HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 [10] Oct 02
~
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First Avenue NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-720 I
Fax: 363-0342
Ilk
MAYOR St. Joseph Planning Commission
City Hall - October 2, 2000
Kenneth J. Hiemenz 6:30 p.m.
CLliRK!
AIJMINISTRATOR
Cari Schmidt Call to Order
New Business: Special Session
COUNCILORS
Bob Loso 6.30 P.M. Affordable Housing Study Public Information Meeting
lilert Presenter- Dan Finn, Great River Interfaith Partnership
it
ary Niedenfuer Approval of Minutes:
- September 11, 2000
Adjourn
.
,
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First Avenue NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-720 I
Fax: 363-0342
MEMORANDUM
Ilk
G ~ To: Planning Commission Members Vß
From: Chad A. Carlson, Planning Commission Secretary,,4
MAYOR Date: 9/26//00 [
Kenneth J. Hiemenz
RE: Summary of October 2nd Agenda Items
CLERK!
ADMINISTRATOR
Cari Schmidt Affordable HousiD2 Study Public Information Meetinf;!:
Dan Finn, Great River Interfaith Partnership, will presenting the findings of the Central
COUNCILORS Minnesota Task Force on Affordable Housing. I have enclosed a copy of the entire report
for your review and a summary sheet of the recommendations. The City Council is looking
Bob Loso for a recommendation from the Planning Commission to adopt or reject the report. The Task
If:hlert Force has strongly recommended that each jurisdiction vote to affirm the recommendations
it
ary Niedenfuer of the report by December 1,2000. Since this is the only item on the Planning Commission
agenda is rather light, there is plenty of time for discussion.
November MeetiD2 Date:
Due to the election in November, the elections judges are suggesting that meetings should
not be scheduled in the Council Chambers from November 2nd through the 7th. They need to
set up the election equipment and keep the room in order. So, the Planning Commission
meeting for November will be on November 13th. Sorry for any inconvenience.
If you have any questions regarding these agenda items, please contact me as soon as
possible. Thank you.
.
, -
. Unofficial Minutes - Planning Commission
. Pursuant to due càll and notice thereof, the Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, September 11,
2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Plannin1! Commission Members Present: Commissioners Marge Lesnick, S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Gary Utsch,
Cory Ehlert, Jim Graeve and Kurt Schneider. Planning Commission Secretary Chad A. Carlson.
Absent: Chair Hub Klein
Others Present: Tom and Marykay Lemmer, Bill Nelson, and Dorian Davidson.
Lemmer Truckin1! - Site Plan Review:
Mr. Tom Lemmer presented his plans to construct a facility for Lemmer Trucking on Lot 12, Block 1 of the Rennie
Addition in the St. Joseph Industrial Park. Lemmer stated that he is a contract hauler for Land-O-Lakes Company
and is requesting approval to construct a facility to house his trucks and operation. The lot is large enough for the
operation to expand if needed and has the required parking spaces as per the Ordinance.
Kalinowski questioned if the lot was going to be paved. Lemmer stated that the parking lot will be on the East Side
of the building and paved as required by Ordinance.
Lesnick made a motion to approve the site plan and landscaping plan as presented by Lemmer Trucking;
Seconded by Graeve.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Graeve, Schneider, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
. Chester Fried Chicken - Site Plan Review:
Mr. Nelson provided the Planning Commission with background on the ownership of the property. Nelson
explained that the underlying property for the Subway, Star Dust Video and Taco Johns is owned by Mr. Nelson and
a partner. The fact that they own the property, they have redesigned the parking scheme for the entire development.
The new parking scheme provides the required parking spaces for Subway, Taco Johns and new Chester Fried
Chicken franchise. Nelson referenced an amendment to the lease agreement with Subway, which indicates
Subway's acceptance of the new parking arrangement. Davidson presented the new parking area on the site plan.
The new plan will provide for three additional spaces, which was required for the new business.
Utsch cautioned the Planning Commission<regarding the agreement. The agreement needs to go with the property
and not the owners. Utsch expressed his concern if ownership of the land would change and the agreement would
become negotiable again. Utsch further stated that the entire development area consists of many lots and not just
one.
Ehlert stated that the new parking spaces would satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance. Lesnick stated that the
parking space adjacent to the building should to be painted so it is identified.
Utsch moved to approve the site plan for the property oWDed by Reichert and Nelson Businesses which
provides for the required parking spaces necessary to establish a Chester Fried Chicken franchise in place of
Star Dust Video, provided that the lease for the businesses identify the parking area as a common space for
all the business located on their property; Seconded by Lesnick
Discussion: Ehlert stated that the minutes should reflect that the property owners have worked with City
Staff to identify a solution after the variance request was denied in August.
. The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
July 10,2000 Minutes
, .
Kalinowski stated that she would like to see the City Staff keep a data base, which states that Planning
Commission's decisions, including conditions, for future reference on projects that may require some follow up. A
· data base would be easier to access rather then trying to locate decisions in the minutes.
Zonin1! Ordinance Amendments:
Carlson informed that Planning Commission that the recommended changes are a result of the rental committ~' s
findings and the changes are necessary to implement the recommendations of the committee. Carlson suggested that
the Planning Commission reference the City Attorney's letter as they address the amendments. Carlson further
suggested that they take one item at a time for an accurate record for the City Council. The following
recommendations were made:
Section 52.12 Subdivision 9:
Ehlert clarified that the rental committee had a tremendous amount of discussion regarding this issue. The rental
committee was looking to sunset the grandfather clause but the City Attorney stated that this would be impossible,
So, the suggestion is to strip a grandfather privilege if the license is revoked.
Schneider stated that this seems to be unfair and punishes those specifically if they have a rental license. It appears
the recommendation is treating old and new rental licenses differently.
Ehlert stated that this amendment would allow the City Council to eliminate grandfather status if the license is
revoked due to disciplinary action.
Utsch questioned if the City Council has established a policy or procedure when a noise violation occurs. He
suggested that the City Council should determine at what point a license can and will be revoked.
Schneider stated that he still feels that it is unfair to take away a grandfather clause in addition to fines that may be
opposed, However, he respects that opinion of the attorney and understands the intent ofthe amendment.
· Utsch moved to recommend amendment to Section 52.12 Subdivision 9 to specify that there will be a loss of
"grandfather" status if the use is involuntarily discontinued due to a revocation of permit, provided that the
City Council develop an uniform policy and procedure for determining discipline, suspension and revocation
within 120 days; Seconded by Lesnick.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: Schneider
Section 52.14 Subdivision 3:
Kalinowski introduced the recommendation to the Planning Commission. The amendment details the required
parking area that would be needed for all rental units.
Graeve moved to recommend amendment to Section 52.14 Subdivision 3 to include:
a) Fractional units when determining the required number of parking units be rounded to the next
highest number in all cases; and
b) All rental properties shall be subject to the parking requirements as set forth in Subdivision 4 (b)
Boarding Houses
Seconded by Ehlert.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utscb, and Ehlert
Nays: None
Section 52.17:
Graeve clarified the recommendation of the City Attorney, which changes the permitted uses, and special uses.
· Ehlert stated that the recommendation would not permit rental units in an R-l· Zoning District. However, an owner
occupied rental unit could be allowed if the dwelling is occupied by the owner.
July 10,2000 Minutes
..o!I.. ,. .
. Lesnick stated her concern regarding parents buying homes for their kids and owners moving out after they obtain a
rental license.
· Lesnick moved to recommend amendment to Section 52.17 to included:
a) Permitted Uses be limited to "single family-owner occupied residential uses. Rental prohibited.
b) Special Uses include rental units if owner occupied. Non-owner occupied is prohibited.
Seconded by Utsch.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
Section 52.18:
Graeve and Kalinowski clarified the recommendation for the R-2 Zoning District.
Lesnick move to recommend amendment to Section 52.18 to include:
a) Permitted uses include rentals that are owner occupied; and
b) Special uses include non-owner occupied.
Seconded by Graeve.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
Section 52.19. Subdivision 2 (a):
Graeve stated that the intent of the recommendation is not to limit large apartment complexes to a family or three
unrelated persons. Carlson stated that in many cases, apartment buildings have four bedrooms. Removing the word
family in this section would allow for large complexes which is the intent of the Ordinance.
· Lesnick moved to recommend amendment to Section 52.19 Subdivision 2 (a) to remove the word "family";
Seconded by Graeve.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
Section 52.25. Subdivision 7 (c):
Utsch stated that he agrees with the City Attorney that rental units should not be allowed in the Highway #75
Business District. The Planning Commission members agreed.
Carlson stated that the Planning Commission should decide what the intent of this section should be in the future.
With recent projects, the section of the Ordinance has been subject to interpretation developers and City Staff. In
addition, the Planning Commission must determine if windows and doors are included or excluded fÌ'om the square
footage calculation.
Utsch stated that there are examples in the community where the Ordinance needs to be clarified and not open to
interpretation. The current Ordinance can be manipulated and creates an argument. Utsch suggested that the
Ordinance required the 50% coverage to occur on all four sides.
Ehlert suggest that the Planning Commission should further clarify the Ordinance by stating "at a minimum" 50%
coverage. Thereby, leaving the door open if the developer wants to go greater then 50%.
Carlson suggested that the Ordinance exclude windows and doors fÌ'om the square footage calculation of a side.
Then the 50% coverage requirement would only be applied to the square footage remaining. The Planning
· Commission member agreed.
July 10,2000 Minutes
.
. Graeve moved to recommend amendment to Section 52.25 Subdivision 7(c) to include the following language;
a) "at a minimum 50% of the square footage on each side of the structure; and
· b) "When calculating the square footage of a side, the total square footage of all windows and doors
shall be excluded.
