Loading...
2002-12 Westwind Townhomes ReportWestwind Townhomes Albertville, Minnesota Submitted by: 2355 Polaris Lane North, Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55447-4853 Telephone (763) 354-5500 i~ r i~ i~ WESTWIND TOWNHOMES County Road 37 Albertville, MN OVERVIEW Central Minnesota Housing Partnership and Dominium are proposing to develop a 40- unit townhouse project adjacent to Albertville Meadows on County Road 37. Dominium has owned Albertville Meadows (72 units) since the mid-1990's. Dominium will manage the two properties from a single free-standing clubhouse to be constructed on the townhouse site. The developer will be applying to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for tax credits in order to provide $5.7 million of equity for the project. OWNERSHIP ENTITY The General Partner of the ownership entity will be comprised of: 1) Central Minnesota Housing Partnership, Inc. (hereinafter called CMHP); and 2) the four principals of ' Dominium Development & Acquisition, LLC (hereinafter called Dominium). Dominium owns the adjoining Albertville Meadows property which was acquired through foreclosure in the mid-1990's. Dominium is the largest privately-owned owner/operator of apartment communities based in the Minnesota with over 15,000 units in 13 states. Dominium has been in business for 35 years and prides itself in providing ' safe, quality housing for our tenants. We strive to be a good neighbor to the community and we actively screen tenants for credit and crime as well as implement zero-tolerance policies for tenants that have issues that are not conducive to the community. We have included references from the Wright County Sheriff's Office and the Deputy City Administrator for Champlin. 1 CMHP is anon-profit housing development corporation servicing 16 counties in central Minnesota providing four general categories of services: 1) home ownership; 2) rental housing; 3) preservation of affordable rental housing; and 4) CMHP serves as a resource ' provider that links vital housing services to families in need. CMHP has 600 units of rental housing in their own portfolio. CMHP provides education and financing to first time home buyers. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We are proposing 40 townhouse units on Lot 1, Block 1, Westwind Third Addition. This is a 4.25 acre site, so the density is 9.4 units/acre. Highlights of the proposed development are: 1) Hard construction costs of approximately $150,000 per unit; ii ~i J i 2) $5.7 million of tax credit equity that enables a higher quality product than a market-rate developer could afford to build; 3) Durable exterior with 25% brick/stone and 75% Hardi-plank siding; 4) 30-year architectural shingles (Timberline or equivalent); 5) High-speed Internet connections; 6) Energy Star appliances 7) Free-standing clubhouse with management offices (both Albertville Meadows and Westwind Townhomes will be managed from a single office); 8) Playground with equipment adjacent to clubhouse; 9) Each unit will have two-car garage (21' x 22'); 10)Off-street guest parking spaces (approximately 12) 11) Large units: a) 2 bedroom units at 1,369 square feet; 2) 3 bedroom units at 1,369 square feet; and b) 4 bedroom units at 1,865 square feet. ' L EM RAPHI RENTA D OG CS The developer is proposing to apply to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for an allocation of 9% housing tax credits. The tax credits will provide an equity ' infusion of approximately $5.7 million into the project enabling high quality construction. ' The tax credits place rental and income restrictions on the property, specifically the tenants must be at or below 60% Area Median Income. The following table outlines that qualifying incomes for the proposed Westwind Townhomes, assuming families of 3 to 7 ' people, range from $42,420 to $58,380. This income range is typical of the surrounding community as a whole. The rental demographic typically includes workers holding service jobs (the outlet mall), light manufacturing and construction workers. INCOME LIMITS (60% OF METRO AREA MEDIAN INCOME) 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 Persons 7 Persons $42,420 $47,100 $50,880 $54,660 $58,380 We will be targeting the project to families at or below 60% of the metro area median income. There would also be four units made available to non-profit service groups that work with families needing rental assistance and services. The following tables outline rent and income limits for 3 and 4 bedroom townhomes. As you can see, the rents limits 1 are at the high end of the existing Albertville rental market. n RENT LIMITS (60% OF METRO AREA MEDIAN INCOME) 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms $$1,060 $1,224 $1,366 ' REFERENCES Attached is a letter from the Wright County Sheriff's Office re: Albertville Meadows. Dominium purchased this property out of foreclosure and has owned/operated the property since the mid-1990's. Prior to Dominium purchasing the property, it is my ' understanding that there were significant issues at Albertville Meadows. Based on the attached letter, the Sheriff's Department is not concerned with Albertville Meadows and is commending Dominium Management Services, Inc. ' The City of Champlin Deputy City Administrator has also supplied a reference letter. Dominium purchased a 72-unit project in 2006 named Elmcreek Apartments. This ' project is adjacent to Champlin Drive Apartments, a 72-unit project that Dominium has owned since the mid-1990's. The combined 144-unit property has been significantly ' rehabbed and is operating smoothly. Attached are photos of a 34-unit townhouse project (Brookstone) that Domimum developed in 2000. This project is located in Hudson, WI. fl n ~I I u J ~I i~ i~ 1-- ' ' S.A.H. N0.37 ' ii 7 ~~ u ~~~ n 7 L 0 30' 60' 120' PROPOSED ALBERTVILLE TOWNHOMES-(40 UNITS+COMMUNITY RM) TRUE DOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT NORTH B.K.V. ARCHITECTS PROPERTY AREA = 4.94 ACRES DATE: 5/11/07 PLAN NORTH 5~.8yoov~nu S"2o99 `~iw~ .. a 4 ., M ~ ~ - o °~w~°5`S'ssoS~~Cm~o~~`l'S i` z~ ~. "eoa~e~S °~~.~.~~~ °c°c.:$o.. ~ Val M. of a O LLy~_ Nym `°w~`~"°_~a4o..Qo°FsA:Y tg° u~a.c N ~a oa " n ev, ~~ m o~$~. Y w c z~SEpemx~v~ °° ~YMy4 Q a ro ~; B..B °i a e'8 « 9 $a ~ w `~~ LL c5,q u o P. NJ'J-1-.1- J.1-1- $yY~ 9 .~S1,S ~iF q~~io y.y GY+vi Ci / // ' '•~' J FI Fn~mY U.~b1~9n~o" pRLn wux ~ f/// Q ~ ~// ~~. A ~~~ j~' ~~ / ~ v6~4 +yYl ~~\.. "~ ~ V . ~ Q " cJ q ~F` ^ pAO ~.--~ ~ ter. s e 2 ~ x / •\\ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ " T ~ 9 ~~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ °o ~~ ~, ~ • e • ~ Q ~ q~~o s W 'm m a / ,pJ Rf 7" e / o r"~~ ~ y y oo ' Z ~ m ~ ~" p_ ~ ~~ °o~ F2S ~ (i cT/V{ ~ ~~ !-+ _ e $a ~y(a ~ \I~ ~~.~ 'i; ~ >b1Sac a r r /T ~ ~ of~ ss " a s 3T ~. arr A, (7 4M ., -- / x ,~.. t / -;,• `~,.~<~:,, off. oi~ man / r .'' ,~ ~ Y~yl + i/,~q ',//mar/i~// U'P - F ~ .:>~ _S ~ 0 ~'~ 6 zf ~~ z/ 3 ,~~ ~ 4 /~ .yy f I ~ o /, w / r~ ~ `sL. ~ I 1 J /i '/ / I / ~. } • ~ ~ 1\\ s~ ii 1 ' oeess - ',"n~a is I / ~ ./ ~' ..~\ ~ ~~''ts ~ r"°a' is ~a•N c tt I / r / / ~ x , -~- s a ., ~ i /~ `~ ~: ~' i~ ~~ ~ ``+, :~" ~ ~t 1 _ "' ~ , -- -~ ~, :. ~~~ 3 ~ x.. :._. ,~., ~~ in ~ - ~ ~ ~ a ~ , iii s v~~ ~ ,3 ~ <~ ,~ ~ ~~ ca ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ {t ~t ~f ~~ ~{ ~~ i~ ~f 7~ ~I .~.__ Si°~_..,.._m~..~ i! II ~, ~~ 17 w ~' a /~t 6fw ,,~~~{ \*! y~ W ..1 ?~W ~ p ~c ~ ~ ~~ ~ar ~ a ~ /hi mmwxweF.. ~... ...........n> .<.a t is i ._. h' ~ ~ ~~ ._, ~ ~ ,. ., t u.....~,.... ti~ (.til L~ .,j ~: ( ~:W !i h ~ ~ ~ItJ ~ ..i 3Sti E ' , . -" .~. ~ _ ~~. ;a` i j :. . - ,-~ }~_ .,~,~.~. ;~: 1j i.', _._.. ,1 it ~ ~R. UhIIT ~!~-~N ~E`1lEL. F~C~-~?~k PLAh1 AGE db2 S.k`, if ~ _- ' I ~j ~1 f - V ~_ ~~ r `f~ .. ~.... ..yp`1 1 N ~j ~ ~i. L`_ u' ~' r~_-; _ 1 ~ ~ ~ r°^ ; ~? .~ ._ ~ ~-R. t,.l'N[T UPPER LEYEL ~=L.C'~C7R PLAN 118'-f-0' C~tOSS FlN!$NED /,RfA ~~ a,~ GROSS UNEINISNE[D {R~Ji N,t~X ~~. <n ,: r _~Y ~ ~. _ - _..r,. __. ..}_,., ~_ -. L. - a ,^° ' ^ - ._.' .f `., , ._..~ w :=rY- ~. ~ r .