to Read the Chart:
In this chart, SFD housing
affordability is further
divided into new
households and existing
householders "aging in
place By definition, a
household is "aging in
place" if it has been at the
same address since at
least 2004. The new
households in affordable
housing, in place after
2004, are shown in darker
red.
13
Kev Findings: Few single family detached homes under the affordability threshold are available to new households under age 55.
Of the 999 single family detached homeowners that moved into homes between 2004 and 2007, only 10.3 percent moved into a
home with a 2007 tax value under the affordability threshold. Thirteen percent the younger incoming homeowners, under age
35, succeeded in finding homes in the "affordable" range.
Strategic Policy Tooics: What can be done to increase the number and availability of affordable single family detached homes?
14
Affordable SF Attached Housing (2007)
Rosemount's Affordable Single Family Attached Housing (2007)
Affordability based on Metro Council's 2007 Threshhold of $207,800
(Data set covers 1,667 Owned Condos, Town Homes, Mobile Homes, and 2 /3 /4 plexes)
source: Excensus LLC
It In Affordable Housing:
60.9 %of Owner Occupied, Single
Family Attached Homes fell
within affordability guidelines
82.3% 67.6% 44.2% 682%
�2 2 m4 9 e sea 4 44'4444
HouseholderAges
XCENSUS
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows a
breakout of all owner
occupied, single family
attached homes (i.e.,
condo, townhomes,
mobile homes, and 2/3/4
piexes) based on
affordability. Using the
Metropolitan Council's
2007 affordability
threshold, all households
in homes with a 2007 tax
value at or above
$207,800 are shown
above the line and the
more affordable homes
(under $207,800) are
shown in red below the
line.
Kev Findings: Owner- occupied single family attached homes can play an important role in meeting the City's affordable housing
needs. In 2007, 60.9% of the owned SFA units in the City were affordable based on the Metropolitan Council's threshold value of
$207,800. Eighty -two percent of the younger SFA homeowners (under age 35) were living in affordable units in 2007. By contrast, ,I
higher value SFA homes were heavily weighted towards older households (55
Strategic Policy Topics: Is there an opportunity to expand this base of affordable SFA housing in the City?
New Owners of Affordable SFA Housing (2007)
75
Rosemount's Affordable SF Attached Housing (2004 to 2007)
Turnover and Single Family Attached Home Affordability (2007)
(Data set covers 1,667Owned Condos, Town Homes, Mobile Homes, and 2 /3 /4 piexesi
Source: Exansus LLC
New HN/$207,$O0$ Horne (150)
New Hits Use in 11J% a f IfTil wifFirnfivalible Nome 1
75 j the Affordable Names Eeisting HH /$207,1110Ot Nome 1101)
Di E lisslne HH/Afferdebk Hems (!:$$I
l of New Households N Affordable Housing:
784% 64.7%
c
1.?, givIMAAIR e HouseholderAges
20.9% 20.9'/
EXCENSUS's
How to Read the Chart:
In this chart, owned single
family attached housing
affordability is further
divided into new
households and existing
householders "aging in
place By definition, a
household is "aging in
place" if it has been at the
same address since 2004.
The new households in
affordable units, in place
after 2004, are shown in
darker red.
15
Kev Findings: Sixty percent of the City's single family attached households have been in place for at (east three years. Access to
affordable single family attached housing appear to be a particular problem for older households (ages 55 where only 20.9
percent of these households were able to find affordable SFA housing options.
Strategic Policy Topics: As the population ages over the next 10 years, how will the City's housing stock accommodate downsizing
and low /moderate income seniors. Should the City set a goal for the percent and type of senior units?
16
Access to Rental Apartments (2007)
Apartment Usage in Rosemount
Large (26+ Units) and Small Apartment Buildings (2007)
(Data covers 244 households living in Apartment units)
Source: Excensus LLC
43.4 Percent of Apartment
10 US err tUUre1n&uldrtrgrWRtt26
or More Units
N Larger apartment units (106)
15 ls All other- apartments(138)---
25 43C1WinE W4Ks
36.1% 34.7% 66.7% 92.9%
25 Y
Householder Ages
EXCENSUSe
Key Findings: Only 3.4 percent of the City's households live in apartments. The majority (56.6%) of all apartment units are in
smaller apartment developments (less than 26 units). Demographics differs significantly by size of development. Older
households ages 55+ occupy 31.1 percent of the units in the larger developments while households under age 55 occupy 92.0
percent of the units in smaller apartment developments.