Seconded by Lesnick.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
Affordable Housinl! Studv Summary Sheet:
Carlson presented the Planning Commission with a summary sheet that outlines the recommendations of the Central
Minnesota Task Force on Affordable Housing. Carlson requested that the Planning Commission review the
recommendations and future meeting would be held to discuss the affordable housing issue.
Approval of Minutes:
Lesnick moved to approve the July 10,2000 minutes as presented; Seconded by Utsch.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Lesnick, Graeve, Kalinowski, Graeve, Utsch, and Ehlert
Nays: None
Announcements:
Carlson updated the Planning Commission on the progress of Pond View Ridge Six and Northland Five
developments and anticipated meetings to review the plats.
Graeve announced the following upcoming events:
1) September 12111 - Last day to declare candidacy for City Office
· 2) September 29111 - Farmers Market Harvest Festival
3) October 11111 - Healthy Community Partners Town Meeting, Kennedy School @ 7:00 p.m.
Adiourn:
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned by consensus at 8:35 p.m.
Chad A. Carlson .
Planning Commission Secretary
·
July 10,2000 Minutes
· "People Working for Homes"
The Report of the Central Minnesota Task Force
on Affordable Housing
I. Executive Summary
-' The Central Minnesota Task Force on Affordable Housing was created in
-'
January 2000 by the cities of Sartell, Sauk Rapids, St. Cloud, St. Joseph, and Waite
Park and the counties of Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns. The Task Force was
charged with investigating the problem of affordable housing and making
recommendations for solutions. The following is a brief summary of the Task Force's
recommendations.
Recommendations/Proposed Solutions
1. Cost of Land - Zoning policies should encourage greater housing density per
acre so developers could use land more efficiently.
2. Construction Costs - Local Governments should allow and builders should
employ a wider range of construction methods to reduce costs.
3. City Infrastructure - Local governments should be flexible on requirements
for streets, cement sidewalks, curbs and gutters and green sp'aces where
affordable housing is planned as part of a development.
4. AssessmentslFees - Local governments should develop policies to budget for
· reduction of assessmÿnts and fees that would otherwise apply to affordable
housing construction.
S. Building Codes - Local governments should oppose additional amendments
to State Building Codes unless a full understanding of their costs to a unit of
housing can be detennined.
6. Taxes - State property tax policy should reduce the disparity between tax
classifications of single family vs. multifamily properties. Major local
government initiatives which create additional taxes may represent an
additional barrier to h0!lsing affordability.
7. Rehabilitation - Local governments should assist in the rehabilitation of
t. affordable housing currently at risk.
.' 8.1 Preserving Low Income Rental Units - Hundieds of subsidized apartments
are nearing the end of multi-year agreements with the government to keep
them affordable. These should be preserved as affordable units.
9. Life Cycle Housing - New housing developments should include housing for
citizens of all incomes and ages.
10. Consistent Zoning Policies - It is essential that the five cities of the area
work in conjunction with one another on zoning changes to create a consistent
set of affordable housing regulations for developers.
11. Zoning for Multi-Family Housing - Local governments should add more
flexibility tQ residential zoning districts, now primarily zoned for single
family housing, to allow for multi-family housing in new development
· planning areas.
12. Raise Housing Density Levels - Local governments should allow smaijer .
lots and insist on a minimum percentage of affordable housing in new
development planning areas.
13, Encourage PUDs for Residential Housing - PUDs (Planned Unit
Developments) should be'encouraged as a way to increase affordable housing.
14. Streamline and Coordinate Approval Process - Local governments should
cultivate positive relationships with developers of affordable housing and help
them through the maze of federal, state, and local regulations.
-' 15. Enhance Community Education Resources. A concerted effort by schools,
private and public agencies, and individuals themselves must be undertaken to
educate citizens on the housing-related consequences of various lifestyle
choices.
16. Job Creation. Local governments should move toward a livable wage
standard whenever they provide incentives to businesses wishing to locate or
expand in the area.
17. Senior Housing. Local government should encourage developers to create
more attractive "senior housing" as an alternative for occupants of older,
under-utilized homes.
18. Employer Incentives, Employers should develop programs to help provide
home mortgage down payments, housing allowances, or interest rate buy
downs for employees seeking affordable housing.
19, Community Land Trust Projects. A non-profit corporation can be created
to purchase suitable ,property, build affordable housing on the site and sell the .
structures (but not the land) to prospective buyers. Any financial subsidy from
the community to buy the land keeps the home permanently affordable.
20. EducationJPublk Acceptance. Local governments should undertake specific
effort to improve communication with builders, developers, and other
professionals involved in the production of affordable housing, Our
communities should also undertake a public "education" effort to explain the
problems and promises of affordable housing.
Implementation Recommendations
. Thy T'tSk Force ,strongly recommends that:
I A roved b Dec 1 stjr. the five cities study and vote to affirm the recommendations included in
pp y .... the report; I ~
.. . 12. a small "prafting Committee'" be formed by the five cities to craft a
I Done by March 1 st single se·t Df carefully worded ordinances and regulations ·needed to
encourage the implementation of affordable housing;
Approved by July 1st 13. each of the cities receives, approves, and implements these ordinances
and regulations.
We recommend that step one be taken by December 1, 2000, that step two be
finished by March 1,2001, and that step three be completed by July 1, 200l.
.
2
<'>{.C;' .......... ......:<';' '? . '<,.c.. '. " ':
'('" Y'iI< ..... "'.')'."" ....,~.. ',' .. c '. '. . .......... '
·,C. ......,.""... ,.<" .r:; Y.."" .." :, ,..' .,'..... ' co"""
;:;;1; . .c,' .,' . ." '<, ' ,',,' , "i' i.i""'>
, ,S.c;,....·,' ,,/. ' ....... ........ ....... " '~i". ,..;,.. .... oj;'.: ,'. .{< .. ' "
, ,>, '"eie. '.. .,)(,: ,; >; . ~. "Y.. ..... , " ,'. <\c" . ',' :.~' ·»'i,;ti'· .. .:i.?tiK.""T.<l;;;·,:. ··'/·,.i
'i"i';:' .. ," :',>. ~T '.', .'..;..... ,.,".... o;:;\.;ii.>· . '¿;' /:':'»';!,:<:i. ;, .
. ;, .,.' ". ..' " .:.. :-:' '<. .. "h<~r .,.. ',.~. . "'<';)¿..:'.~;5·'.·>h ........ '
/,.....:..,. ... < ,'. .. '.' ,,'.., " ó ," ,';, ,.~ . ',' '. .:.:: '.. ,.
... <,,'<. .,"", . . {;';'<'c';· '~r!; ~,·...i./>.;. '<. . .',.', ::: . ·.··,:·.~·L..,,·.,;;.,'>,·;;... ',~"r" . '.J,
",'" """WRé.iml~"~øh!~'in~l~ð~';HI'0fn~S" A')'~L.i' e'
(" . <,';- ", x~ .' , >....' l!~~ ' .. .,' '·1· ". , :'.. .i/?;; f}<' i;;,~
· ..' ,; , .. ..... " '-- ..~" >.'0!!~ ;; ......
" ')" c'. '.~. ?",:' .,..... '. '<"':.,,~,:' .'~·i;.;);j':~:'. " . < '".' " "...{y..~'.,
N;~, .... .. ;,\;'. ,",' .;> '. ' ',:"i-;j{Y'O::-¡',: ,. < , '<"";'·';Y "., ;} ,..-,j'.. .. ,···.A· . 1; 'x
;l:;~f.'-0';':~\tL;~, .;; ':::? . . ;~}~'~:~:f }}£J¡~f·;': ~';;}:~;.: ' , , / <~i /;: ~\\ffig·)·:·:;;,~~~~,:;::.";..~#~~:M"1·.h{" ~',:/:i~~ }Xi'~&;$'
<},~~';> .;,iF:."·' c~",/,· )';~,'~' 'o__'i~;>J.:·.~u. .'>'. ",;;-;." " ".':"':';)',' ''':z:~'-·>.¡~·' 'i:\,:,Ø>?:~ft2·,~i_,,:,,',',¡}." :' 3::·;\7;.
>: ?',>.. ,;,!f..~, ,;. ~ ", , ,", - ."~:, Æhêt"~ReAørfl:"j¡()~fid:tne.;~::~(:'~'/'::,,>,,(;), .,..~!~.:< ...... <'!
" "'. '" ,. ',. P ,,,7'J.," ,~L;::I . 0" , ~:K:;'.",. '.' ",",. < ...' .,/ ", "
:~ ".<, : ;.:. "." ;," '- "., \,; ·.i",«;,jf'i''ii·},f:;¡;'-'";;;{'"'~I ~{o/Þ;,;;.~~r-}:,;;'l,;~i;F·"" ,;.....:~ <iU'~j';,"'-::-> ,:,'j,;":,,,, . "',:. .,::" .' '.
¡:. .,·i):·· ,:: '~,~>'., ">··_?:;.i~'-:z i2? '.,' .'<'"¥-::,\'", ~:%~~?.r~";;'~;i<:"t. ,;1;!1 :~;';" " .fV........·¡.{~)'i'··,;..::,,:~';§:J'-;. ''<L :F:;:· '> ~¡.',.-;,\: '. ," "
'. :::. ,... " ..5~'.:..ò -; /' ;'}', .- ,~eNmR'j4~~~iMm~~E5(fDmA'~ifif::~:'; '~~' V·}·;l?' ::·/1~·:.,· ~:'
": :~j.;{Y' ·B}.. ;,.:~.;{t;{j;~.,: :.., ;~;) " :, '~:":~'" '''-~' '75t,' ,,~;;·~t·w'¿'~""*¡ii~t¡:·,,-,<}'. .Q¿~. '.0; ~", ~ <,-wt~',Wft;;\1it),~: ':.:'{ ;,:i;;.,,{: ,/.;,;'.