~_ • iE I, ~ ~~ f _ ~ jg 1 ~~ , ~ . ;'~ 3y ' k3 ~ ~R# tJ~~T MAIN ~E'Y`E~. F~t~~1~t I'LA~!' U8' - t-cr moss ~ru~sr;~> ~R~x GfR.A.C.'E, fif- r t ~~ ~ ,~ ~ E II -=~1~1~ 2 Bpi. LC?F7' UPPER i_EV~L FL.t~C~R P'~1N 118' • f`-{?" 37'~- ~.~. cuss ur~~N,sx~ ~r~A f~JA .. _ _ru_~_ ___.. _ _. . ,, ~-~ ~~ ,~ ~` • A e ~~ ~~ = I~=a A 4 l R /l 1 ~~~ ~. i 4 ~~ O N L Q~ 1 ^L ~v ~/i}/'L~~ W O i O /^' `~ W •~ (^~'1) [~W\] ~i '~ Jl ;. .'~~ , i i. ,* Y ,; .h~ .~' :. -..,, `~ I }}}~ ~ .. .~~.. I, i' ~ _ m; ~~ 0 A O ~~ O ^1 W W N N ~.~. Resident Selection Criteria ~ .. Do~~~v~U~u A Security Deposit or a Letter of Guarantee from a local agency and the non-refundable Application Fee/s are ' required to hold an apartment off the market. Anon-refundable Application Fee will be required of each person of age unless prohibited by local governing agencies. No application will be processed without first having collected the said Security Deposit/Letter of Guarantee and the non-refundable Application Fee/s. A rental application, credit and criminal report must be processed on all Prospective residents 18 years of age or older. Applications will not be approved from un-emancipated minors and/or persons under the age of 18. ' Each applicant must provide a valid local, state or federal government issued photo identification at the point of application for verification purposes. ' Each member of any given household will need to disclose and document all social security numbers or execute a certification when a social security number has not been assigned. If a member of the household is under 18 years of age, their parent or guardian will need to execute the certification. I. Income/Employment -The gross income per apartment for a Section 42 community must be approximately 2.5 times the amount of the resident's portion. of the market rent, but the household income cannot exceed the Maximum Household Income Guideline. The gross income per apartment for a Market Rate community must be approximately 3 times the ' amount of the resident's portion of the market rent. Sources of income must be verifiable through a 3`d party source. We may require a copy of the previous years' tax return/W2, four consecutive and most recent paycheck stubs, or I2 consecutive and up to the present months' bank statements. Applicants applying at a Section 42, a Section 236, a Project ' Based Section 8 or at a community of combined affordable programs are required to disclose all sources of income. II. Rental History/Credit -Applicants must provide current residency information including any out of state residences during the past five years. Each applicant's credit report must reflect an overall good standing. If an applicant takes ' exception with the credit findings, the applicant is responsible for and has the right to contact the credit reporting agent/agencies. In the event the discrepancy can be cleared up, the applicant will be considered on the basis of the new information. A lack of credit and/or rental history, as opposed to poor credit and/or rental history; will not result in an ' automatic decline. III. Criminal History -Anyone having a criminal history involving crimes of physical violence to a person or property, ' or a record of other criminal acts, which may endanger the health, safety, or welfare of other residents and/or management personnel. Options available to applicants that have been Accepted With Conditions - In the event, based on the overall review of information (received during the interview related to eligibility, received on the application and the information contained in a consumer credit report obtained from SafeRent, Inc. Consumer Relations) the Community in which the applicant has applied at decides to not accept the application under our standard lease terms (Accept with Conditions) the ' following choices may be available to the applicant based on the type and location of the community in which the applicant has applied at: A. The applicant can reapply with a Co-signer/Guarantor. The Co-signer/Guarantor must reside within the state the Community is located in and must complete an application, pay any/all applicable application fees, meet all of the requirements listed on the Resident Selection Criteria, and must sign all required paperwork BEFORE the applicant/resident moves in, ' AND/OR; B. The application would be accepted upon the collection of an additional Security Deposit. ' Dominium Operations Policy and Procedures Manual Leasing 7-IS-03 1 A. Adverse information received during the interview related to eligibility, received on the application and the ' information contained in a consumer credit report or a criminal records report obtained from SafeRent, Inc. or from Rental History Reports Information Services, Inc. B. The applicant does not meet the requirements of the Resident Selection Criteria. ' C. Anyone having been and/or in the process of being evicted from a previous landlord for just cause. D. Falsification, misrepresentation or withholding of information or submission of inaccurate and/or incomplete information on any application or during the interview related to eligibility, award of preference for ' admission, family composition or rent. E. Anyone currently. in the process of filing bankruptcy. F. Refusal to comply with housing program requirements, policies and/or procedures. ' G. The household characteristics/number of occupants per apartment exceed the following guidelines: Studio 1 occupant 1 bedroom 2 occupants ' 2 bedrooms 4 occupants 3 bedrooms 6 occupants 4 bedrooms 8 occupants ' UWE HEREBY CONSENT TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY, IN WHICH I/WE HAVE APPLIED, THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED AGENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES, TO OBTAIN AND VERIFY MY CREDIT, CRIMINAL ' AND RELATED INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO LEASE TOME AN APARTMENT OR TOWNHOME. I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD I LEASE AN APARTMENT OR TOWNHOME, THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH I HAVE APPLIED AND ITS AGENT/S SHALL HAVE A ' CONTINUING RIGHT TO REVIEW MY CREDIT INFORMATION, RENTAL APPLICATION, CRIMINAL INFORMATION, RELATED INFORMATION, PAYMENT HISTORY AND OCCUPANCY HISTORY FOR ACCOUNT REVIEW PURPOSES AND FOR IMPROVING APPLICATION METHODS. ' UWE HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREE TO THE ABOVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF FROM WHICH MY/OUR APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED. Prospective Resident Date Prospective Resident Date Prospective Resident Date Prospective Resident Date ' Owners Representative Date ' Dominium Management Services, Inc. will not decline any applicant or prospective renter on the basis of race, color, sex, nafional origin, religion, familial status, handicap or affectional preferences. Dominium Management Services, Inc. hereby reaffirms our commitment to do business in accordance with the Federal Housing Law (Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) APP4ktVH1Yx ' ""`°' ""'~"' Amendments -October 1,1997. Dominium Operations Policy and Procedures Manual Leasing ' 7-IS-03 2 1~ City of 1 Cham lin p ,~~ a ~~_ 1 ~~ ~. ~..a, 11955 CHAMPLIN DRIVE, CHAMPLIN, MN 55316-2399 • (763) 421-8100 • ci.champlin.mn.us 1 1 May 22, 2007 1 1 To Whom It May Concern: It is my pleasure to recommend Dominium Management. ', 1 Dominium Mana ement owns and mana es a 144-unit a artment com lex in Cham lin. ~I g g p p p As an owner and manager, Dominium diligently screens their tenants and enforces a zero 1 tolerance approach towards violence and inappropriate behavior. During their tenure, Dominium has worked cooperatively with our Police Department to reduce service calls and improve our rental housing community. 1 If I can be further assistance in your consideration of Dominium as a ro ert mana er, P p Y g please do not hesitate to contact meat (763) 923.7.104. 