Strategic Policy Tonics: How do the rental rates and amenities differ between the larger and smaller apartment developments? Is
there a need for more senior -based rental housing? 17
Stable Base of Apartment Users (2007)
0
15
Apartment Usage in Rosemount
New Household Access to Apartments (Move -ins 2004 to 2007)
(Data covers 244 households living In Apertmentd wellings In2007)
Source: ExcensusLLC
395 PerantalNewer
In
Buildings with 26 or More Units
New HH in Larva ArH nt121ualra)
Maw HH In Smaller Apartment (73 units)
o Letting HH In Witt Mrtm,nt (SS unNsL__
Euistb.g HH Mr Smaller Apartment NO units)
20 llvIngialarserApptmen HYW" is
25 I 36.2°/. 32.6% 72.7% 100.0%
i i ii fX 7 i q O q M q 4 u g n ®n 8 i6 h R i I° i° B it 8 B
HousebeiderAges
EXCENS S
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows 2007
householder usage of
apartment dwellings
broken out for large
apartment developments
(26 or more units) and all
other smaller apartments.
How to Read the Chart;
In this chart, apartment
usage is broken out by
large and small apartment
complexes, and the ages
of existing and new
householders. Existing
householders are the
more stable base or users
that have been at their
apartment address since
at least 2004. Newer
households are show in
blue for apartment
complexes with 26+ units
and red for all other
apartments.
Key Findings: In 2007, 53 percent of households in apartments had been at the same address for at (east three years. This stable
core of households spans all age groups in both larger and smaller apartment complexes. Overall Senior usage, however, is low.
5trateeic Policy Tonics: Is there a need for more rental housing targeted to households ages 55 Are the Cty's apartment
complexes serving as a substitute or replacement for owner occupied housing?
18
j
3. Households in Foreclosure
(2007 and 2008)
Foreclosures in Dakota Co. Cities (2007 -2008)
Clty (2007 08)
Count and as
Percentage of all
Owner- Occupied
Housing
Sources: Dakota Co
CDA., Excensus LLC
Rosemount's 195
foreclosures is
3.1% of the city's
owner occupied
housing. This rate
is consistent with
most other Dakota
County cities.
20
Foreclosured Households (2007 -2008)
Rosemount Homes in Foreclosure Sale (1/2007 to 12/2008)
(Foreclosures by affordability* of home and age of householder)
(Data set covers 195 dwellings)
Source: Hennepin County end Excensus LLC
Home Value $207,800+ (88 units)
r Home Value <$207,800 (78 units)
29 Dwellings with unknown lea
Value, UnknownHU Aire, or
inmmpkete/DUpokkate Hone
Address.
1G earcentetAiisewie uwn:
oD �p N
r0 +S 4Sf�Fi,9iWiWio Q S t° v ,TJ�i,XN t: 2 X 2 w1 ia�
House s:Mel Ages
AffordebWity measure based on the MetropohlanCountirs 2007 deflnabn.
fXCENSUS'
4. Income Patterns
(2003 and 2006)
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows a
householder age breakout
of foreclosed single
family housing by
affordability. Using the
Metropolitan Council's
2007 affordability
threshold, all households
in homes with a 2007 tax
value at or above
$207,800 are shown
above the line and the
more affordable homes
(under $207,800) are
shown in red below the
line. Note that 29
foreclosed dwellings had
incomplete age or
property data and could
not be plotted on this
chart.
Key Findings: Foreclosures are having a higher than average impact on younger households (under age 35) and on homes valued
below the Metropolitan Council's 2007 affordability threshold Households under the age of 35 made up 16.9 percent of all
households in Rosemount but accounted for 24 percent of the foreclosures.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Are there strategies and programs in place to help young Rosemount homeowners facing foreclosures?