·A. . - " .., '/?:~:B~> is'''> .,,>, ' "'. .' 4·_ . ' ,,:?<Li.i''i· \i~~ë~~~4" . .,~, "~~i/,¿;' . / ~Md. ~;". . ";.i.:{~;;!" ,:' ." . >.':.
F·;,'~ .~i~r·· c;~14A'~~-; 'ìi1ø~"GËc{øf~r";I~i~i~ôj~BŒeltllilil!1I[M~*1t '\': . >'
<~jf, ~ir·'j~:,:;i'~;V"~"':-".~ ~1, "',~,...,~~.,-, ,¡t~ ."', J;I:~([J i~I~l~~'ij' ;1<.'~'~ ",:,~,,' '\!"} .:~,:.. ~(..', ~~;~f,-,: ~:;6rni",~' ii" ,- "ij~':"{''';;;'\~
; :~t '{ ~~t~~·:, !c,!rtf~~i.~~t~\;;~~.~I~Ç~~J~Þ; ·:It::¡1~~ftfi¡~~~I~~ic:fi\f~f..li¿~{*;~~~g·.fiJ1i1·~''; -:1>~~~~~'Í~žf~~
·\~{JjW;~L..>~,. ,~ . ·'·'~~~1''''''~f 5,~¡~(~f~~~~'~~'-' "~~~fi.f.~'f,;*'fi,f~'iJ:i~( t~f4~~:-- "'~~'$''::~: .{·:;,..i!~Wi~'\'-.ill."~~t~"i·;~;~i,;.;:,>:;-,gt~"'~lf¡;',:','Gc¡, ",,,>'"',~.'!f;;
;')}.",-g.;',!-'" ,. "". "äJ~ft: "'~ ,." "Wo- - "'fff." B""";"'m"F-~'-"'>''''~øH\'>~':;'Ð ,=", """"(''''''',''' "ê"'S1i" . . ,':-:".\':;;.'"1k" '';>''<'''1 " ",.
;tíJ!}1'Y..·.:;;~~i~~~~F~'~~¡~,~;\; ,~: ~;1";W~~:~W ~~<;l,:~p> '~fk;t~~!h ~t~lJt~~; !l!!L .J~g~E!~~Þ~~~J~~~¡, ~~.qgf1~::, :o/i~~~:" ·/ff~~(
t';~í1t~t;?\j,tl¡;'%¡~~:: ,~!~~¥i}~~li;w~Iff1'¡f;}> ~i<:~~~~"~~~;';'¿. ''t~f:ir1œ~~~i,~~f;¿~1!!~ij.~J}1<)~~*~1;~~'> {f;;-"W~1'-
;2~_~Jf6~~.Mjj:~11_1
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
I. Executive Summary
II. History of Task Force
III. Introduction - - ~.
IlIA. Quantifying Affordable Housing
IV. Barriers and Recommendations
V. Implementation
VI. Education Initiative
VII. Housing Inventory .
Appendices
i. Task Force Membership
,
2. MATRiX on Lot sizes
~
3. Resource MATRiX
.
2
---~
· I. Executive Summary·
The Central Minnesota Task Force on Affordable Housing was created in
January 2000 by the cities of Sartell, Sauk Rapids, St. Cloud, St. Joseph, and Waite
Park and the counties of Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns. The Task Force was
charged with investigating the problem of affordable housing and making
recommendations for solutions. The following is a brief summary of the Task Force's
recommendations.
Recommendations/Proposed Solutions
1. Cost of Land - Zoning policies should encourage greater housing density per
acre so developers could'use land more efficiently.
2. . Construction Costs - Local Governments should allow and builders should
· employ a wider range of construction methods to reduce costs.
3. City Infrastructure - Local governments should be flexible on requirements
for streets, cement sidewalks, curbs and gutters and green spaces where
affordable housing is planned as part of a development.
4. AssessmentslFees - Local governments should develop policies to budget for
reduction of assessments and fees that would ótherwise apply to affordable
housing construction.
5. Building Codes - Local governments should oppose additional amendments
to State Building Codes unless a full understanding of their costs to a unit of
housing can be determined.
6. Taxes - State property tax policy should reduce the disparity between tax
· classifications of single family vs. multifamily properties. Major local
3
government initiatives which create additional taxes may represent an ·
additional barrier to housing affordability.
7. Rehabilitation - Local governments should assist in the rehabilitation of
affordable housing currently at risk.
8. Preserving Low Income Rental Units - Hundreds of subsidized apartments
are nearing the end of multi-year agreements with the government to keep
them affordable. These should be preserved as affordable units.
9~ Life Cycle Housing - New housing developments should include housing for
citizens of all incomes and ages.
10. Consistent Zoning Policies - It is essential that the five cities of the area
work in conjunction with one another on zoning changes to create a consistent
set of affordable housing regulations for developers. ·
11. Zoning for Multi-Family Housing - Local governments should add more
flexibility to residential zoning districts, now primarily zoned for single
family housing, to allow for multi-family housing in new development
planning areas.
12. Raise Housing Density Levels - Local gove~ments should allow smaller
lots and insist on a minimum percentage of affordable housing in new
development planning areas.
13. Encourage PUDs for Residential Housing - PUDs (Planned Unit
Developments) should be encouraged as a way to increase affordable housing.
·
4
. 14. Streamline and Coordinate Approval Process - Local governments should
cultivate positive relationships with developers of affordable housing and help
them through the maze of federal, state, and local regulations.
15. Enhance Community Education Resources. A concerted effort by schools,
private and public agencies, and individuals themselves must be undertaken to
educate citizens on the housing-related consequences of various lifestyle
choices.
16. Job Creation. Local governments should move toward a livable wage
standard whenever they provide incentives to businesses wishing to locate or
expand in the area.
17. Senior Housing. Local government should encourage developers to create
. more attractive "senior ho~sing" as an alternative for occupants of older,
under-utilized homes.
18. Employer Incentives. Employers should develop programs to help provide
home mortgage down payments;housing allowances, or interest rate buy
downs for employees seeking affordable housing.
19. Community Land Trust Projects. A non-pr<}fit corporation can be created
to purchase suitable property, build affordable housing on the site and sell the
structures (but not the land) to prospective buyers. Any financial subsidy from
the community to buy the land keeps the home permanently affordable.
20. EducationJPublic Acceptance. Local governments should undertake specific
effort to improve communication with builders, developers, and other
. professionals involved in the production of affordable housing. Our
5
communities should also undertake a public "education" effort to explain the .
problems and promises of affordable housing.
Implementation Recommendations
The Task Force strongly recommends that:
1. the five cities study and vote to affinn the recommendations included in
the report;
2. a small "Drafting Committee" be fonned by the five cities to craft a single
-- set of carefully worded ordinances and regulations needed to encourage
the implementation of affordable housing;
3, each of the cities receives, approves, and implements these ordinances
and regulations.
We recommend that step one be taken by December 1,2000, that step two be .
finished by March 1, 2001, and that step three be completed by July 1, 2001.
.
6
.
II. HISTORY OF TASK FORCE
--
.
~
.
7
II. History of the Task Force ·
The S1. Cloud Area Joint Planning District Board (District Board),
representing five cities (Sartell, Sauk Rapids, S1. Cloud, S1. Joseph, and Waite Park)
and three counties (Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns), has established a draft regional
plan that includes two goals related to the need of its membership to address
affordable housing issues in the S1. Cloud Metropolitan Area:
1. Promote a diverse supply of well-maintained, attractive, safe and affordable
-- housing that is designed to meet the needs of all economic levels and age
groups within each community.
2. Include an adequate housing supply in regional activities aimed at economic
development and land use planning.
To achieve these goals, on January 6, 2000 the District Board voted ·
unanimously to create the Central Minnesota Task Force on Affordable Housing and
accepted an offer by Stearns County and the St. Cloud Area Economic Development
Partnership to facilitate this process. The Task Force, representing a variety of public
and private interests, was formed to undertake the assigned study and endorsed the
following mission statement approved by the District Board:
The mission of the Central Minnesota Task Force on
Affordable Housing is to investigate the lack of affordable housing
in the region, to educate area leaders and the public, and to
propose policies and practices to local units of govemment that
would move them toward a coordinated and cooperative solution
to the problem.
This Task Force met from February to July, 2000, to review the problem
of affordable housing and to formulate recommendations to be submitted to local ·
governments as well as private stakeholders in the St. Cloud area.
S
.
III. INTRODUCTION
-
.
,
f
.
9
III. Introduction ·
All across the United States, communities are struggling with the problem
faced by many working families who are unable to find adequate housing that they
can afford. Any specification of what is "affordable" is somewhat arbitrary, but the
standard used by housing experts and government agencies has been this: housing is
affordable if it costs the working family no more than 30% of their income. It is this
"gap" between net household jncome available for housing and the actual cost of
housìñg that is addressed in this report. Wherever one draws the line between
affordable and un affordable housing, it is clear that the rapid rise in the price of single
family homes and apartment rents over the past two decades has far outstripped the
much slower rise in wages for ordinary workers.
The bottom line is that many jobs held by working members of our ·
community provide a wage that doesn't go as far as it used to in the housing market.