1 Sincerel Y~ 1 .COX 1 De ty City Administrator 1 1 1 1 1 1 The City of Champlin is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Auxiliary Aids available upon request with 48-72 hours notice. g5/22/20a7 12:19 FAX 7634975396 MRY-22-2pD7 TUE 11;55 Ah1 Wright County Sheriff Joc HrYgurcy Chiai' Duprsty Ll[t'v© A~tillor Captain of bparsitiuns Cray 9brl7n Captain Jail tl[lntini~trntur p5 2.2 07 FAX hi0, 7636827610 ~.~'~~~ ~ C't~ urn ~' S'~er~i~ff's C~ffic~ Sheriff Gary L. Miller 10 end St, NVV ftoorn 170 Buffalo, MN 55313 1-500-362-367 ~`est: '753-G$2-7G 10 1]i9p[~tch Sewrds Clvtl ~aYrn[it3 YYYVCSCi~0Li0~6 Jail Ad 7ni, ~. Y1CL'it[1 Ayaia CclnL Nicole Crosby Manager Albertville McAdows 10740 CR 37 N'E Apt# 143 Albertville Mn. 55301 Nicole; thanks for tha phone call this a.m. Yt is apparent you have done well managing the Albertville Meadows apartment: complex file past several years. `W'e d0 handle a faw calls to spcoific residences as we da in neighborhoods And other housins sitt~tians. Since Tan iy` of X007 we have responde~d to 6 calls for service to the building, with three of the calls being to the same apartment unit during a short time frame. Albertville Meadows has not been an area or concern for our office far several years. 9~~ ~ ~4-l-~~ ~ ao2/avs P. O1 7Ga-G6•~-11G•> 7G9.(i92.7G22 ass-ras-7G~G 7G9-G8•~-7GF R 7G3~G82.7ri,~17 7G3-GSZ-7r~r~s ;ra.r,~.~--15~y C 0 ii ',~ u ~~~ r 0 0 u r n 7 7 ~'*~.v -: ^'1 rn-r~ -.-c7~-rr-~rrSC~"'~'" _ x~"r~lp"`,~.-"~.:f""~€~:-„z:. r F ~, t -~~'~ ~ d.. . y ` ~ ~ }~ 4 1.~ ,~ F TABLE OF CONTENTS Pale EXECUTIVE SL1IvIMARY 1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH Population Growth 14 Household Growth 16 Population by Age 18 HOUSEHOLD INCOME Household Income 23 Income by Age 24 Median Household Income 26 EMPLOYMENT 'Major Employers 29 Wages 29 Covered Employment 32 Employment(Unemployment 33 HOUSING DATA Age of Housing 35 Building Trends 36 Vacancy Rates 39 General Occupancy Rental Analysis 41 Elderly Rental Analysis 48 Single Family Housing 53 HOUSING DEMAND Introduction 56 Funding Resources for Housing Activities 59 LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS ' Table Number and Title Page 1 Po ul ti G th i W ht C t St d A 1980 2005 16 p a on row , r g oun y u y reas, to 2 3 Household Growth, Wright County Study Areas, 1980 to 2005 P l i A b W i h 18 opu at on ge, r y g t County, 1990 to 2000 19 4 Median Age, Wright County Cities, 2000 22 5 Household Income Data, Wright County, 1990 to 2005 24 6 Household Income by Age, Wright County, 2000 25 7 Median Household Income, Wright County Study Areas, 1990 to 2005 27 8 Major Employers, Wright County, 2001 30 9 Covered Employment by Industry, Wright County, 1990 to 2000 33 10 Employment and Unemployment Data, Wright County, 1990 to 2000 34 11 Age of Housing, Wright County 35 12 Building Permits, Wright County Cities, 1997 to 2000 37 ' 13 Homeowner and Rental Vacancy Rates, Wright County Cities, 2000 40 14 General Occupancy Rental Analysis, Wright County Cities, 2001 42 '~ 15 General Occupancy UtilitieslAmenities, Wright County Cities, 2001 46 16 Elderly Rental Analysis, Wright County Cities, 2001 49 17 Elderly Utilities/Amenities, Wright County Cities, 2001 52 18 Median Sales Price, Select Cities in Wright County, 1998 to 2000 54 19 Median Owner Occupied Value, Wright County Cities, 1990 55 20 Housing Demand, Select Cities in Wright County, 2000 to 2005 57 , Graph Number and Title Page 1 1 Population Growth, Wright County Study Areas, 1980 to 2005 15 2 Household Growth, Wright County Study Areas, 1980 to 2005 17 3 Age Distribution, Wright County Cities, 1990 to 2000 20 4 Household Income, Wright County, 1990 to 2005 23 5 Median Household Income, Wright County Study Areas, 2000 28 6 Wages and Housing Costs, Wright County 31 7 Age of Housing, Wright County 36 8 Median Sales Price of Existing Homes, Wright County, 1984 to 2000 53 I~ Wright County Housing Data _ _ December 2001 Executive Summary ' The Central Minnesota Housing Partnership worked with seven communities in 20Q1 to develop local housing plans for participating communities. This included the cities of Annandale, Cokato, Delano, Howard Lake, Monticello, Rockford and St. Michael. As part of this analysis ' data was also collected on other study areas located within Wright County. A total of eleven study areas were analyzed with a study area map found on page 3 through 13. The following study areas will be referenced throughout the document and include the following areas: ' Annandale Study Area City of Annandale, City of South Haven, Southside Township and Corinna Township Buffalo Study Area City of Buffalo, Buffalo Township and Chatham Township ~I r r 0 Clearwater Stud City of Clearwater and Clearwater Township Cokato Study Area City of Cokato, French Lake Township, Cokato Township and Stockholm Township Delano- Study Area City of Delano and Franklin Township Howard Lake Study Area City of Howard Lake, Middleville Township and Victor Township Maple `Lake Study Area City of Maple Lake, Maple Lake Township, Albion Township and a portion of Silver Creek Township Monticello Study Area City of Monticello, Monticello Township and a portion of Silver Creek Township Montrose Stud City of Montrose, City of Waverly, Marysville Township, and Woodland Township Rockford Study Area City of Rockford and Rockford Township St. Michael Study Area City of St. Michael, City of Albertville, City of Otsego, and City of Hanover. ' It is very important to note that most of the data found throughout the housing plan is in reference to these study areas and not specific municipalities. Information for specific municipalities will be noted in the study. I I~ n sin cem a Ol Wright County is located adjacent to Hennepin County and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as well as Sherburne and Stearns County and the St. Cloud Metropolitan Area. Many of the communities are locating inclose proximity to either St. Cloud or the Twin Cities resulting in an increased growth in households that are moving out of the metropolitan area and into the County and commuting to jobs in the Twin Cities. Wright County also has a diversity of industries that create local jobs as well. While areas throughout the County differ in housing costs and demand, most of the area has faced substantial population and household growth through the 1990s. In many cases this high demand has resulted in decreased vacancy rates and substantial increases in the cost of housing. In addition, many areas in Wright County have also experienced substantial increases in homeownership rates. The following housing analysis includes demographic information, housing information, and economic data. This information is meant to serve as a guide for the communities and other entities when considering potential additions to the housing market and improving the existing housing stock. It is important to note that the recommendations found within this study are based on housing conditions and research conducted at the time of the study and it does not take into account any external changes that would potentially change the outcome of the study. This would include such items as industry layoffs, governmental restrictions, zoning, etc. Information found in this report. is a summary of both countywide data and information found in individual community housing plans that participated in this activity. More detailed data and recommendations can be found in each community's individual housing plan. ~i z ~ ' 1241 i __. I23~ Clearwater Study Area ,- . ,I 151W - '"`1~17.aite Park S~C~`loud 23 ~ ~STC, ' 25. - ~antia X12 \..',.l .__._ -.._ sr 1.-. ' 12 12~ Howard Lake ~' i25i Oster Winsted ~~ ~, ,..~ , '~ ,..~ ~ New Germany it '' I~. 1251! I ~'~ ®2000 GDT_ Inc._ Rel. 0412000 ~. s 000 DeLorme. Street Atlas USA' ®2000 GDT, Inc., R.eL:''042000 - _ [ ~ ~~ Qntr se 12s~ - ~12r-- ---~ ~=a~e~~- ~ ~ ,2 Oster • _ 1251 Winsted Waterton ~. A 2000 DeLorme. Street Atlas USA- ®2000 GDT Inc. -Rel. 04/2000 -~ 55, Loretto `12, ~~ Ma ie Plain p Long I Orono '~12 ~' Crysta ~' ,.~.