The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007 MC Livable Communities Act Survey 2007 Livable Communities Act Survey Guidelines for Priority Funding for 1lousing Performance ik COMMUNITY NAME City of Oak Park Heights PRIMARY PERSON COMPLETING Julie Hultman THE SURVEY Planning & Code Enforcement Officer TELEPHONE ( 651 ) 351.1661 FAX _ ( 651 ) 439.0574 E-MAIL ADDRESS jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com Please refer to the Cities and Townships section of the enclosed Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance handout in answering these questions. Criterion #3 - Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Have zero lot line or other atypical detached housing site plan approaches been used to increase development density? Yes No X If so,how many detached housing units have been developed in your community through 2006 using these approaches? (Do not include manufactured housing units in manufactured home parks). Part of Criterion #4 - Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance During 2006, were any existing housing units in your community"preserved" as affordable for low- and moderate-income households through reinvestment in that housing? For example, a Section 8 or 236 building with an expiring contract with HUD that was "preserved"through reinvestment or an extension of rent subsidies. Name(s)of the housing: Raymie Johnson Estates Number of units"preserved" 96 Hi-Rise Units + 24 Townhome Units = 120 Total in each property. Building Permits Issued in 2006 for Oak Park Heights Of the 11 housing units permitted in 2006: 1 were single-family, detached units 10 were multi-family, attached units Also, there were 0 residential units: moved in; annexed in; or non-residential units converted into residential use. Using this information,please complete the next two sections. -- Part of Criterion #4— Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Production of New Rental Housing Units in 2006 Please indicate the number of rental units for which building permits were issued during 2006. Rental costs listed are the total costs for rent and utilities paid by tenants. Rents EfMo�th�yR�ntAffOnde Bedrtyoo�nvels for TwRental o Bedrooms Housing Three Bedrooms edrooms SRO* and larger Affordable $687 $736 $883 $1020 Rents** or less 0 or less 0 _ or less 0 or less 0 All other new Above Above Above Above rental units $687 0 $736 0 $883 0 $1020 0 *Single-room occupancy **Affordable to households earning no more than 50%of the regional median income, adjusted for household size ($39,250 in 2006 for a family of four). Part of Criterion #4— Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Production of New Owner Housing Units in 2006 Please indicate the number of owner-occupied units for which building permits were issued during 2006. New Owner-Occupied Iiousmg Vii •.;2 y Single-Family, Detached Units Multi-Family, Attached Units Selling Price $201,800 or less* 1 0 Over$201,800 0 10 *Affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the regional median income ($62,800 in 2006 for a family of four). 2 Criterion #7— Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Please identify examples during 2005 and 2006 in which the municipality reduced, adjusted, eliminated, waived, or in some fashion was flexible in the implementation of a local official control, development, or building requirement; OR for which it is the municipality's policy and practice to reduce, adjust or eliminate such requirement, when requested to do so, to reduce development costs for the development of affordable or life-cycle housing (see criterion#7 for examples). Up to five examples of the application may be identified, but no more than 2 for any single housing project. a. When deemed appropriate, reduction of parking and/or roadway width requirements. b. Private roadways versus public roadways, when deemed appropriate. c• Through use of Variances, Conditional Use Permits & Similar. d• Waiving or reducing fees for construction permit plan review fees, when deemed appropriate. e. Through communication of design guideline and zoning review with modifications and reductions of requirements, as allowable and when deemed appropriate. Criterion #8— Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Please list up to five housing preservation/maintenance activities your community has used in 2005 or 2006 that maintain or improve its existing housing stock. For example, a housing maintenance code and enforcement program, or a home rehabilitation loan program. County- administered programs are applicable (see criterion #8 for examples). a• Local Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance and enforcement. b. Construction (inc. Mech, Plbg. , Fire Protection, Etc) Permit requirement and inspections enforcement. c. Affordable "flat rate" permit fee for residential maintenance/ improvement projects. (eg. fences, roof replacement, siding & windows) . d. Neighborhood Quality Programs for trees (City Arborist contract for resident ? 