The shortage of affordable houses is illustrated by the quick sale of affordable older
homes, often Within a day or two of appearing on the market. The shortage of
affordable rental housing is ì"llustrated by a 1 % vacancy rate in the S1. Cloud area, far
below the usual 5% vacancy rate expected in nonna! times.
The Central Minnesota Task Force on Affordable Housing has considered a
number of problems related to affordable housing during its six months in existence.
Another year or more would probably not be adequate to fully address the many
issues related to the various aspects of the affordable housing problem. The Task
Force has attempted to narrow its scope of discussion to those issues which identify
barriers to producing and obtaining affordable housing. While programs involving ·
10
· subsidized housing were frequently discuss(~d,the Task Force decided to focus the
majority of its time on affordable housing needed to satisfy the current and future
workforce of the community.
The Task Force membership clearly reflects a point of view not usually seen
in reports published by advocates of affordable housing. While membership on the
Task Force included representatives of the five cities and three counties and some
representation from advocacy groups, the prevailing bias of this report reflects the
view-of those in the community who finance, develop, build, and manage affordable
housing. Many of the barriers and solutions identified in this report are those
observed and experienced by individuals whose vocation it is to actually produce
affordable housing for the community.
· The Task Force addressed many of the problems it identified in only general
tenns. More concerted efforts by the Task Force to educate the public and
government officials as well as improve the area's housing data base are currently
under way. The Task Force has obtained funding designed to finance and complete
both an education program and a more current and detailed housing inventory for the
area.
The task of solving the problem of affordable housing is complicated by
the fact that there are five different municipal jurisdictions in what is essentially a
single urban area. The five cities of our region are integrated economically, socially,
and culturally. Families regularly cross the various municipal boundaries of our area
as they move between home, work, shopping, recreation, and the many other
· activities of daily life. Local governments need to recognize this close relationship
11
and should address affordable housing problems in a consistent, cooperative manner .
across all five jurisdictions.
In a sense, the efforts of the community as represented by the Task Force have
only just begun, This report is far from a "be all/end all" definitive answer to the
affordable housing problem in the 51. Cloud Area. Data gathering and education will
continue through these grant programs. Local government officials and the public
must work together, coordinating the efforts of the cities and counties of the area, to
confwnt barriers identified in the report. As the report indicates, no single solution
will solve the affordable housing problem in the 51. Cloud Area. Leadership,
advocacy, creativity, a spirit of true cooperation, and most of all passionate and
persistent hard work is needed to accomplish the goals set forth in this report.
.
.
12
.
IlIA. QUANTIFYING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
-
¡
.
~
f
.
13
IlIA. Baseline for Owning or Renting a Home ·
The first step in understanding any affordable housing problem is to
understand the relationship between wages and housing. People with adequate
incomes often misunderstand this relationship and presume that those who make a
lower wage today are capable of obtaining adequate housing.
The following table indicates the housing options available for people at
various wage rates in our five city area. (Figures for the number of homes for sale are
--
from the St. Cloud Multiple Listing Service, for the week of July 5, 2000.)
Price of House Apartment Rent
Household Income This Household # of Houses This Household Can
(1 or 2 Wage Earners) Can Afford . For Sale Afford
$7 $34,100 0 $375
$10 $52,530 0 $520 ·
$13 $71,700 5 $675
$16 $88,602 15 $830
.For purposes of these calCulations, we have presumed an interest rate of 8.25%
for a conventional 30-year fixed-rate home mortgage.
Most housing programs and conventional home loans allow for up to 29% of
Gross Household Income to be spent on housing. This 'includes principle, interest,
insurance, and taxes. To qualify for a mortgage, no more than 41 % of the household's
Gross Income can be spent on total debt of all kinds. The affordable rent per month is
based on a 30% expenditure on housing.
·
14
. The Task Force recognizes, of course, that many families have two breadwinners.
Statistics show that in the United States somewhat more than one-third of all households
have two or more earners, about a third have only one earner, and about a third have none .
(retired, disabled, unemployed, etc.). In many families, the second income "solves" the
housing problem, but in others, two jobs paying $7-$8 may not be adequate. In those
many families with only one earner, affording a home is a major struggle. For example,
in the spring of 1998 there were 180 homes under $100,000 on the market, by the spring
of 1999 there were 65 homes under $100,000 on the market, and by the spring of 2000
there were only 33 homes under $100,000 on the market in our area.
The affordable housing Task Force has identified a set of factors that influence
whether a household is in the financial position to purchase a single family home:
. 1) Household Formation. People are waiting longer in life to fonn families, couples
don't stay together as long as they used to, and the notion of home ownership has
changed over the past 30 years.
2) Voluntary Debt AccumulationlLife Style Choices. There are people in our society
who work hard, save, pay off d~bt, and use programs to get their first home. However,
there are others who voluntarily accumulate large debts and yet hope they can afford to
c
maintain their level of lifestyle and still own a home. Other financial obligations may
include child support or student loans. Changes in bankruptcy laws now make it
impossible to avoid child support or student loan payments.
3) Involuntary Debt Accumulation. Many jobs do not include health insurance. For
these families, a serious medical problem or an accident that entails even a short hospital
.
15
stay can easily create a large debt that disqualifies them for a mortgage. A medical .
catastrophe often means bankruptcy and a bad credit rating for the long-term.
4) Perception of Housing. Increasingly, people looking for a·home are only interested in
new housing. This is a new trend in the last 10-15 years, possibly due to the booming
economy, and the unrealistic expectations of some people.
5) Down Payment Accumulations. People are unable to save to come up with a down
payment. Even when there is no "splurging," saving for a mortgage down payment may
require si-gnificant sacrifice. When two parents work in the job market, day care cost~ can
use up most of a second income.
6) Interest Rates. Changes in interest rates make a big difference in the affordability of a
mortgage needed to buy a house. Although mortgage interest rates are much higher than
they were in the 1950's and 60's, they are much lower than they were throughout much .
of the 1980's and early 90's.
.
16
.
IV. BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
~
.
17
IV. Affordable Housing Barriers and Recommendations ·
A. Construction/Development/Operating Costs
The Task Force identified several factors in the construction and development
of both rental housing and single family homes. Some of these cost factors are
beyond the control of local governments but actions by local governments may
mitigate their impact.
Recent studies have shown that housing costs have dramatically increased
"-
over the past several years, including a 10% increase in the last year alone. As a
result, fewer properties are considered "affordable" and newly constructed housing is
often beyond the Task Force's "affordability baseline" of $85,000 - $110,000 for a
single family home.
Cost factors identified by the Task Force include: ·
1. Land Costs. The price of land needed for development has risen sharply.
Existing sewered lots are at a premium, thus increasing their costs. Open
space that is zoned for future development is also very expensive, as sellers'
expectations may be beyond what a developer can afford for the purposes of
constructing affordable housing.
2. Construction Costs. The cost of materials is affected by high demand as well
as resource scarcities. The price of lumber, for example, has risen due to
rising equipment and energy costs, due to federal policies which now have
I
increased lease rates on timber property and provided more protection for rare
species as well as due to disease and natural disasters in forests. In addition,
labor costs (especially in the electrical and plumbing trades) have risen ·
18
. sharply. Trades people, if you can get them, are very expensive and young·
people are not being trained in sufficient numbers in our technical colleges.
The booming economy itself has increased demand sub&tantially and raised
prices in all these areas.
3. Infrastructure Requirements. The Task Force cited several examples of
local government requirements which add to the cost of development for all
housing developments, but add a disproportionately high cost to affordable
-- housing construction. Examples include excessive street widths, large set
backs, minimum lot sizes, large cuI de sacs and added amenities such as curb
and gutter and cement sidewalks. Developments with alleyways such those of
the 1930's and 1940's are almost unheard of in new developments.
. 4. Assessments. Much of the affordable land available for new housing
development is found in areas recently annexed to existing cities. Some of
these areas have been upgraded with city sewer services and thus carry special
assessments for improvements. The assessments, of course, add to the unit
cost of each housing structure and have a major impact on less expensive
homes.
<
5. Building Fees. The Task Force cited the inconsistency of building fees
throughout the region. Some municipalities charge fees that cover a larger
proportion of municipality costs of development, review, and inspections than
others do. This trend mirrors the public's desire to see that developers rather
than the general taxpayer pay the costs of development. The net result is a
.
19
slightly lower local tax burden but a higher cost to build individual houses and .
rental housing units.
6. Building Codes.· The Task Force expressed concern over additions to
building codes which are designed to enhance building safety and energy
efficiency but add a significant premium to the cost of an affordable housing
unit. Recent energy code amendments for example are believed to be adding
up to 8% to the cost of a housing unit. While some may argue about this
-- figure, the cumulative effect of these codes increases the price of housing.
7. Property Taxes. The Task Force identified major inequities in the class rates
for rental properties, specifically apartment buildings. Politically, the State
Legislature has always favored a lower tax rate for single family homes than
for apartment complexes. The difference significantly adds to the cost of .
apartment rents, paid by many working families who cannot afford to buy a
house.
Recommendations/Proposed Solutions
1. Cost of Land· Little can be done to lower the market value of vacant
land. However, we recommend both a mo~e efficient use of existing land
by builders as well as zoning policies directed to this goal. Also,
municipal service costs can be reduced by encouraging planners to
identify land use policies, which result in "smarter" growth patterns. A
series of specific recommendations related to zoning will follow in the
next section.
.
20
. 2. Constuction Costs. Local governments should allow and builders should
employ a wider range of construction methods, including post and frame
construction, modular construction, etc. Alternative methods can often
reduce construction costs without sacrificing quality or appearance.