21
Median Federal Adj. Gross Income ('03 -'06)
Map Legend
f Cities
n Counties
Median FedAGI (2006)
Less than $30,000
j 530,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $79,999
$80,000 or more
No Data
S: )urce: MN Dept of Revenue (Individual Tax
R eturns 2003 -2006 block group summary)
5. Household Turnover
(2004 2007)
Median taxable incomes have
been increasing in nearly all areas
of Dakota County and in the
developing areas of Rosemount.
23
Annual Household Turnover (2004 -2007)
Age 85 or More
Age 75to 8
Age 85 M 74
0
Age 551D 54
3
Age45M54
Age 351o44
Rosemount Housing Turnover (512004 to 5/2007)
Percent of Existing Units That Turned Over by Homestead Status
(Total of 1,111 Moves -5.7% to moverbetween 5/2004 and 5/2007)
Source: Excensus LLC
0%
5 °A
10%
15% 20%
Percent of All Households in Age Group
Renters (15.5
Owners (4.3
25%
30%
EXCENSU5
Kev Findings: Combined turnover for all ages and housing types was low, averaging 5.7 percent per year over this three year
period. There were significant differences between homeowners (3.4 and renters (15.5 Age was a key factor, with
homeowner turnover ranging from 7 to 13 percent for older and younger households, but was only 3 to 5 percent for
homeowners between the ages of 45 and 84. The 272 moves by homeowners between ages 45 and 84 accounted for just 38
percent of all homeowner moves.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Does the City's low homeowner turnover rate reflect a lack of move -up or senior housing options? 25
Household Turnover (2007)
Rosemount Housing Turnover (512006 to 512007)
Percent of Existing Units ThatTumed Over by Homestead Status
(Totalof 301 Moves -4.3% tumoverbetween 5/2006 and 5/2007)
Source: Excensus LLC
Age 65 of More
Age70M64
Ager15 M 74
Age 8510 04
i Age 4510 54
Age 3510
Age 25 to 34
UrdiarAgk 25
0%
5% 10% 159i 20%
Percent ol AO Houaekokd in Aga Group
25%
30%
EACEHStir
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows the City's
rate of householder
turnover for owners and
renters in total and by age
category. The turnover
rate is defined as the
percent of households (in
the age category) that
moved within a given
year. The actual number
of moves over the 3 years
is also shown to the right
of each bar. The turnover
percentage is an annual
average for the three
years (May of 2004 to
May of 2007).
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows the City's
rate of householder
turnover for owners and
renters in total and by age
category. The turnover
rate is defined as the
percent of households (in
the age category) that
moved within a given
year. The actual number
of moves is also shown to
the right of each bar. The
data covers a 12 -month
period from May of 2006
to May of 2007.
Kev Findings: Turnover in 2007 dropped to a very low 4.3 percent. Homeowner moves were down 22 percent in 2007 over the
average for the three years, 2004 to 2007. Rental turnover was sharply down for the youngest age segment.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Turnover, and especially movement within the City, is important to overall community health. What can
be done to stimulate positive community turnover and retention?
26
500
25.7% of 2007 Hilt wen
450 ^rtat n ptaxa
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
5o
Incoming Households (2004 to 2007)
Rosemount Move -ins (2004 to 2007)
2007 Householder Ages and Time at Current Address
(Data set covers 7,078 households in 20071
Source: Excensus LLC
d n m$ o e o r o s 2 2, 2, 2 e 3 is 2 R ®p Ca
Householder Ages
The Metropolitan Council has estimated Rosemount 's 2007 household base at 7,104.
Move -ins (2,101)
w A' P'rc`a (4:977►
f XCENSUS"
How to Read the Chart:
This householder age
chart shows the impact of
incoming households in
shaping the City's
household base. The data
covers the three -year
period from May of 2004
to May of 2007.
Kev Findings: There was a significant influx of households during this three -year period, prima ily due to new construction. Those
households under the age of 35 accounted for 33 percent of all new households. Move -ins by households ages 75+ was less than
three percent of the total.
Strategic Policy Topics: What needs to be done to assure continued inflows of younger households?