's / concerns), parks, trails, annual waste clean up twice a year. e. Ongoing communication of resources available from a variety of sources such as older home improvement tax deferral, low interest home improvement loans (when we are made aware of them) , etc. 4 Part of Criterion #4- Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Removal of Housing Units Due to City Initiatives A. How many housing units were removed from the housing stock in 2006 due to city initiatives? Single-family, detached 0 Multifamily Units 0 Mobile Homes 0 B. How many of these units were replaced? - Not Applicable - C. How many were replaced by owner-occupied single-family, detached units priced at $201,800 or less? - Not Applicable - D. How many were replaced by owner-occupied multifamily units priced at$201,800 or less? - Not Applicable - E. How many were replaced by affordable rental units? - Not Applicable - Criterion #6- Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Please identify no more than five local fiscal tools or initiatives that are available from the city to assist/facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing. The identification of state and/or federal dollars is only applicable if the community could have used the dollars for activities other than affordable housing development or preservation. (See criterion#6 for examples of fiscal tools and initiatives). a. General Obligation Bonds b• Local Property Tax Levy C. Community Development Block Grant d. Tax Increment Financing e. 501(c)(3) Bonds 3 Criterion #10— Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance In 2005 or 2006, did your community acquire land to be held for the development of new affordable family housing or any senior housing(exclusively 55+)but for which no housing units have been constructed or started? Yes No X Describe the land acquisition and the intended development for such land. In 2005 or 2006, did your community approve the development, reuse of, or municipal reinvestment in existing housing for future use as affordable family housing or senior housing where the development has not yet been undertaken or completed for reasons beyond the municipality's control? ALHOA—Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount Eligible ALHOA expenditures and contributions include such items as: a local tax levy to support a local or county housing authority, local dollars contributing to housing assistance, development or rehabilitation programs or activities, or to fund a local housing inspections and maintenance program. Funds granted or loaned to the community by another non-local source, public or private, and spent in 2006 may be applicable as an ALHOA expenditure only if the funds used to assist housing could have been used for various purposes. During calendar year 2006, did your community expend local dollars toward affordable or life-cycle housing representing at least 85% of the ALHOA indicated on the enclosed sheet? Yes No x If no, please explain why ALHOA expenditures or contributions were not made. Continued loss of state aids and other funding constraints. 6 Criterion #9- Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance - NA - Note: If your community has participated in the Metropolitan Council's Plat Monitoring Program in 2005 and 2006, please disregard this question. If your community would like more information regarding the Plat Monitoring Program,please check the box. ❑ a. Sewer-serviced Communities Please indicate the overall average net-density* and number of new sewered residential units for which a building permit was issued or all final necessary local approvals were granted in 2005 and 2006. Please provide the density to the nearest one-tenth unit per acre. Yik1 'lid i 9 I,.;# .....:,..,�,..'x 1 . , z ® � �".cn�' ....�.�anz.,�.seaac,�+':':- 1.:,� l i ffi f 11 gi.., .a..:.. Detached Units Attached Units Total Units b. Unsewered Communities Please indicate the overall average net-density* of new residential units for which a building permit was issued or all necessary local approvals were granted in 2005 and 2006. Please provide the density to the nearest one-tenth unit per acre. Total New Residential Units • The formula for calculating net residential density is as follows: Net Residential Density=Total Units-(Total Area-Total Area Adjustments) Total Area Adjustments mean the exclusion of: • Arterial road right-of-way • Wetlands and water bodies • Public parks and trails • Natural resources mapped in the comprehensive plan and protected by ordinance • Outlots for future or non-residential development Local streets, alleys, and sidewalks, as well as private parks, pools and tennis courts are not excluded from the total area. 5 , ;� Metropolitan Council September 26,2007 Dear Local Official: Enclosed is a preliminary housing performance score for your community for 2007,determined pursuant to the Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance. In large part,the scoring is based upon information provided by your community in our recent survey. I am sending a copy of this letter and enclosure to both the city administrator/manager or township clerk and the person to whom the housing survey questionnaire was originally sent. In June, we mailed surveys asking communities to complete and return them in July. In July,we sent a follow up asking that the unreturned surveys be completed and returned in August. The enclosed score sheet indicates the preliminary points by criteria for your community. Points for criteria 1,2, 3,and 5 are based on Council data compiled from information provided by state or county agencies,local government,the Department of Housing and Urban