~< i Mound ~Minnet,~ I Sprin;~ Park _,,,~~'" St Bonifacius ~Exc _~ ~~ t7 }' 155 Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Population and Household Growth Population Growth Table 1 illustrates population growth trends in the study areas between 1980 and 2005. Information for the study areas will not equal the County total as some parts of the study area are located in adjacent counties. Projections are also developed through 2005 for these areas. One of the largest changes that has occurred aver the past ten years is the growth in the St. Michael study area. In 1990 this area was the third largest study area behind Buffalo and Monticello. Over the past ten years it has become the largest study area in the County with an 85.4% increase in population and the addition of 6,665 persons. There has also been substantial growth in the Monticello study area with a 34.7% increase in population during the 1990s. Growth in this study area exceeded that of the Buffalo study area, and Monticello is close to becoming the second largest study area in the County based on future projections. The Annandale study area has also experienced some notable increases. In 1980 it was the 8`t' largest study area with a population of 4,556. In 2000, the study area has become the fourth largest study area with a population of 6,997. For most study areas, growth trends between 2000 and 2005 will be similar to the level of growth experienced during the 1990s. In areas such as St. Michael, Delano, Maple Lake, Montrose, Iloward Lake and Clearwater growth is expected to exceed trends experienced during the 1990s. Overall, Wright County has exceeded projections that were developed for the area. According to County population projections developed in 1998, Wright County was projected to have a population of 84,060 in 2000. According to the 2000 Census, Wright County actually has a population of 89,986, an increase of 21,276 persons since 1990 fora 31% increase. This was 7% higher than projections made in 1998. 14 ''~ Q ~ -rj ~ ~ ~ 4Q ~" N ~ O C U ~ 0 ~ .., i. O O N O O O N O '--, ~~' ` i~ I i~ ,H.' p~-+~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~ 0 Q n ~ , _ W . 0 ' 0 0 V r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N .-, ~-+ .-~ ~~ right County Housing Data December 2001 Table 1 Wright County Study Areas Population Growth 1980-2005 Study Area 1980 1990 2000 2005 1980-1990 # % 1990-2000 # % 2000-2005 # St. Michael 9,66 12,42 20,46 26,05 2,760 28.5°/ 8,035 64.6°/ 5,595 27.3°/ uffalo 7,63 9,80 13,19 14,658 2,163 28.3°/ 3,397 34.7°/ 1,461 11.1°/ onticello 6,735 9,208 12,83 14,50 2,473 36.7°/ 3,62 39.4°/ 1,67 13.0°/ dale 4,55 5,541 6,99 7,71 985 21.6°/ 1,456 26.3°/ 719 10.3°/ ockford 5,55. 6,045 . 6,928 7,545 486 8.7°/ 883 14.6°/ 617 8.9°/ elano 5,19 5,451 6,611 7,20 259 5.0°/ 1,16 21.3°/ 593 9.0°/ a le Lake 5,43 5,893 6,41 7,175 455 8.4% 521 8.8°/ 761 11.9°/ okato 4,763 4,998 5,90 6,18 235 4.9°/ 902 18.0°/ 289 4.9°/ ontrose 4,27: 4,538 5,10 5,68 264 6.2°/ 571 12.6°/ 573 11.2°/ oward Lake . 3-,345 3,443 3,84 4,133 98 2.9°/ 40 11.7°/ 286 7.4°/ learwater 1,623 1,753 2,22 2,59 130 8.0°/ 473 27.0% 371 16.7°/ ri ht Coun 58,681 68,71 89,98 101,88. 10,029 17.1°/ 21,276 31.0°/ 11,898 13.2°/ Source: U.S. Census and Claritas, Inc. Household Growth Similar to population .growth, household growth has been strong throughout the County. Some areas have experienced extremely high levels of growth, especially the St. Michael study area which increased by 2,336 households during the 1990s, an increase of 96.6%. Monticello has also experienced a high level of household growth and in 2005 the area is projected to become the 2nd largest area exceeding Buffalo. In 1980, the study areas. of Annandale, Rockford, Delano, Maple Lake and Cokato were close to the same size. Since that time Annandale has grown at the highest rate, while Rockford, Delano and Maple Lake have also had strong increases. Cokato was the only study area that has not had the same level of growth.. The Montrose study area also experienced healthy increases and is expected to exceed the Cokato study area in 2005. ri C 16 O O N O O O N' r+ QI Q P'1 ~. ~ V > , ~ ~ :~ { ~. F o. ,, ,-, : ~ ' ; .; or - t t; - i ~ . - _.3 : ~ ~ ~ r 0 0 0 0 0 o o o ~ o: , o , o . ~,;. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ o o o . 0 0 0 0 o o: o: o o ~ _ ~ I I' right County Housing Data December 2001 Overall, Wright County has increased by 8,452 households during the past ten years, fora 36.7% increase. Through 2005 the highest levels of household growth will occur in St. Michael, Monticello and Buffalo. The largest percentage increases in households will occur in St. Michael, Clearwater, Delano, and Montrose. Household growth is one of the most important factors in relation to housing as it correlates to new housing units that are needed in a community. Table 2 Wright County Study Areas Household Growth 19R0-Zoos Study Area 1980 1990 2000 2005 1980-1990 # % 1990-2000 # % 2000-2005 # St. Michael 2,743 3,93 6,715 8,96 1,191 43.4°/ 2,7$1 70.7°/ 2,25 33.6°/ uffalo 2,54 3,38 4,524 5;08 83 32.8°/ 1,140 33.7°/ 558 12.3°/ onticello 2,073 3,06: 4,46 -.5,09 991 47.8% - 1,396 .45.6°/ 636 14.3°/ dale 1,63 2,06 2,643 3,00 423 25.8% 583 28.3°/ 363 13.7°/ ockford 1,68 2,015 2,434 2,68 329 19.5°/ 419 20:8°/ 253 10.4°/ elano 1,591 1,841 2,354 2,72 250 15.7°/ 513 27.9°/ 368 15.6°/ a le Lake .1,693 1,818 2,35 2,481 125 7.4% 536 29.5°/ 127 5.4°/ okato 1,593 1,71 1,972 2,08 11 7.3°/ 262 15.3°/ 112 5.7°/ ontrose 1,28 1.,49 1,823 2,10 212 16.6°/ 331 22.2°/ 283 15.5°/ oward Lake 1,09 -1,19. 1,402 1,521 9 8.6°/ 212 17.8°/ 119 8.5°/ learwater 503 59 806 94 89 17.7°/ 214 36.1°/ 13 17.2°/ ri t Coun 18,42 23,013 31,465 36,08 4,587 24.9°/ 8,452 36.7°/ 4,615 14.7°/ source: U.S. (:ensus and Claritas, Inc. Population by Age Table 3 illustrates the population by age for Wright County between 1990 and 2000. In 1990 the largest age group were those ages 25 to 44 which comprised 32.9% ofthe population: The second largest age segment were those ages 5 to 17 which comprised 23.5% of the population. u 18 r Wright County Housing Data December 2001 In 2000, these two age segments continued to comprise the largest shaze of the population, ..The 25 to 44 age segment increased by 29.8% during the 1990s. The 5 to 17 age segment increased by 26.9% during this same ;period. While these two age segments continued to comprise the lazgest groups, the percentage of these segments in comparison to the otal population declined during the past ten years as stronger,growth was seen in other age segments. The 45 to 54:age segment had the second largest numeric increase during the past ten yeazs with the addition of 4,420 persons fora 6b.2% increase. This was the highest percentage.. increase, while: the second largest increase was in the 55 to 64 age segment which increased by 2,414 persons fora 55.4% increase. Graphs on page 20-21 illustrate the population by age for the various cities in Wright County. Persons age 25 to 44 and children age 5 to 17 comprise the largest share of the total population. A few cfties have a large concentration of children age 5 to 17 including Cokato and South Haven.. South Haven is actually the only citythat has more persons age 5 to 17 than ages 25 to 44. Growth has been very strong in the cities in most age groups, although some of the communities have seen .declines in certain age segments. South Haven, Montrose and Maple Lake saw declines in the youngest age egment of children under five. The cities of Rockford and Waverly both lost young adults age 18 to 24. South Haven was the only city to lose older adults age 55 to 64. The largest declines in the communities occurred in younger. seniors~age 65 to 74 which declined in Montrose; Cokato, Otsego, Maple Lake and Hanover. Losses among older seniors age 75 and over occurred in Delano, Cokato, Clearwater, South Haven, and Waverly. Table 3 Wright County Population by Age 1990-2000 1990 # % 2000 # % Change # nder 5 6,209 ` 9.0% 7,455 8.3% 1,246 20.1°/ 5 to 17 16,176 . 23.5% 20,520 22.8% 4,344 26.9°/ 1'8 to 24 5,961 `8.7% 6,879 7.6% 918 15:4°/ 5 to 44 22,609 32.9% 29,341 32.6% 6,732 29.8°/ 5 to 54 6,681 9.7% 11,101 12.3% 4,420 66.2°/ 55 to 64 4,361 6.3% 6,775. 