Net Gains /Losses from Turnover Construction
100
Rosemount'sTurnover Construction Impacts (2004 to 2007)
Change in Age of Householders Due to Housing Moves
(Data set covers 2,101 households moves beisveen2004and 2007)
Source: ExcensusLLC
Includes pin of 1,114 HHs From
Housing Construction/Absorption
between 2004 and 2007
150
Not lain from rurnover ant Now NauYne Corneruatlen:
+342 +500 +212
X i ,�,n RBTb iB�R��RR9 �l��
;',1 V A FS 1 i§ F 3O V Y 1 N 31 N N a n IF w R
Hwse11a1de Aag
fXCENSUSrs
r
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows the gains
and losses in household
by age due to turnover
(one set of households
moving out and being
replace by a new set of
households) and
construction related
growth. Note that this
growth is based on
residential absorption
rather than the date of
construction. The net
change is shown by age
segment at the bottom of
the chart. The data cover
the three -year period
from May, 2004 to May
2007.
27
Kev Findings: Housing turnover and new construction yielded a large gain in younger households between 2004 and 2007.
Including tumover and 1,114 newly occupied dwellings, there was a net gain of 362 households in the under 35 category and 500
new households in the 35 to 54 age category. Households over the age of 55 increased by 252 households.
Strategic Policy Topics: When tumover and new construction occurs, the City has been gaining younger households. What can be
done to stimulate tumover in a way that continues to meet the needs of existing households while opening up more housing for
younger households?
2
6. Offset for Households
"Aging -in- Place"
Offset For Aging -in -Place (2004 to 2007)
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows the aging
in place of those City
households that chose to
remain in their homes
rather than moving over
the period May of 2004 to
May of 2007. The age
profile in 2007 (in red) is
superimposed against the
group's age profile in 2004
(in blue) to show the
resulting age shift over
the three years. The
result is a shifting of
households into older age
categories. The net shift
in households by category
is shown below the chart.
Key Findings: Seventy percent of the City's households did not move during the period 2004 to 2007. They did "age -in- place."
Because of the large number of middle aged households, the three -years of aging caused a large shift from younger to older age
categories. The result was a drop of 255 households under the age of 55 and a corresponding increase in householder age 55 or
older. During this three year period, the gains in younger households from turnover and new construction (see the previous
chart) were large enough to offset the aging -in -place associated with the City's households that did not move.
Strategic Policy Tonics: What can the City do in future years to successfully offset the impact of households aging in place?
3
Impact of Rosemount Households Aging in Place
Householders that did not move between 2004 and 2007
(Data set coven 4,977 Households)
Source: Excensus LLC
2004 Households
"Aging In Place'
Same sat of Mk but
now reflecting ages
In 2007
im
o
8 g
eNPWIO
Year impact
452
a +a
+Lea
"I 2 2 51
2 2
2� 1 vi 11 d 1 d ffi 1;* 4 l; 2 a 12 0
a o
Ho,ceholderaaes
()CCMNSUS
6. Offset for Households
"Aging -in- Place"
Offset For Aging -in -Place (2004 to 2007)
How to Read the Chart:
This chart shows the aging
in place of those City
households that chose to
remain in their homes
rather than moving over
the period May of 2004 to
May of 2007. The age
profile in 2007 (in red) is
superimposed against the
group's age profile in 2004
(in blue) to show the
resulting age shift over
the three years. The
result is a shifting of
households into older age
categories. The net shift
in households by category
is shown below the chart.
Key Findings: Seventy percent of the City's households did not move during the period 2004 to 2007. They did "age -in- place."
Because of the large number of middle aged households, the three -years of aging caused a large shift from younger to older age
categories. The result was a drop of 255 households under the age of 55 and a corresponding increase in householder age 55 or
older. During this three year period, the gains in younger households from turnover and new construction (see the previous
chart) were large enough to offset the aging -in -place associated with the City's households that did not move.
Strategic Policy Tonics: What can the City do in future years to successfully offset the impact of households aging in place?
3
7. Household Retention
Housing Choices and Household Retention
How to Read these Tables: The table at the
top shows the moves made by households
that left homes in the City between 2004 and
2007 and relocated elsewhere in the Twin
Cities 7- county area. The column at the left
lists the current housing types before the
move and the housing categories at the top
show the type of housing after the move.
The table at the bottom indicates the
proportion of each set of moves where the
destination was in the same city.
Kev Findings: Of the 719 metro area moves,
35 percent ended up in another home
within the City. This is a strong reading.