Development,the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and local Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. Scores for the remaining criteria are based on the information provided to the Council via the survey. If we did not receive a completed survey or information was not provided for any survey question,the score for those applicable criteria will reflect this. The score sheet also indicates the final performance score for your community in 2006. If,after reviewing these scores,you want to provide additional information in order to improve your score in any criterion,or you believe you should have received more points in any criterion given your answers, please send me the information or call me as soon as possible. Because funding decisions for all three Livable Communities Act funding accounts have, or will shortly begin, and the housing performance scores will be a factor in those funding decisions,I ask that you provide any additional information no later than Friday,October 5. Final performance scores for 2007 will be mailed to all communities in October. Please call me at(651)602-1418 if you have any questions or want to discuss your community's housing performance score. Sinc ely, i Guy D. Peterson Director, Community Development Division Enclosures cc: w/enclosure: City Administrator/Manager Township Clerk www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651)602-1000 • Fax(651)602-1550 • TTY(651)291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Preliminary Housing Performance Score - 2007 Name of City / Township aik( < h "S Criteria — 100 points possible 2.06(g aye, 1 . 2. 3. - 3 4. Z- 5. 5 . 7. lS 7 . Is -8. l5 - I 9. a. 0 9 .a a b 0 b. 10. 0 I U 14- Total Score 2007 �o Total Score 2006 271 r-lt <• C ,i:t: :»L'._.i-�....i i i. 3<;�t s.., ,fl'T.11.. s.t 'i"Yl fi 1'iii;:(1 �1 t in Peft''rm:mce Scores]itli?::a; 'AAA Metropolitan Council AA 44 October 15,2007 TO: Local Offici . OCT I 7 , FROM: Guy Peterson, ►irector,Community Development Division The 2007 housing performance score for your community is enclosed. It is being sent to both the community's administrative officer and the person that completed the survey. The scores were determined based on several factors set forth in the Council's Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance. Seventy percent of the score came from the survey you completed about housing activity in your community during the past two years. It included information about: • local fiscal,regulatory,and housing rehabilitation initiatives to facilitate workforce housing development and preservation • the density of residential development • the approval of affordable or life-cycle housing that has not yet been developed The other 30 percent of the score was determined from the following data about your community's housing: • the affordability of owned housing units(a combination of local government information about the number of mobile homes,and homestead tax valuation data from the Minnesota Department of Revenue) • the diversification of housing(based on local housing permit data Council research staff gathers annually from local governments) • the number of affordable rental units(from data provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and local and county HRAs) • the availability of housing in your community for persons with special needs(based on information provided by the Minnesota Departments of Education,Corrections and Human Services) The performance scores are intended to reflect both the amount of affordable and life-cycle housing in the community and the community's efforts to facilitate affordable and life-cycle housing development and preservation. Scores range widely,reflecting the variety of metropolitan area communities. The sparse population and scattered housing locations of rural,unsewered communities tend to result in lower scores,while the affordability and diversification of existing housing stock in urban,sewered communities,combined with efforts to add and/or preserve such housing,yield higher scores. As indicated in the Council's grant request solicitation materials,the housing performance scores will be one of the factors considered in the evaluation and ranking of applications for competitive funding programs this fall as follows: • For the Tax Base Revitalization and Livable Communities Demonstration Accounts,the scores represent a little less than ten percent of the total possible evaluation score. • For the Local Housing Incentives Account,when the housing score factor is considered,applications for funding from communities with lower housing performance scores are generally given priority over proposals from communities with higher scores in order to encourage and support local efforts by these communities to facilitate affordable housing. If you have any questions or want to discuss your community's score,please call me at 651-602-1418. Thank you. Enclosure va,IB1tAIZMLYSorf m_Moveyou der\PETERsom2007\101207 111 L itRpgyesil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651)602-1000 • Fax(651)602-1550 • TTY(651)291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer FINAL HOUSING PERFORMANCE SCORE — 2007 (OCTOBER, 2007) Oak �` k /-/e_f h Is NAME OF CITY/TOWNSHIP: y Criteria — 100 points possible 1. 7 2. 3. k 4. Z 5. 2 6. l S 7. 8. 9. a. b. u 10. Total Score 2007 0 Total Score 2006 ? g