7.5% 2,414 55.4°/ S to 74 3,589 5.2% 4,114 4.6% 525 14.6°/ 5 to 84 2,345 3.4% 2,751 3.1% 406 17.3°/ 85+ 779 1.1°/a 1,050 1.2% ..271 34.8°/ otal 68,710 100.0% 89,986 100.0% 21,276 31.0°/ Source: 1990 and 2000 Census 19 Graph 3 Age Distribution City of Annandale 800 1400 700 1200 600 ~ 1990 1000 ^ 1990 500 ^ 2000 800 ^ 2000 400 300 600 200 400 100 200 O Under 5 to 17 18 to 2425 ro 4445 to 5455 to 6465 to 7475 to 84 B5+ 0 5 Under 5 5 to 17 1 B to 24 25 to 44 45 ro 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85+ ' Ci of Cokato Ci of Howard Lake ! 700 600 600 500 500 ^ 1990 400 ^ 1990 400 ^ 2000 ^ 2000 300 '' 300 200 200 _ 100 100 0 0 Under 5 5 to 17 18 ro 24 25 to 44 45 [0 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 65+ Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 ro 74 75 to 84 85+ I,' Ci of Monticello Ci of Rockford 3000 14oa 2500 1200 1000 '' 2000 ^ 1990 ^ 1990 8~ ^ 2000 ^ 2000 1500 600 1000 400 500 - 200 0 _ _ ~ Under 5 to 17 18 to 25 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85+ Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 24 25 ro 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 ro 74 75 to 84 85+ 5 24 44 54 64 74 84 ~ C f A 1 3500 1600 3000 1400 2500 1200 ~ 1990 ^ 1990 2000 ^ 2000 1000 ~ ^ 2000 800 1500 4 600 1000 400 5~ 200 O O Under 5 5 ro 17 18 ro 24 25 ro 44 45 ro 54 55 ro 6a s5 ro 74 75 ro 84 85+ Under 5 5 ro 17 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 ro 54 55 ro 64 65 to 74 75 ro 84 95+ Housing Data __ __ _ _ December 2001 Median Age Census data is also available on the median age of communities in Wright. County.. Table 4 illustrates. the median age in 2000. for all the cities in Wright County. Monticello, Montrose and Albertville all had a median,age under 30 years. The highest median age was found in Howard Lake at 37.1 years of age and Waverly at 35.3 years of age. Overall Wright County is an extremely young County with a high number of families with children.. The median age for the County in 2000. was 33.1 years of age. Inmost cases the median age has increased slightly or remained the same in the cities over the past ten years. Howard Lake experienced the largest increase in median age with an increase of 5.3 years of age. Cokato and Rockford were the only two communities to experience a decline in the median age over the past ten yeazs. Table 4 Wright County Median Age 2000 Median e owazd' Lake 37.1 averly 35.3 dale 34.4 anover 33.8 Cokato 33.3 tse o 32.5 ple Lake 32.2 uffalo 32.1 South Haven 31.7 St. Michael 31.4 elano : 31.3 learwater 3 I.3 ockford 30.6 onticello 29.8 ontrose 29.5 bertville 28.8 ri t Coun 33.1 Source: 2000 U.S. Census 22 1 1 1 1 II II II II II i right County Housing Data December 2001 Table 5 Wright County Household Income Data 1990-2005 1990 Number Percent 2000 Number Percent 2005 Number Percent ess than $10,000 2,281 9.9°/ 1,44 4.6°/ 1,273 3.6°/ $10,000 to $14,999 1,82 7.9°/ 1,48 4.7°/ 1,19 3.4°/ 15,000 to $24,999 3,763 16.4°/ 3,34 10.6°/ 3,08 8.8°/ $25,000 to $34,999 4,218 18.3°/ 3,11 9.9°/ 3,452 9.8°/ $35,000 to $49,999 5,673 24.7°/ .5,14 16.4°/ 4,341 12.3°/ $50,000 to $74,999 3,790 16.5% 8,421 26.8°/ 7,81 22:2°/ $75,000 to $99,999 863 3.8°/ 4,61 14.7°/ 6,20 17.7°/ 100,000 or more 599 2.6°/ 3,88 12.4°/ 7,781 22.1°/ otal 23,013 100.0°/ 31;465 . 100.0°/ 35,153 100.0°/ edian Income $33,460 $52,962 $63,143 Source: Claritas, Inc. Income by Age Table 6 illustrates household income by age for 2000 in Wright.. County. Households age 35 to 44 comprise the largest age group with 7,493 households and a median income of $58,972. The highest median income is found in the 45 to 54 .age segment with a median income of $6b,824. Households between the ages of 45-and 64 tend to not only have the highest median incomes, but also have the most equity in their existing homes. Households between the ages of 25 and 34 are usually in the market for rental housing or are looking to purchase entry-level homes. The median income for this age segment is $47,097. With this income a household could afford monthly rent in the amount of $1,177 including rent, utilities and a garage. A household with this income could word an approximate purchase price of $149,000 assuming a 30 year fined rate mortgage at 7.0% with a 5.0% downpayment. The lowest median incomes are found in households over the age of 75. Households over the age of 85 have the lowest median household income at $16,806 per year. Incomes drop dramatically a$er households reach 65 years of age. Incomes drop from $61,178 for households ~ .age 60 to 64 to $32,022 for households age 65 to 69. 24 Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Household Income household Income Table 5 illustrates changes in household income for Wright County between 1990 and 2005. In- 1990 the median household income was $33,460. The largest number of households earned between $35,000 and $49,999 per year. The second largest income segment were those earning between $25,000 to $34,999 per year. By 2000 the median household income was expected to increase by 58% to $52,962. During this period and also through 2005 substantial shifts began to occur to the higher income segments. Approximately 26.8% of the households were expected to earn between $50,000 to $74,999 per year. Substantial increases were found in the $75,000 to $99,999 and $100,000 and over income segments. These income segments increased by 435% and 549%, respectively during the 1990s. Incomes will continue to increase through 2005 at which time the County is projected to have a median household income of $63,143. Households with incomes ranging from $50,000 to $74,999 will continue to comprise the largest segment with 22.2% of the total households. Those earning over $100,000 will comprise the second largest percentage of the .total households at 22.1%. $100,000 or'more $75,000 to $99,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $25;000 to $34;999 $15,000 to $24,999 $1.0,000 to $14, 999 Less than $30,000 Graph 4 Household Income Wright. County 1990-2005 0 ,~ D n u 1 i~l 23 0 1,000 2;000 3;b00 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 I bA ~ ~ ~ O ~ V v O ~ ~"' ~"~ N O O rn ~ ~ ' .~ d~ d~ M ~--~ ~ ~ ~D o0 ~t O ~j [-i M t &4 v7 N N d' N ~O N ~n oo ~ OO N N ~ ~ ~ N ~--~ v'~ O ~ ~ ~ '-+ 6~4 mot' t~ O N DD O d' O~ O M v7 00 O ~t ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~-+ t~ ~p ~ ~ 0 0 0 69 ~ O t~ d' 00 ~O M ~ V'~ O ~p t~ 00 O O 01 O N O M ~O ~ i +'+ r- 01 V'1 ~ '" ~ 69 t~ M ~n 0 ~O M 0 0 0 ~ '--+ O •--+ •-~ M •--~ ~--~ N ~--+ ~--~ M 00 O ~ ~ M O N '~t v~ N d' 'mot ~Y N ~O M ~O N 00 00 ~ .-. ~ 00 +-' r-' N ~ 6R ~' d' ~ ~t ~--~ ~t [~ ~--~ 4n O o0 ~p ~- lD t`~ `p 00 00 ~' M 01 [` r-+ ~--~ N V' M M o0 .-~ ~ 64 a1 '--i ~ '--~ M ~ ~ ~ O •-+ a o r+ M LD V~ d- ~ ~ N ~' ~ ~3 d' ~ N N O ~ a0 ~ oo ~O d' ~ a CT N N '-+ 0o M O V~ N ~+ N .--, .--~ ~p ~p N ~ d' ~ rt d' oo O o0 O d' ~ M N ~ N .--+ V1 d- ~t l~ ~ ~ [~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ d~ ~n .--~ O~ d' ~ O +~ ~ N •--~ l 00 N ~ M b~ ~ N ~ l~ d1 ~O I~ O~ Q~ d' t~ M M [~ 00 ~O N ~D O~ O ~O 01 ~ .-+ tp o0 M ~ V7 ~O DO O ,--, r-, v-~ ~ N 64 ~t v1 O ~ oo ~ ~ O~ ~n d- [~ N ~ ~ d' ~fi ~' ~ M N ~ o0 O .--~ .-+ M N N ~--~ r-+ d~ O r-+ ~ ~ N .--~ 6q Q~ Q~ O~ Q\ Q\ OZ O a1 Q~ a1 a1 ~ O~ O d~ 01 Q~ a1 ~ OZ O O ~' et ~t 01 ' d ~ ~ d; O ~ p r+ N M d l ~ .-, bF3 64 6i? 6R3 6R 69 s-.~ O o 0 0 0 0 0 o H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ''"' a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ i O ~ ~ +n O ~ O ~ 4) a .-+ fs9 .--+ 6R N M 64 6r4 ~ 64 ~ f~ .- 3 69 + F" ~ r-a .~ ai O right County Housing Data December 2001 Median Household Income Table 7 illustrates the median household income for each of the study areas from 1990 to 2005. Data is not yet available from the 2000 Census, therefore the information presented are estimates produced by Claritas, Inc. Communities bordering Hennepin County have the highest median incomes. The St. Michael study area had the highest median income in 2000 at $66,101 which is projected to increase to $82,716 by 2005. The lowest median income was found in the Cokato study area at $39,335 in 2000. This is expected to increase to $43,281 by 2005. The only study areas with median incomes higher than the overall County median income of $52,962 in 2000 were St. Michael, Delano, and Rockford. ~i 26 ', ~ ~ in V ~-a ~ .