Retention was higher for households looking
for multi- family and apartment housing
(52 than for those seeking single family
housing (37 The city succeeded in
retaining 42 percent of all single family
moves where the household was seeking
another single family home.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Retention is tied to
the availability of move -up and senior
housing. What can the City do to provide
more move -up housing options for its
outgoing residents?
32
Al Housing Moves by Rosemount Households
With a Metro Area Destination (5/2004 to 512007)
Source: Excensus LLC
Type c4 Hosing After Move
Current Housing
SFD Multi-Famry Apardrerd lfilmown
TAI
Single Family
270 62 15 34
381
Duplex/Triplex
6 5 1 2
14
Condo
0 3 1 2
6
Townhouse
119 46 13 23
201
Mobile Home
13 13 1 4
31
Apartment (<6)
1 1 1 0
3
Averment (6-25)
23 12 7 7
49
Aparhnert (26
9 8 11 6
34
Total
441 150 50 78
719
Share of Moves Where The Household
Chose to Remain in Rosemount (5/2004 to 5/2007)
Source: Excensus LLC
Type of Housing After Mae
Current Housing
SFD Mub -Family Apartment Unknown
Total
Single Family
42% 60% 60% 0%
MxAgt~
N N
Duplex/Triplex
17% 60% 60% 0%
Condo
0% 67% 67% 0%
Townhouse
33% 57% 57% 8%
Mobile Hare
31% 23% 23% 0%
Apartment <6)
0% 0% 0% 0%
Apamiert (6-25)
26% 33% 33% 43%
Apartment (26+)
0% 38% 38% 45%
Total
37% 52% 52% 18%
35%
7. Household Retention
Housing Choices and Household Retention
How to Read these Tables: The table at the
top shows the moves made by households
that left homes in the City between 2004 and
2007 and relocated elsewhere in the Twin
Cities 7- county area. The column at the left
lists the current housing types before the
move and the housing categories at the top
show the type of housing after the move.
The table at the bottom indicates the
proportion of each set of moves where the
destination was in the same city.
Kev Findings: Of the 719 metro area moves,
35 percent ended up in another home
within the City. This is a strong reading.
Retention was higher for households looking
for multi- family and apartment housing
(52 than for those seeking single family
housing (37 The city succeeded in
retaining 42 percent of all single family
moves where the household was seeking
another single family home.
Strategic Policy Tonics: Retention is tied to
the availability of move -up and senior
housing. What can the City do to provide
more move -up housing options for its
outgoing residents?
32
8. Where Households are
Coming From and Moving To
Household Origins and Destinations
How to Read this Table: This table shows a rank ordering of cities that are the sources for new, incoming households
and the destinations for households that choose to leave the City. This includes only those moves where the origin or
destination was within the 7- county metro area. The time period is May of 2004 to May of 2007.
Where Rosemount Households Came From and Moved To (May, 2004 to May, 2007)
Based on Tracking of Household Mare Origins and Destinations within fhe Twin Ogles 7 -Goody Area
Source: Enemas LLC
Rosemount
Hone Type
Sept. Ramey
Dupleariplet
Carlo
Townhouse
Mottle Home
Apertmat (a6)
Apemen' (525)
Apartment (25
over Drum les
34
0
0
28
3
0
1
2
Total
Pot 017otal
Rosemount`
185
6
92
4
9
7
285
19.7%
E
124
3
0
96
1
5
2
232
16.1%
Mov.im —ew Ramrod whom Ram od Heun.hold. wg4 BY 28e
I.A 8►com p limmti.h. .m.n nler. ad Nq, 20071
St. Pd/
Apple yaley
117
1
2
86
2
0
5
214
14.8%
Bon'n'ie
40
0
41
1
0
2
2
87
6.0%
liked.