Incorporating fewer internal amenities in new affordable housing has the
same effect.
3. City Infrastructure - Local governments should not require certain
-- nonessential infrastructure amenities for affordable housing developments.
Broad streets, cement sidewalks, and curb and gutter requirements enable
local government to more conveniently provide city services, but these are
not essential and add substantially to the cost of a single family housing
. unit. Public transportation planning should take affordable housing into
consideration.
4. AssessmentslFees - Local governments should develop policies which
waive or reduce special assessments and fees that would otherwise apply
to affordable housing construction. Local governments should include
incentives such as waiving or reducing de~elopment and building fees for
developers who plan to produce more affordable housing. City planning
offices could be quite creative in this area if given the opportunity.
5. Building Codes - Local governments should oppose additional
amendments to State Building Codes unless a full understanding of their
costs to a unit of housing can be detennined.
.
21
6. Taxes - State property tax policy should reduce the disparity between tax .
classifications of single family vs. multifamily properties. The State
legislature could rely more on rent credits for individuals if these
disparities continue. The State may also encourage the construction of
affordable housing by granting sales tax credits on materials utilized in its
construction. Even when class rates are lowered as was the case two years
ago, the uncertainty of its permanency discourages potential landlords
-- from lowering lease rates. Optimally, Minnesota should begin to move
away from property taxes and toward income taxes to fund schools and
other state mandated services provided by local governments.
7. Rehabilitation - Perhaps the greatest threat to an adequate supply of
affordable housing is losing the affordable houses and apartments we .
currently have. Local governments and non-profit housing agencies should
expand their efforts to help citizens preserve and/or rehabilitate the many
affordable homes in potentially "transitional" neighborhoods.
8, Preserving Low Income Rental Units - The Taskforce has not focused
on existing government programs to subsid}ze apartments for low income
families. Hundreds of these apartments are nearing the end of multi-year
agreements with the government to keep them affordable, with many
returning to market rates. Communities must find some way to ensure that
these existing units remain affordable.
.
22
· B. Zoning and Regulation·
The Task Force identified certain aspects of local zoning ordinances and
regulations as barriers to the creation of additional affordable housing units in the
area. Local zoning ordinances have been effective in identifying and separating areas
of each city which are appropriate for various land uses such as industrial,
commercial and residential. It is the view of the Task Force, however, that a re-
examination of various zoning policies and regulations may identify those which
hinder future development of affordable housing.
1. Residential Zoning. The Task Force expressed concern about the limited
availability of existing land within cities that can be used for construction of
new affordable housing. Most land found in existing and new neighborhoods
· is zoned to discourage the development of low to moderately priced houses
and apartments.
2. Density Levels. Related to the land availabilityjssue, regulations within
various residential housing zones in our cities discourage the construction of
new affordable housing-both houses and apartments-by requiring low
density developments. The Task Force compared required lot sizes of various
communities throughout Minnesota and determined that the five cities in the
St. Cloud Area have larger lot size requirements for R-l developments than
most other cities. (See Appendix 2 for details.)
~.
3. Coordination of Zoning Regulations. The TaskForce identified differences
in zoning regulations between various cities in the area. Not having a
· consistent set of regulations for the area causes confusion among builders who
\ \
\ i
,
23
.. "
': -01\ :~
-- ...
may wish to create housing developments including affordable homes or ·
apartments. In addition, cities are reluctant to alter their zoning ordinances to
allow for more affordable housing if other cities in the area do not do so.
4. Federal and State Regulations. . The Task Force expressed frustration with
State ånd Federal programs designed to encourage affordable housing
developments. While these agencies recognize and support affordable
housing developments through a variety of financing options, many of the
-- programs are useless to local developers. Either the agency's requirements
fail to match existing conditions, or the regulatory "paperwork" burden is so
great that the developer cannot feasibly follow through with a project.
In summary, "developers and builders experience "cumulative effects" of barriers
in locating properly zoned land, complying with density requirements, struggling with the ·
approval process, and attempting to match a proposed development with an existing
federal or state financing program. This cumulative effect creates major disincentives for
the average builder to develop a project which could add to the affordable housing stock
in the community. For many developers the process involved in completing an
affordable project is simply not worth their time,
RecommendationslProposed Solutions
1. Life-Cycle Housing - Currently the "default" position of most zoning ordinances
requires that those wishing to construct affordable houses or apartments request a
waiver. The most important change needed in our local governments is to reverse
the default position: All new planning areas slated for development should ·
24
· include a balance of housing for various age and income groups. Such a policy
would eliminate the clustering of low income housing in only some parts of each
of our cities.
2. Consistent Zoning Policies-It is essential that the five cities of the area work in
conjunction with one another on zoning changes to create a consistent set of
affordable housing regulations for developers. Local governments may find it
difficult to unilaterally add flexibility to their regulations related to affordable
housing if adjacent jurisdictions are unwilling to adopt similar changes.
3. Zoning for Multi-Family Housing - Local governments should plan for
neighborhoods with a variety of housing options. This should involve adding
more flexibility to residential zoning districts, now primarily zoned for single
· family housing, to allow for multi-family housing in all newly developed areas.
4. Raise Housing Density Levels -More flexibility is needed to allow smaller lots
within the various residential zoning districts to be included in new developments.
The number of opportunities for the construction of affordable single family
homes must be enhanced. Local governments should set policies so new
developments include a minimum percentage of t~ese smaller lots in order to
integrate more affordable housing options within these planned developments.
Zero lot lines and lots as small as 50 or 60 feet wide should be considered.
5. Encourage PUDs for Residential Housing - PUDs (Planned Unit
Developments) should be encouraged as a way to increase aff9rdable housing
within these zones. Many cities have begun to utilize this tool to increase the
· number of affordable homes. The Westwood PUD in the City of S1. Cloud has
25
been widely applauded for combining affordable housing with housing of all .
other income types, all with attractive environmental amenities. The Task Force
detennined that utilizing POO'S to include affordable housing also enables the
developer to be much more creative in the way this type of housing is assimilated
into the community.
6. Streamline and Coordinate Approval Process - Local governments need to
.place affordable housing near the top of their priority list. By doing so, city staff
can be directed to serve as a more active resource in working with developers and
guiding them through the maze of federal, state, and local regulations. Cities
should cultivate positive relationships with developers of affordable housing and
create a spirit of mutual trust and respect. Affordable housing projects would
benefit greatly if the same care and interest shown to commercial developers .
would be given to developers of this type of housing.
C. Community Involvement and Personal Responsibility
The Task Force examined a multitude of other perceived barriers to affordable
housing. Many of these are difficult to categorize, yet each has a major impact on
individuals seeking affordable housing for themselvesÁ)r their families. Solutions to
remove these barriers involve community attitudes, employer and government
involvement and personal responsibility.
1. Lifestyle Choices. While the discussion of personal lifestyles as it relates to
the affordable housing issue may seem politically incorrect, the Task Force
did not hesitate to include it in its discussions. One's personal lifestyle-and
whether one succumbs to the temptations of advertising-has a great impact .
26
· on the ability to obtain satisfactory housing. Personal issues such as credit
card debt, child support, debt from vehicle and recreational"toys" (boats,
snowmobiles, ATV's etc.), single-parent situations, job skills, and prior
behavior in past rental units all greatly impact one's ability to obtain
satisfactory housing.
2. Costly Circumstances. Many families find themselves unable to afford
adequate housing due to forces beyond their control. The single mother
- following an unwanted divorce must enter the job market even with few
marketable skills. The lack of health insurance may also have a negative
impact on overall household income. Workers whose jobs don't provide such
insurance face large debts after a child spends even a few days in the hospital.
· A serious disease or disability can often mean bankruptcy and a bad credit
. rating for years to come.
3. Wages. There has long been a perception (reinforced by salary studies) that
wages in the St. Cloud Area are generally lower than those of comparable
corinnunities. This situation may be dictated more by the predominance of
low wage industries (retail and service) than by any conspiracy by employers
to hold down wages. In fact, there is some evidence that wages in the area are
rising rapidly due to recent labor shortages. The key issue, in our area as
throughout the nation, is that many households with incomes ranging from $7-
14/hour cannot find adequate housing they can afford.
4. ''Empty Nests." A large percentage of existing affordable housing is owned
· and occupied by an older generation. Many good quality homes in an
27
affordable price range are underutilized by this population of "emptynesters". .
Current economic realities playa role in keeping this generation of occupants
in their homes. Aside from the psychological attraction, other housing
alternatives for this population such as townhouses, patio homes or apartments
are not readily available at a comparable price. As a result, few of these older
homes are available for recycling back to a younger generation.
5. GovernmentJEmployer Incentives. Local governments and private
-- employers have too often taken a relatively passive role in encouraging the
development and placement of affordable housing. Even with labor and
housing shortages, employers tend to be uninfonned about employee
problems in obtaining affordable housing. Local government has been slow to
make the connection between available housing, the current labor shortage, .
and its impact on future economic development.
6. EducationJPublic Acceptance Local government traditionally views
affordable housing developments as a source of low tax revenues and a greater
source of demand for government services (such as police and corrections).
Many citizens in our communities do not yet upderstand that today
"affordable housing" can be architecturally attractive and "fits in" with nearby
market rate developments. Unfortunately, too many people still envision high
rise "projects" such as those found on the south side of Chicago. Communities
need to work to reverse the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) attitude which
often prevents the construction of attractive affordable housing throughout
each of our communities. The people who need affordable housing are not .