^S t~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ O ~ ~ .~ .~~. •~ 5~ ""' \ 0 r \° 0 ~ \ 0 • h \ 0 ti \ 0 r \ 0 O \ 0 l1~ \ 0 et' \° 0 O \° 0 O \° 0 O tf) N N r ~ Cfl CO Ih tD tp O o N N N N r r r r r r r O O N ~ ~ M W O r O O h- ~ O Cfl O N r CD f~ N I` ~t M O c7 d' N r 0p 00 ~ t10 O (~ O r 00 r CO ~ t~ ~ CO d1 r Cfl ~ O M r r r r (~} ~ (~ ({} ({} (~} (~}. ~} ~ ~} O O O O O O O O O O O N tp Cfl N M 00 M d' ~ O M c O ~ O c0 CO f~ Cp N Cfl t~ to of ~t ~ t[7 00 ~- CV to tV ~' O O N 01 O O M M ti h O W M O M ~ ~ ~ M O r M O f~ M ~ Cfl O M l1') r N r r ti 00 (fl r ~ to N ER fD N fog st N 69 O N ~ O r dq _ M ~- Ef} CU r EH to r f>~ d" c- f!~ d' r ff} ~- r fl? lp ~ O to r Cfl O lp M Cfl r r O N r Cp OD r r ti N 00 1~ to M r 6n O 00 ~ O ~ N N O to M r r. r. r O 1~ M O ~ p Ef} p p fA 69 Ef3 ~ ffl f!3 EA ~ ~ } E,R N r d' r ~ O t~ r pp r ice tq' O r t~ 00 00 M h 00 CO t0 O 01 N Cfl O t~ O N . N N M M O C fA to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ER fR O N N 1~ M t~ M r O M ~f3 00 ~ ~ ~ O M 0 ~j r O O t 0 N 00 ~ e - ~ O t 4 c- ~ r MM 1~ O h 1~ ~ M M ~ M M ~ ~ M M ~ ~ ~ ~ r ig A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ v ~ ~ N x cd U U ~=~7 ctS U U 0 Wright County Housing Data December 2001 ' Emuloyment Major Employers Employment is a critical component to the housing market. Major employers in each City were interviewed to assess information on current employment, wages, historic and future growth, and the need for additional housing. Due to the large number of employers in the County only those with 100 or more employees are listed in Table 8. As illustrated in the table these employers are dispersed in a number of communities throughout the County. ' A total of 37 employers with 100 or more employees were surveyed. The two largest employers were the Monticello and Buffalo School District followed by Wright County. A large number, 83.8% reported that local economic conditions were good. A few employers reported excellent or fair conditions in their areas. A substantial number of employers have increased the size of their business over the past two years. A total of 27 employers (73 %), have increased the number of employees over the past two years while the remaining have stayed the same size. Over the next two years approxunately 64.9% expect growth trends to continue. Only two employers indicated they felt that employment would decline at their business. A strong number of employers also provrded input on the need for more moderate income 1 housing in their communities. A total of 24 employers (64.9%) indicated that more moderate- income housing is needed in their community. Only four employers responded no to the question, while the remaining employers did not have an opinion on the issue. Approximately 67.6%, or 25 respondents indicated that more moderate-income housing would benefit their business. Wages Wages varied greatly among the employers based on job classifications; therefore it is more accurate to examine average wages for the entire County based on data from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. The data is made available for various sectors and is listed as an average weekly wage. This information is then calculated into an annual salary, but is not available on an hourly basis as the weekly calculation is not based on a 40-hour work week but the actual number of hours worked. The 2000 annual average for all industries was $27,258. The wages were highest among the Transportation and Public Utilities sector at an average annual wage of $43,265. The Lowest average annual wage was in the Trade sector at $19,073. The Trade sector would include such businesses as food stores, eating and drinking places, building material stores, automotive dealers and service stations, ete. Crraph 6 illustrates a comparison of the average wages paid in the industries to housing casts. While housing costs vary among communities, a rental cost of $600 was used for atwo-bedroom apartment and a homeownership cost of $132,500 was used which is the 1999/2000 median sales price of an existing house in Wright County. The cost of a $132,500 home was based on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at 7.0% with 5.0% downpayment. 29 Table 8 Wright County f Major Employers ;'~ 2001 Employer Product or Service Employees City Monticello Public Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 625 Monticello Buffalo Public Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 612 Buffalo ,~~ Wright County Government Offices 575 Buffalo Monticello-Big Lake Hospital General Medical & Surgical Hospitals 433 Monticello J & B Wholesale Frozen Specialities 420 St. Michael St. MichaeUAlbertville Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 400 Albertville Landscape Structures Sporting Goods 400 Delano ~ f Dura Supreme Wood Kitchen Cabinets 385 Howard Lake Xcel Energy Electric .Services 375 Monticello ~ Buffalo Hospital General Medical & Surgical Hospitals 330 Buffalo ~ Progressive Contractors .Construction 305 St. Michael Honeywell Advanced Circuits Printed Circuit Boards 300 Buffalo Cokato Public Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 300 Cokato Wal-Mart Department Stores 280 Buffalo Rockford Public Schools Elementary and Secondary Schools 275 Rockford Sunny Fresh Foods Poultry and Poultry Products 260 Monticello Annandale Public Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 250 Annandale Delano Public Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 250 Delano Fulfillment Systems Business Services 225 Monticello !!~ Cub Foods Grocery Stores 220 Buffalo Clearwater Travel Plaza Restaurant and Gas Station 210 Clearwater Malco Products Machine Tools, Metal Cutting Types 195 Annandale ~:~ Target Department Stores 165 Buffalo Cokato Manor Skilled Nursing Care Facilities 165 Cokato '~ Gage Letter Shop Direct Mail Advertising 165 Howard Lake Howard Lake Schools Elementary and Secondary Education 160 Howard Lake Maus Foods Grocery Stores 145 Monticello Bernatello's Pizza Frozen Specialties 140 Ma le Lake Maple Lake Public School Elementary and Secondary Education 140 Maple Lake Ebenezer Covenant Home Skilled Nursing Care Facilities 135 Buffalo Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric Electric Services 133 Rockford Delano Health Care Skilled Nursing Care Facilities 120 Delano Randy's Sanitation Refuse Systems 120 Delano Buffalo Bituminous Inc. Highwa and Street Construction 112 Buffalo HGP Industries Flat Glass 110 Albertville T.O. Plastics Inc. Plastic Products 100 Clearwater e Right Choice Services Commercial Printing 100 Monticello u Hou in D De r 2 O1 Wright Co ntv s g ata cembe 0 !, As illustrated by the .graph, there are two industries that do not have average wages high enough to support the rent on x`$600 apartment. The Services and Trade industries could only support the rent on a $540 and $475 apartment, respectively. When we examine the median sales price of an existing home in Wright County nearly all the industries would struggle to .afford this housing with asingle-wage earner. Only the Transportation and Public Utilities (TPU) sector has a high enough annual wage at $43,265 to afford this housing. The Construction sector is close to earning enough at $38,995 annually. As previously indicated these are average annual wages for an individual or single-wage earner. Households with a dual income would need to be factored into the chart to achieve a total household affordability level The 2001 Labor Force Assessment prepared by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security also gatheredinformation onworkers' annual salary in Wright County. The following are the results of that assessment with comparison information added on hourly rates assuming a 40- hour workweek: .. 