40
3
0
19
5
0
6
1
74
5.1%
88
4.7%
Mir.eap0.c
31
0
0
16
2
0
3
3.7%
St Pat
25
0
0
18
1
0
1
5
48
3.3%
F.meKan
34
45
3.1%
Bbmatplon
17
0
0
23
1
2
0
0
3.0%
21
1.5%
Otter
144
4
2
106
8
8
2
275
19.066
Toed
781
20
5
540
28
6
41
24
1445
1 000
RoeeOOUt
Homo Type
Single Fang
Dupexlydpter
Cads
Townhouse
Moleb Home
Apartment (a6)
Apemtent (625)
Apartment (28
14o...holds R.kmd.d
Bemis
1)
1
9
2
T6Y
Pot Motel
Rosemount
150
4
67
0
13
8
M 904065 6
5
0
0
B
0
1
4
2
251
34.9%
Now
A8148 Yelay
37
0
0
17
4
0
5
4
67
9.3%
Coves
tererpa
32
1
1
14
0
5
4
63
8. 8%
Where
Remington
21
5
0
18
2
0
6
4
56
7.8%
Rosemount
Erman
16
0
1
11
2
0
2
2
34
4.7%
27
3.896
20
2.8%
Households
a9i 15
7
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
15
2.1%
H Booms 2008 mad lby, 28071
Kw Sawa fIC 00.9. Emplr. Two
9 1 B
O 0 0
O 0 0
2 8 2
1 1 0
O 0 0
2 2 9
O 0 0
14
1.9%
12 11
1.7% 1.5%
Mar
84
3
36
8
6
149
20.7%
TOY
381
14
201
31
3
49
34
719
100,0%
These ere moves Mel origr8ad end ended in Rosemount.
Key Findings: Half of all "incoming" households came from homes in either Rosemount (19.7 Eagan (16.1 or
Apply Valley (14.8 Three-quarters of the move -out households relocated in another, nearby Dakota County city.
Strategic Policy Tooics: What can be done to retain more of the Households being lost to other Dakota County
communities?
34
9. Resident Access to Jobs
Where Rosemount Residents are employed
In 2006, there were 8,931 resident
workers in Rosemount. 796 of these
workers (8.9% of the total) lived and
worked in Rosemount.
Source: US Census Bureau (LEHD1
36
C JiI I 1 II1 U i J 1 9 L 1 e" 11!
r u
0 og
Q
i I Z I I'
Eel
F, N
w
10 i�i� F F; K ;iniu u Y iR {a 7F 7�'o
23
I li! 1 t
li 1 I I
P U I JI J IIII
c II1I!I
r
i
i il i :.1&tetiliiiiiifl
r °2222412 {�OOCb +NN+ +SSA
P P
MEWS* ttE12111111h-
Alil
w m w ZS a u v g .m a s ly g. v
m
bra v P°
"MIMI I#®tiretti t. fill Egg! a_
elpri
t7 g A -0
g 47
.9 w
111951 ils 3g
i m
E
w V tT +a�I,...-. n, r r
e eta 3 o a
oi Woad 41 IC N1O
38
0
41
W O O Q +N W V tD-, W..... W S N Pi 3
a
Q G A 7
i 9 3
0
t� pp 8-1.73g: Q QQ g w as c
o o G7 O Ci a v G C N w O W .N G u o 3 -3 03 O S or ya
37
Where Workers Employed in Rosemount Live
017
o
s o
n
O
V 'a'
tg
c
N
8
*ge
i11 .11 1- 111 R f 1A e., N 1
N co s h l f O f N n p
4co minm
.1 O N Yth N•-
S
In 2006, there were 5,701 workers
principally employed in Rosemount.
796 of these workers (14.0% of the
total) lived and worked in Rosemount.
Source: US Census Bureau ILEHDI
timm fNV9 !Ol 14geefe
ago.
1
WRIMaemi
:Y!!5!
O§RE9m2wt 14..„
1
111 I j!
1
1
1
39
URI 0 .gwrils4iNiY.Q
a +a ON W O W 0 N ow W V Ny V NOS p�
fy ��jj ��jj yy ��yyy NN gg r n P n
Zi+73+Nt15 gti- niiiil00Vf P s a1 U p
Z .'a
n u1 Vw P
TNAO W.i1 a �►0 0.T W f.:g x A W SF 3
p� t E 1��yx pe N"
EQ se G W i
N o
=.1a a NC 4O .D Qt W G z1 =R I 9
AAA
27.. OA YrJO p W V 0 0 00
8 S
p A g
a is
p p A
S
a O
0
0
e
3
3