28
· "strangers from the outside" but are our children, our parents, and others we
deal with every day. n
RecomrilendationsJProposed Solutions
1. Enhance Community Education Resources. A concerted effort by schools,
private and public agencies, and individuals themselves must be undertaken to
educate citizens on the consequences of various lifestyle choices. Information
provided by such non-profit agencies as First Call for Help's "Yellow Pages for
Young People" is an example of how the community can begin this process. A
community task force should be created to identify other specific ways to educate
the public on how lifestyle choices may impact one's housing options. (See
· Appendix 3).
2. Job Creation. It doesn't make sense for local governments to offer subsidies to
businesses to create jobs that don't pay enough to cover the costs of housing for
workers. Local governments should move toward a minimum living wage
standard to qualify for TJF (Tax Increment Financing) whenever they provide
incentives to businesses wishing to locate or expand in the area. A connection
between these wages and the available housing to match those wages must also be
taken into consideration. Some local governments in the area have already begun
to be more aggressive about establishing these standards. Failure to adopt
uniform policies on these incentives throughout the area may result in creating a
demand for affordable housing beyond what the community can deliver.
·
29
3. Senior Housing. Local government should encourage developers to create .
attractive "senior housing" as an alternative for occupants of older, under-utilized
homes. The result would be a greater availability of older yet more affordable
single family units. In addition, the Task Force recognizes the need for expanded
efforts by local agencies to utilize existing rehabilitation programs to maintain our
current affordable housing stock.
4. Government/Employer Incentives. Employers and government should be
encouraged to participate in the effort to provide more affordable housing to our
current and future workforce. Involvement with various public and private
agencies may be needed to implement these options.
a.) Employer incentives. In many parts of the country, employers are
attracting and retaining workers by offering assistance to employees who .
agree to complete a certain period of employment through providing home
mortgage down payments, housing allowances, or interest rate buy downs.
In exchange for such assistance, the employee agrees to satisfactorily
continue employment with the firm for an established time frame.
b,) Community Land Trust Projects. Land c~sts have been identified as a
key barrier to developing an adequate supply of affordable housing, One
way to address this issue is to create a non-profit corporation to purchase
suitable property, build affordable housing on the site and sell the
structures (but not the land) to prospective buyers. The advantage to this
system, which has been utilized in Rochester, Minnesota, is that the cost
of the home does not include the land value. The homeowner has full .
30
. rights to the dwelling, and the incentive to maintain it, but the land
remains in the trust. Proceeds from the sale of the home only include the
value of the building; not the land. Rising land costs do not raise the price
of the home for subsequent buyers. Any financial subsidy from the
community goes to buy the land - and keeps the home pennanently
affordable. It should be noted, however, that the "community trust"
concept is very experimental and involves complexities both practical and
~ philosophical which may discourage its use in the area. Members of the
TaskForce had varying opinions regarding this concept.
c.) The Task Force encourages area cities to establish the appropriate entities
(eg. BRA's, EDA's, etc.) which can assist in providing affordable housing
. programs.
5) EducationJPubIic Acceptance. As part of the efforts of the Central Minnesota
Task Force on Affordable Housing, an education program is being developed
through the assistance of the Initiative Foundation. Details of this education effort
are found in Section VI. '
Local governments should undertake specific efforts to improve
communication with builders, developers, and other professionals involved in the
production of affordable housing. Cities and counties need to be sources of
solutions, not problems, for those producing affordable housing.
Community leaders should also undertake a public "education" effort to
explain the problems and promises of affordable housing.
.
31
,
. Without a plan for implementation, any knowledge that we may gather
about the problem of affordable housing, as well as any insight about solutions of
the problem, will be useless. Although the Task Force is the first truly joint effort
of the five cities and three counties in Central Minnesota to address affordable
housing, a number of other Task Forces and groups have studied this problem and
made recommendations in the past. For these reasons this final section of
recommendations of this report addresses both a process and a timetable for
implementation.
1. Endorsement of the Report - The Task Force recommends that each of
the five municipalities conduct a review of the report through its normal
. ,
review process with the consultation of their local planning and or zoning
. commissions. This process will hopefully end with a strong endorsement of
the report through a vote of each city council.
2. The Drafting Committee - Recommendations and policies must be
embodied in specific ordinances and other regulations within local
government. Following an endorsement of the goals of this report, we
recommend that the five cities create a "Draftipg Committee" to work out the
details of carefully crafted ordinances and regulations that would then be
submitted once again to each of the five municipalities. The Drafting
Committee should be comprised of about eight people: the planning director
(or an appropriate representative from the city) for each of the five cities, a
builder or developer active in affordable housing, a representative from a non-
. profit affordable housing agency, and a representative of the general public.
33
3. Adoption of Affordable Housing Ordinances - Once the Drafting ·
Committee has agreed upon the formulation of ordinances and regulations,
their report would be submitted back to each of the municipalities for review
by the appropriate commissions and approval by the five city councils.
4. Timeline - The timing of the implementation steps will depend on the
processes in each of the five cities, something which we cannot know with
certainty. Nonetheless, we recommend that the cities deal with this report and
-- vote to endorse its principles and to create a Drafting Committee by December
1,2000. The Drafting Committee could present its report by March 1,2001.
Presuming that Drafting Committee members keep their municipality's
planning commission and city council well informed during the drafting
process, a final decision by the city councils could occur before July 1, 2001. ·
;
·
34
.
.- VI. EDUCATION INITIATIVE
.
.
0
~
"
.
35
VI. Education Initiative ·
Included as part of the Task Force's work plan is a community education
initiative. This initiative won't accomplish Its goal of creating a healthy supply of
affordable housing in the 5t. Cloud area if the problems and solutions that have been
identified remain isolated within the Task Force report and left in a file cabinet
somewhere.
A sub-committee of the Task Force was created to spearhead the education
-
initiative: acquire funding, recruit knowledgeable experts to take the message to the
communities, and focus on how to get the message from the Task Force to public
officials and their constituents.
Funding sources were identified and grant applications were made. The Initiative ·
Foundation has pledged their support to the project. Housing experts will be used to
present the infonnation to both governmental and private groups. These experts will
come from local Housing and Redevelopment Agencies (BRA) and members of the Task
Force.
Education on this issue is very important to ensure thatall stakeholders of our
~
communities involved in guiding expected growth over the next 20-40 years work
together to enable households to obtain adequate housing at affordable prices.
Policymakers cannot make sound decisions unless they have a finn understanding of the
many elements involved in the issue. The education process will also serve to infonn
members of the public on these issues. The desired outcome is for both the public and
the policymakers to recognize the importance of the issue and to create a regional ·
36
. consensus on strategies which maintain a regionalhousing supply that meets the area's
needs and can be sustained for the foreseeable future.
The education initiative will be conducted in two stages. First, there will be a
meeting in each of the eight jurisdictions with each City Councilor County Board. Each
jurisdiction has been requested to have present all of the members of their organization,
both citizens and staff, that make decisions impacting housing development. This
includes:
· Members of the jurisdiction's planning and zoning commissions.
· . The Administrator for the jurisdiction.
· Building compliance officials.
· Governmental staff involved in housing/zoning & planning/or economic
. development.
· The Engineer and Public Works Director.
· Fire Chief and Police Chief.
· Any other staff who are involved in affordable housing (such as HRA staff).
It is the desire of this education process to help address conflicting views that affect
the supply of good affordable housing to citizens of the region. While the education
initiative will not be able to solve all onhe differences between stakeholders, it is hoped
that it will allow for an increased understanding by local officials of the rationale behind
otl}er positions. .
It is the belief of the members of the Task Force's education sub-committee that this·
process can produce a funer dialogue among the local policymakers. It is important that
. the needs and concerns of each agency in local government be recognized, but addressed
37
in the context of the community's needs for affordable housing. Reasonable ·
compromises in certain areas can effectively promote an increase in affordable housing
while still maintaining the health, safety, and residential qua1ity desired by agency
officials and the general pub1ic.
After the education sessions have been completed with the eight jurisdictions, a
second stage is plannedJor the education initiative to go to the community to so1icit
support from other opinion leaders outside government. The continual development of
affordable housing will require the extended commitment of local government officials
supported by a community sensitive to the issues identified.
Recognizing this need for support, the education initiative will ask the housing
professionals from the public and private sectors to meet with groups of professionals
that are involved in housing. These groups include: the developers and builders, bankers, ·
major employers, and Chamber of Commerce members in the region. Beyond those
groups the education initiative will meet with area service and civic organizations in the
region to so1icit their support for affordable housing and to en1ist them as advocates for
sound affordable housing po1ici~s throughout the region.
~
·
38
. ,
. ,,-. ~
.- VII. HOUSING INVENTORY
.
~
.
39
VII. Housing Inventory .
Recommended solutions and policies are only as good as the foundation upon
which they are built. The best policies have reliable data that accurately describes the
present situation and can be used to project outcomes in the future. During·the course of
the Task Force's deliberations a portion of time was spent ascertaining the available data
on housing in the area.
It was discovered that four of the area's cities do not have current data on
--
housing: Sartell, Sauk Rapids, S1. Cloud, and Waite Park. The exception was the City of
S1. Joseph, which recently c.ompleted a housing study. S1. Cloud's most recent housing
inventory is over 8 years old. Obviously, there has been tremendous growth in both
population and housing development within the last decade in S1. Cloud and throughout .
the region.
The Task Force has applied for funding from the four cities, the S1. Cloud Area
Economic Development Partnership and the Minnesota Housing Partnership to finance a
comprehensive housing inventory for the region. Results from this inventory will
complement a less detailed Maxfield Group study designed to gather less detailed data
~
for the entire State in the coming eighteen months.