11% Less than $20,000 Less than $9.60 24% _$20,000 to $30,000 $9.60 to $14.40 24% $3:0,000 to $40,000 $14.40 to $19.20 19% $4.0,000 to $50,000 $19.20 to $24.00 22% $50,000 or more $24.00 or more The largest portion of workers reported receiving a salary of $20,000 to $40,000 at their jobs or approximately $9;6a to $19.20 per hour. Covered .Employment ~ Table 9 shows covered employment by industry for Wright County between 1990 and 2000. This table represents the number of jobs in Wright County, regardless of where the individual resides. Same categories such assume -agricultural workers, railroad workers, student workers, and elected officials are not included in the data. All industries m Wright County have experienced job growth'since 1990. Between -1990 and. 2000 the sector with the largest growth was Manufacturing which increased by 2,761 jobs. Services had the second highest increase with the addition of 2,344 jobs. Overall the County has seen the addition of 10,883 jobs between 1990 and 2000, The largest percentage increases were found in the Construction and Manufacturing sector. The Construction sector increased by 1,244 jobs for an increase of 125.4%. The Manufacturing sector increased by 118.1 %. While the Trade sector had the third highest increase with 2,194 new jobs, they had the smallest percentage increase at 41.2%. 32 Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Table 9 Wright County Covered Employment by Industry 1990-2000 1990 1995 2000 1990-2000 1995-2000 Construction 992 1,31 2,236 1,244 125.4°/ 917 69.5°/ anufacturing 2,338 3,61 5,09 2,761 118.1°/ 1,489 41.2°/ ransportation and Public Utilities 1,178 1,240 1,70 526 44.7°/ 46 37.4°/ rade 5,327 6,341 7,521 2,19 41.2°/ 1,18 18.6°/ finance, Insurance and Real Estate 572 73 875 303 53.0°/ 138 18.7% Services 3,670 4,37 6,01 2,344 63.9°/ 1,638 37.4°/ overnment 3,244 3,94 4,755 1,511 46.6°/ 80 20.4°/ otal 17,321 21,57 2$,20 10,883 62.8°/ 6,632 30.7°/ Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security Employment/Unemployment Table 10 illustrates employment and unemployment data for residents of Wright County, regardless of where they work. The labor force in the County has continued to increase since. 1990. The largest increase in the labor force occurred between 1993 an~ 1994. In 2000, the County has an estimated labor force of 48,897. The number of employed 'individuals was 47,201 and unemployed was 1,696 fora 3.5% unemployment rate. The highest unemployment rate in Wright County occurred in 1991 at 6.3% and the lowest was in 1998 at 2.7%. The unemployment rate in the County has historically been slightly higher than the statewide average, with the exception of 1999 when both the County and State rates were at 2.$%. While the County has a strong employment base, there are numerous individuals that reside in the County, but are not employed by industries in the County. Wright County is ideally located adjacent to the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Most communities in the County are located within 45 miles of either the Twin Cities or St. Cloud metropolitan areas. The 2001 Labor Force Assessment for Wright County found that of those residents surveyed, 47% worked in Wright County, 36% worked in Hennepin County and 17% in other counties. For commuting time, 64% traveled 30 minutes or less one-way and 36% traveled more than 30 ' minutes one-way. For travel distance, 64% traveled 20 miles or less, 27% traveled 21 to 40 miles, and 9% traveled 41 or more miles. n ' 33 W i n o s'n D t ece b 2 0.1 '~~' Table 10 Wright County Employment and Unemployment Data 1990-2000 Year Labor Force Number E to ed Number Unem to ed Unemployment Rate MN Unemployment Rate U. S. Unemployment Rate 1990 37,339 35,202 2,137 5.7% 4.9% 5.6°/ 1991 38,211 35,821 2,390 6.3% 5.1% 6.8°/ 1992 38,555 36,229 2,326 6.0% 5.2% 7.5°/ 1993 39,951 37,587 2,364 5.9% 5.1% 6.9°/ 1994 42,104 40,348 1,756 4.2% 4.0% 6.1°/ 1995 43,146 41,444 1,702 3.9% 3.7% 5.6°/ 1996 44,099 .42,286 1,813 41% 4.0% 5.4°/ 1997 45,179 43,650 1,529 3.4% 3.3% 4.9°/ 1998 46,844 45,600 1,244 2.7% 2.5% 4.5°/ 1999 48,161 46,789 1,372 2.8% 2.8% 4.2°/ 2000 48,897 47,201 1,696 3.5% 3.3% 4.0°/ Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security iJ I~ 34 Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Housing Data Between 1990 and 2000, Wright County has added 8,452 new households and 8,002 housing units. This gap between new households and new housing units has resulted in a decline in the housing vacancy rates as not enough new units were created for the new households. The homeowner vacancy rate dropped from 1.3% to 1.1% and the rental vacancy rate dropped substantially from 7.0% to 3.1% during the 1990s. A healthy housing vacancy rate is considered to be approximately 5%.for rental units and 1-2% for owner-occupied units. This allows for adequate consumer choice in the local housing market for a variety of bedroom sizes, amenities, and costs. Age of Housing Information was combined from the 1990 and 2000 Census o develop approximate data on the age of housing in Wright County. Specific information is not yet available from the 2000 Census that outlines the age of housing through 2000. For this table information is used from the 1990 Census and new housing units between 1990 and 2000 are considered to be newly construction units between 1990 and 1999. There may be some minor discrepancies once 2000 data is released as additional units during this period may not all be newly constructed housing. For example, if someone were to move an older house into the County between 1990 and 2000 this will be an additional hauling unit, but the home was not built during this period. Table 11 Age of Housing Wright County umber of Units ercenta e of Units 1990-1999 8,002 23.3°/ 1980-1989 6,38 18.6°/ 1970-1979 8,365 24.3°/ 1960- i 969 3,149 9.2°/ 1950-1959 2,226 6.5°/ 1940-1949 1,221 3.6°/ 1939 or earlier 5,008 14.6°/ otal 34,355 100.0°/ Source: 1990 and 2000 Census The largest share of units built in Wright County was constructed between 1970 and 1979. These units comprise 24.3% of the total housing stock. The newest housing stock, those built during the past tenyears, comprise the second largest segment at 23.3%. Age of housing data varies greatly among the individual cities. In the communities of St. Michael, Monticello, Delano, Howard Lake, and Annandale the largest share of the housing stock was built in the past ten years. For Rockford the largest number of units were built between 1980 and 1989. In Cokato the largest number of units were built prior to 1940. 35 '' Wri t County Housing Data December 2001 C~ Building Trends Table 12 illustrates building trends based on building permits issued in communities between ~' 1997 and 2000. While most communities did have information available from 1990, a few communities only provided recent data so information for a similar time period is used. Single- family units refer to single family detached homes. Single-family attached homes are homes that r e are attached such as townhomes and duplexes that are owner-occupied. Multi-family units refer to multiple units that are rented. Each community tracks building. permit information differently so in some cases information may not be located under the correct category depending on how a unit is classified. With the surveyed communities a total of 4,000 building permits were issued for new housing F' units from 1997 to 2000. Approximately 76% were for single-family units, 12% for single- family attached units, and 12% for multi-family units. The highest amount of development occurred in St. Michael, which comprised 27.4% of the total permits. Monticello had the second largest number of building permits issued followed by Buffalo. Waverly and Clearwater had the lowest amount of building permits issued. Monticello had the highest amount ofmulti-family permits issued with 235 units followed by Buffalo with 114 units. The highest number ofsingle-family attached units were found in St. Michael followed by Monticello and