In particular, the regional housing inventory will investigate demographic changes
in each community as they relate to population, households, age and income; employer
projected changes; building pennit data on single family and multi-family development;
and a survey of existing multi-family housing to identify vacancies, waiting lists, rents,
amenities, etc. From this data the cities will be able to identify gaps in the range of .
affordable housing for both single family and multi-family housing. This will allow the
40
. affected cities the opportunity to focus their attention toward needs specific to their
community.
The results of the inventory will be categorized by each community as weIl as by
the region as a: whole. Once funding for the inventory is s~cured, it is anticipated that
completion will occur within 90 days. Each local jurisdiCtion will be presented with
results of the study as they become available.
--
.
,
f
.
41
.
-- TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
APPENDIX 1
.
;
.
"
CENTRAL MINNESOTA TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
Marty Reker President Builders Reker Construction, fuc.
203-9005 Reker Construction, fuc. 100 Second Ave. S., Suite 104
Sauk Ra ids, MN 56379
Leo Sand President Developers Sand Companies
202-3100 Sand Companies PO Box 727
Waite Park, MN 56387
Bob Coborn, Jr. President Developers 217 Osseo Ave. N.
253-1640 Coborn Land Com an St. Cloud, MN 56303
Linda Brown Brown & Herkenhoff Engineers Developers 118 12 Ave. N.
259-1234 . and Surve ors St. Cloud, MN 56303
Jill Magelssen District Coordinator Employers 3400 First S1. N., Suite 101
251-1924 Man ower St. Cloud, MN 56303
MarJe Braegelmann Senior Vice President Bankers Liberty Savings Bank
252-2841 Liberty Savings Bank 111 Seventh Ave. S.
PO Box 40
St. Cloud, MN 56302
Bob Swanberg Executive Director lIRA's Steams County HRA
685-7771 Stearns County !IRA 312 N. First St., Suite 2
Cold S rin , MN 56320
Marshall Weems Executive Director lIRA's 619 Mall Germain
252-0880 St. Cloud !IRA St. Cloud, MN 56301
an Finn Professor of Economics Great River futerfaith 5911 RoIling Ridge Rd.
)3-3048 St. John's Universit Partnershi St. Cloud, MN 56303
Mike Schoenecker President S1. Cloud Area Ec. AdM ark Resources, Inc.
251-1300 AdMark Resources, fuc. Dev. Partnership 1411 St. Germain S1. W., Suite 250
St. Cloud, MN 56301
Pauline Carlson or Executive Director Central MJ'. Housing Central MN Housing Partnership
Cindy Hedlund Central MN Housing Partnership Partnership 810 St. Germain St. W.
259-0393 PO Box 2222
St. Cloud, MN 56302
Dottie Liszka Division Director , Human Services Stearns County Human Services
656-6075 Stearns County Human Services County Administration Center
705 Courthouse Sq.
, St. Cloud, MN 56303
Jim IlIies Property Managers 300 E. St. Germain St.
252-2000 St. Cloud, MN 56304
Patti Gartland City of St. Cloud 400 S. Second St.
255-7218 St. Cloud, MN 56302
Chad Carlson Economic Development Director City of St. Joseph PO Box 668
363-7201 5t. Jose h, MN 56374
Miles SeppeIt Economic Development Director City of Sartell PO Box 140
253.;2171 Sartell, MN 56377
Laurie Kramka Administrative Assistant City of Sauk Rapids 115 N. Second Ave.
251-6305 Sauk Ra ids, MN 56379
on Euteneuer Building Inspector City of Waite Park 512 Third S1.
1-2852 Waite Park, MN 56387
l~ancy Hoffman Economic Development Director Benton County PO Box 129
968-5071 Fole , MN 56329
Alex Wikstrom Economic Development Director Sherburne County 13880 Highway 10
241-2744 Elk River, MN 55330
**Facilitators: Jeff Schlin mann, The Partnershi Executive Director and Geor e Rindelaub, Stearns Count Administrator
1
.'
.
'E~
10 (,) ...
>-ca~ Ü') 0 Ü') 0
Q) ..a ... ,... (') ,... ,...
-a'Q)O
.- en (,)
(J) -
-a~_
m (,) E
>- 10 .;: 0 0 0 0
Q) ..a Q)
- - ,... ,... ,... ,...
(/) -aQ)e
C èñ en .-
0 'E~
:¡::: '" '"
10 (,) ~ '" ~
0 0 0
>- 10 0 tft. 0 10
.....0 !2 0 (') N
- 10- ::--
:J Q) Q) 10 N CO
-- a: en N ,...
(J)
(]) -a
~ ...~
10 (,)
>- 10 Ü') Ò Ò io
(]) -.0
e- N (') (,)·N
o Q)
.N ...en
- - U-
N en
- Q)
X +- 0 ~
..J -
0 a..
. TI E ò 0 0 Ò CD
-I 0 "0
;:, 0 0 0 0 -
C E 0 ~ 10 0 .Q
0 Ø) ,... cñ cñ
(]) :5 ,... ëü
(]) :E -
Q. 0
-
~ -
0..« - 0
0 CD
..J C)
«~ E en
Ò io 0 -
0 ;:, s::
E (II N N I N I CD
._ C ..... ,... ..... e
C e CD
:Ë a.. .
0 en
(/)
(/) - en
-¡:: 0 ~
..J ... (,)
0 E (II en
io ..a
Q. ;:, e I I Co Ò -
E 0 co ..... (') CD
ï: (J (/)
E ....
:Ë en
CD
0 ....
- CD
0 0 ~
-
..J CD
E:5 -
io io io io en
;:,"C (,)
E- "'" "'" "'" "'" '5
-== .5:
.E (/)
:æ Q)
0>
1/1 en
-
.= -a ~ s::
- Q)
-a ...
;:, Q) 10 10 e
0 1/1 - a: a. Q)
Õ 0 '¡j ~ CD a..
. , 1:: - CD
;:, ëã ~
...; ...; 10 as
en en (J) en :¡: I-
..
oS> Va
~ø- .~~
,va v~
~~ ~
Þ-,I, /~
. "<9- . ,vv.
'<-œ ~0 .
9-<9 .V',
,ov. '1.
~ <?o<
~~
c9 'iI'~
Vv. 9y
~
~ ~ó1
?i!'~ i!'~
9y .s'c9
/, .~
~~. .~
<9- c9<$- ~
iI'~~ ,0<9
~? ?~
<>' .~
c9~ 9~
9y \S'
oS> ,0<9
~~ ?~
·~v .~
. ~ ~
V' ~ú'
c9"'<?
0-r;
,0 ~~
v~ ·v<9-
~ V. œ
>< v"'<? ~é \S'
<9ú' ~
.- "'0 ó: ~v.
... ~v. ~i!' 7-
CO ~ .~
-1à 9y c'
:2: ~v. ot:
° <9~
10 v~
Þ- <9- 0...,
iI'~
s::::: Vo 9y
- c .~~
. . .- CI) <9- v~
.~ ( ) Q) '<-0 <5'v. ~
::J () ~ó: .~~ -'Vé .
0 ';:: '1-<9- "l œ vc9
.- il'v..'Y.; x
1J J: Q) ~a ~
.s'v. í) <9v.
s::::: (f) ~o> ~ '1fo
CO Q) <9- .iI'~
CI.) '<-0 9y
CI.) ..c ~/<?
~ a:s .'0
<C v<9.
« a:s '<-~
1J > °0
« .s'v.
::J ~o
0 '>
<9- va <9~
- '<-a .~~ 9y x x x x x x
0 ~ ~~
/é·'9é
. '~-~~~~~~~~~'~R~n~
... -'~ '<-~ ¡s. fJ l· ! j . <. ',1, ¡'~;~' c. 'j ," ,·'i
en <9~ °0 ~ .- ,<;.j) i~,t~j, i ' -J;.' ~ : Ie '~::,; ~]: >~l '1
<9""0 ~: .,~ ,'. ,":,,' f:~' ~' F"; 1., :1:· ~' ~J
vQ'~' ;....~~.-..:;¿jî....~~Lill ~J~d~":_~dJ:-:¿ L""
ó: 7<9- cñ
~.s'~ '<-9y X X XX X XX cD
<..>
9y .~
-1Q. cD
(f)
~ ~~~~~~U~~m~~H~~~ C>
~ ;~' i r - ¡: : j, ~. 1. 'J.', ~ ; '.. r f.'1 c::
<9. ..> _ J._ > ~_ .. <!.,o,>'" ',..." _ ~ 1 ~...", ¡...., . 1 ',.}-Io '5
~ '.,r<þ " ~t J -:¡>~i, t~1" >j~. t"Oo~' ;'~l ~¡,. f'1; ~~ .', '.', f t"'1 'S;
e
~¡L:J ;3 'dL0iJ~' : '. j.,~ :.2'];....," ':., .' ~ :'~ c..
~~ OL~ ~~",,~L ~~_"j~_.:.L.:~~~~ (f)
cD
'ü
c::
cD
C>
co
Õ
~ C>
. . .!;
15 ]?
D! Q; co
ë ~ Õ c:: .E
cD ë¡¡
('. "0 ã5 cD
c:: => ëñ
- .~ .c 0 -c
(f) cD en ëñ
:E E E - cD "3
cD cD Q;
ë -c cD Q; 0 E cD E cD 1: .s::
<C ~ ~ :ë .s:: E 0 E co Õ
(f) e c:: 8 <..> ë
(f) -c co co ~ ~ cD 0 c:: 0
0 cD cD c.. c:: <..> ~ c.. ,§ .!; <..> .- <..> .~ cD
Q; Q; cD cD ~ 'E :ë cD '0 .!; cD .!; :5
:J: E :t:: "ª "§> cD cD cD co '5 E ~ cD :;: 'õ ~ 0 cD
c:: ã5 "0 (f) ~ X "0 Q; cD
~ 0 co c:: .s:: 0 0 :Ë
:I: CD èi5 èi5 > u ill Õ U :I: ü: ü: -' :I: u. en
.
PROGRAMS ·
Emergency Housing: Utilities Assistance:
Salvation Army 252-2229 Salvation Anny 252-4552
Anna Marie's Woman House 253-6900 Tri-CAP 251-1612
Landon Place Family Shelter 252-1018 County Human Services 656-6000
Home Improvement: Housing Search and Information:
Rural Development 255-9111 First Call for Help 252-3474
Tri-CAP 251-1612 See "Realtors" in the Yellow
Housing and Redevelopment Authority 252-0880 Pages
Stearns County HRA 685-7771 See "Apt Findings" in the
Yellow Pages
Housing CounselingIHome Ownership Training:
Central MN Housing Partnership 259-0393 Commercial Home Loans:
Place of Hope 203-7881 See "Loans" or "Mortgages" in
the Yellow Pages
Special Care Facilities: See "Realtors" in the Yellow
Recovery Plus 255-5613 Pages
Path Sober Housing 656-1550
New Beginnings 255-1252 Commercial Home Rehabilitation:
Central MN Mental Health Center 252-5010 See "Contractors-Remodel and Repair"
and "Loans" in the Yellow Pages ·
Subsidized Home Purchase:
Rural Development 255-9111 Financial Education:
Habitat for Humanity 230-0756 Caritas 252-4121
Housing and Redevelopment Authority 252-0880 Tri-CAP 251-1612
Stearns County HRA 685-7771 Village Financial Resource Center
253-5930
Home Loans:
Rural Development 255-9111 Housing Advocacy
Housing and Redevelopment Authority 252-0880 (advocacy and/or vouchers):
Habitat for Humanity 230-0756 Central MN Council on Aging 253-9349
See "Loans" in the Yellow Pages Independent Lifestyles 529-9000
SAIL 251-1404
Tenant Education: Bridges 259-0380
Tri-CAP 251-1612
Central MN Housing Partnership 259-0393
Subsidized Rental Housing:
Rural Development 255-9111
Housing and Redevelopment Authority 252-0880
Housing Coalition 259-7676
Stearns County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 685-7771
Housing and Redevelopment Authorities: ·
St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority 252-0880
Stearns County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 685-7771
07/13/00
,. ,-
v i.
'"
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
Building Permits 2000
Permit # Name Address Project Value
00-01 Jeffrey Jones 22 -12th Ave SE Remodel $4,000
00-02 Thor Larson 403 Gumtree St E Remodel $14,000
00-03 AI Stellmach 8850 Ridgewood Rd Fence N/A
00-04 Mike Lyon 1206 Dale St E new home $130,000
00-05 Aggressive Builders 521 Fir St E new home $93,000
00-06 Jessy McKenzie 305 Gumtree St E Fence NJA
00-07 Eric Beckius 128 -12th Ave SE Remodel $5,000
00-08 Mark & Joan Loch 1110 Dale St E new home $95,000
00-09 ~. Kathy Felix 314Pond View Lane Deck $2,000
00-10 David & Stacey Anderson 104 -13th Ave SE Remodel $5,000
00-11 Marc Vadnais 311 -11th Ave SE Fence N/A
00-12 Dan & Jodi Reehr 105 Able Court E New home $140,000
00-13 Jason Goerger 106 Able Court E New Home $100,000
00-14 Gary Schleicher 503 Gumtree St E Fence $2,000
00-15 Lumber One Avon 614 - 5th Ave NE New home $92,000
00-16 John Cipolla 600 - 3rd Ave NE Garage $17,000
00-17 Mark A Grafft 1219 Ca Court Deck $2,100
- -
-
00-19 Melvin Majerus 515 Fir St E New home $100,000
00-20 Dan Heimminger 1216 Callaway St E Garage $5,500
. 00-21 Glen Faber 19 -17th Ave SE Garage $6,000
00-22 S1. Joseph Lab School 32 Minnesota St W Remodel $5,000
00-23 Rodney Welch 1211 Dale St E New Home $130,000
00-24 Dom Fischer 1308 Dale St E New home $120,000
00-25 Aagressive Bldrs 601 - 5th Ave NE New home $100,000
00-26 Aggressive Bldrs 606 Fir St E New home $100,000
00-27 Heid Construction 113 Able Court E New home $106,000
00-28 James Davidson 325 Cypress Drive Deck $1,000
00-29 Marvin Feld 417 College Ave N Accessory $500
00-30 Rob Schmidt 116 - 12th Ave SE Fence N/A
00-31 CSB 37 College Ave Multi-Family $3,000,000
00-32 CSB 37 College Ave Remodel $350,000
00-33 Kirsten Tatge 119 -13th Ave SE Deck $1,500
00-34 David Ismir 405 -10th Ave SE Remodel $6,000
00-35 Mike Deutz 33 Minnesota St W Remoidel $5,000
00-36 Mike Murphy 136 - 9th Ave SE Remodel $19 000
00-37 Leann Wilsey 300 Pond View Lane Remodel $10,000
00-38 Victor & Lori Rojas 603 - 2nd Ave NE Utility Shed $1,000
00-39 st. Joe-Cold Spring Vet Clinic 809 CSAH 75 W Addition $270,000
0Q-40 Kelly Jacobson 611 - 4th Ave NE Deck $500
00-41 Les MarQuart 1211 Cary Court Deck $1,000
00-42 Eddie Och 116 - 6th Ave NW Fence $1,000
00-43 Church of St. Joseph 33 Minnesota St W Addition $190,000
00-44 Aggressive Bldrs 521 Fir St E Remodel $7,500
. 0Q-45 Tom & Margaret Hughes 128 Able Court E New home $100,000
00-40 Kelly Jacobson 611 - 4th Ave NE Deck $500 .
00-41 Les Marquart 1211 Cary Court Deck $1,000
00-42 Eddie Och 116 - 6th Ave NW Fence $1,000
00-43 Church of St. Joseph 33 Minnesota St W Addition $190,000
00-44 AQgressive Bldrs 521 Fir St E Remodel $7,500
00-45 Tom & Margaret Hughes 128 Able Court E New home $100,000
00-46 Lori & Lany Jensen 107 -7th Ave NW Deck $2,000
00-47 Kenneth & Audrey Kelley 112 - 13th Ave SE Deck $1,100
00-48 Mark Loso 806 Able St E Deck $1,500
00-49 Vic West Steel 31084 Joseph St Remodel $21,000
00-50 Richard Mondloch 1219 Able St E Deck $2,000
00-51 Cletus Walz 119 -12th Ave SE Garage $5,000
00-52 Kevin Schulzetenberg 121 - 7th Ave NNW Deck $2,000
00-53 Richard Taufen 32 - 2nd Ave NW Utility Shed $1,200
00-54 Mike Chirhart 402 - 11th Ave SE Garage $5,000
00-55 Steve Boyer 1206 Cary Court Deck $1,500
00-56 Stephen Rudukki 522 Fir St E New Home $90,000
00-57 Amy Harren 128 - 6th Ave SE Remodel $1,000
00-58 Nadine Eller 421 Ash St W Fence N/A
00-59 Deb Hurttgam 605 - 3rd Ave NE Fence N/A
00-60 Jeny Ramler 123 - 12th Ave SE Garage $5,000
00-61 Jason Reinert 606 Gumtree St E New Home $113,000
00-62 Aggressive Builders 510 Fir St E New Home $120
00-63 Mary Kolodjeski 709 - 2nd Ave NE Utility Shed $2,000
00-64 Tina Terhhar 108 - 12th Ave SE Deck $1,200 .
00-65 Scott Sand 1213 Able St E Garage $3,000
00-66 Donlar Construction CSB Lourdes Hall Remodel $583,800
00-67 St. Joe Gas & Bait 21 Birch St W Addition $16,500
00-68 Ben Thelen 210 Birch St E new home $62,000
00-69 George Wochnick 705 - 3rd Ave NE Deck $1,500
00-70 CSB Gertrude Hall 37 College Ave S Remodel $150,000
00-71 CSB Murray Hall 3 College Ave S Remodel $100,000
00- 72 Adam Zimny 19 - 1st Ave NE Remodel $500
00-73 Sara Seifert 607 - 2nd Ave NE Patio $1,200
00-74 Jim & Renee Jopp 708 Baker St E Garage $10,000
00-75 Dan & Karen Wipler 129 Able Court E New home $100,000
00-76 Myron Traut 302 - 10th Ave SE Remodel $500
00-77 Knight Builders 35 College Ave N Garage $4,000
00-78 John Coppage 105 - 12th Ave SE Addition $3,500
00-79 steams County HRA 125 - 10th Ave SE Utilty Shed $1,000
00-80 City of St. Joseph 25 College Ave N City Hall $245,840
00-81 MalVin Schmitz 114 - 5th Ave SE Remodel $12,000
00-82 Dennis Stueve 111 Able St E Garage $12,000
00-83 Charlie Burg 813 Minnesota St E Remodel $43,000
00-84 Ed Och 116 - 6th ave NW Fence N/A
00-85 Kim Rudolph 1103 Dale st E Utility Shed $500
00-86 Christine Zumdome 142 - 9th Ave SE Deck $900
00-87 David Schramel 144 - 9th Ave SE Deck $900
00-88 Tom Lemmer 30813 Joseph St Commercial $54,000 .