Albertville. Many communities did not see any permits issued for multi-family development over the four-year period including Albertville, Clearwater, Delano, Rockford, St. Michael, and Waverly. ~ 36 0 ri I~~ i~ u Table 12 Wright County Building Permits 1997-2000 Single Family Units Single Family Attached Multi-Family Units Total Albertville 1997 63 37 0 100 1998 114 8 0 I22 1999 102 30 0 132 2000 109 30 0 139 Total 388 105 0 493 Annandale 1997 20 0 0 20 1998 13 0 0 13 1999 IS 0 51 66 2000 17 4 0 17 Total 65 0 51 116 Buffalo 1997 91 8 30 129 1998 115 26 0 141 1999 116 8 0 124 2000 248 0 84 332 Total 570 42 114 726 Clearwater _ 1997 ~ 3 4 0 7 1998 10 6 0 16 1999 5 7 0 12 2000 2 6 0 8 Total 20 23 0 43 Cokato 1997 13 4 0 17 1998 4 0 9 13 1999 7 0 16 23 2000 8 4 0 12 Total 32 8 25 65 Delano 1997 44 0 0 44 1998 44 0 0 44 1999 38 0 0 38 2000 25 0 0 25 Total 151 0 0 151 u Single Family Units Single Family Attached Multi-Family Units Total Howard Lake 1997 14 0 0 14 1998 8 0 2 10 1999 15 0 24 39 2000 7 0 0 7 Total 44 0 26 70 Maple Lake 1997 16 0 0 16 1998 7 0 15 22 1999 13 0 0 13 2000 10 0 0 10 Total 46 0 15 61 Monticello 1997 107 21 3 13I 1998 180 27 128 335 1999 105 38 32 175 2000 140 16 72 228 Total 532 102 235 869 Montrose 1997 4 0 0 4 1998 16 0 0 16 1999 10 0 0 10 2000 30 0 12 42 Total 60 0 12 72 Rockford 1997 30 0 0 30 1998 49 0 0 49 1999 72 0 0 72 2000 58 0 0 58 Total 209 0 0 209 St. Michael 1997 126 4 0 130 1998 169 54 0 223 1999 292 52 0 344 2000 322 76 0 398 Total 909 186 0 1095 Waverly 1997 7 0 0 7 1998 8 0 0 8 1999 10 0 0 10 2000 5 0 0 5 Total 30 0 0 30 ~a _ .~~. i right County Housing Data December 2001 Vacancy Rates According to the 2000 Census, Wright County had 34,355 housing units. Approximately 84.4% of the units were owner-occupied and 15.6% were renter occupied. This is lower than the State of Minnesota figures with 74.6% owner occupied and 25.4% renter occupied units. Over the past ten years the homeownership rate in Wright County has increased and the rental rate has declined. In 1990, 82% of the units were owner-occupied and 18% were renter occupied. Table 13 illustrates homeowner and rental vacancy rates for the communities. Any vacancies that are related to seasonal, recreational or occasional use have been excluded from the occupied housing units data. Therefore, the difference between the occupied housing units column and the owner occupied added to the renter occupied column will provide the number of seasonal, recreational, or occasional use units. The cities of Otsego, Hanover and St. Michael have the highest homeownership rates in the ' County. Otsego is the highest at 96.6% followed by Hanover at 93% and St. Michael at 92.7%. A large number of cities in Wright County experienced substantial increases in homeownership over the past ten years. St. Michael had the third highest increase in homeownership rates at 12.9% between 1990 and 2000 in the entire state. Monticello had the fourth highest increase at 11.9% while Delano had the eighth highest increase at 10.2% in the State of Minnesota. ' The. highest rental occupancy rates are found in Cokato, Howard Lake, Monticello, and Buffalo. Cokato has the highest rental occupancy rate at 30.1%. Howard Lake has a rental occupancy rate at 28.7%, while both Monticello and Buffalo are at 27.9%. Table_13 also illustrates vacanc rates for both rental and homeowner units in the communi Y ty based on the 2000 Census. A housing market is typically defined as healthy if the rental vacancy ' rate is=around 5% and the homeowner rate is around 1 to 2%. The homeowner rate is lower as new single-family units are typically custom made based on demand. These vacancy rates allow for adequate consumer choice in housing types, prices, size and amenities. Communities with ' low vacancy rates have a limited number of units available which results in a shortage of housing units which in turn tends to increase the cost of housing in an area. ' As previously mentioned a homeowner vacancy rate of 1 to 2% is considered healthy. Nine, or 56% of the communities in Wright County had vacancy rates under 1%. The lowest rates were found in Maple Lake and South Haven at 0%. Delano also had a low rate at 0.3% with Cokato and Waverly at 0.4%. The highest rate was found in Clearwater at S.l% and in Hanover at 2.9%. Rental vacancy rates were also low in Wright County where 5% is considered a healthy market. Approximately 81.3%, or thirteen of the communities were below 5%. The lowest rates were found in Waverly, South Haven and Hanover with a 0% vacancy rate. Rockford also had a low vacancy rate at 1.2% as well as 1.3% in Maple Lake. The highest vacancy rates were found in Clearwater at 10.5% and in Annandale and Cokato at 7.5%. ' 39 '`~ M V~ M N ~ ~ O '[h M 00 i/7 ct N O C`~ O ~-+ ' U N ~ N O ~ .-+ vi .-. N CV ~--~ ~-+ N M ~ M N 00 ~--~ ~h M O~ ~O O ~ ~O ~ d' O ~ ch ~--~ ~ r-+ N O vi O O N O .-+ O O N N O .--~ ' ~' x a ,4? N M t~ N O M 00 V7 l~ ~ M Q~ N I~ '-' ~ o N N N M N N N N N ~-+ ~-+ .--~ , U ~ ~' O 'ct ~ 00 ~O '-• .-y ~O N V~ .-+ [~ d1 V7 d' V7 ,F, ~~ N N O N M N ~--~ 00 ~-+ N N a1 a ~ .--~ ~ ~ .~ N M ~ d' O~ O\ M M a\ '-+ n ~O l7~ 00 lam- .--~ d" v ,~ ~ ~ N ~ 01 ~ ~ ~-+ d' N d' ~D O ['~ (V ~ mot' ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ [~ ~ l0 ~ ~ ~ (~ [~ 01 00 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ O ,~ O ~ ` M o0 00 N N N O~ ~t V~ N O~ ~-+ O~ ~ ~--~ O O O ~~ ~ V ~ ~ a~ m ~ ~t O~ v~ O N ~O N M O~ ~t ~D .-, M ~D 'v~ ~ .Q ai ~ oo ~ N ~ O mot' v7 ~t ~--~ M O~ O [~ N v'~ cd H ~ "C ~ ~ N ~ N '-+ ~ N ~ v ~~.," ~ O N O it O AID * O O oo ~-+ M N O ~-+ [~ d- t~ ~ oo ~t ~n O ~n ~ ` r/~ O~ ~--~ to M Q1 tr d' '~t N v3 ~ Q~ Q~ [~ M M N' ~ ~ N ~ t ~ M O~ M ~t C~ ~ O~ mot' O N 01 M V'^ 0 O ~ ~ U U . ~ s0.. O~ O 0o M ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q\ N O [~ O M ~ 00 N ~ vOi ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ s0, m a~ a~ ~'' ~ o a~ a~ ,-. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~OO-++ ~ v ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U "O ~ .a: O N tC3 O c~" O O ~~,, ~ ~ cC3 "~"' ~ V~01 W U U A x ~; ~ ~ ~ O Ri r° .~ ~ ~ ~'~ I~ right County Housing Data December 2001 General Occupancy Rental Analysis While the U.S. Census does provide information on rental vacancy rates, surveys were completed in the communities to achieve a more current account of local vacancies among the larger rental properties. Table 14 illustrates detailed information regarding rental properties in the County. This table outlines the general occupancy units that were surveyed, which means they do not have any age restrictions. Projects for seniors only can be found in Table 16. In most cases projects with. l2 or more units were contacted to participate in the survey. Incases where information is missing for an apartment this indicates that the owner/manager was unable for an interview or they declined to participate in the survey. Overall, a total of 1,692 general occupancy units were surveyed with 28 vacancies in those projects for an overall vacancy rate of 1.7%. Vacancy rates varied greatly among the cities and only one community had a vacancy rate higher than 5%. In Cokato, there were 7 vacancies in 72 units fora 9.7% vacancy rate. At the time of the survey there was a high turnover due to evictions in one project, but these units have begun to fill up since the time of the survey. fl n 0 ~~ Vacancy rates were as low as 0% in a few. communities including the cities of Maple Lake, Montrose, Waverly, and St. Michael In some of these cities there is a lack of rental units which can contribute to the low vacancy rates.. The following are the ranking of vacancy rates according to the survey: Cokato 9.7% Annandale 2.7% Clearwater 2.6% Howard Lake 1.8% Monticello 1.7% Buffalo; 1.4% Delano' 0.9% Rockford 0.6% Albertville 0.5% Maple Lake 0.0% Montrose 0.0% St. Michael 0.0% Waverly 0.0% Information is also presented in Table 14 on average rents based on bedroom size. In most cases rental units tend to be higher priced in communities bordering the metro area including Albertville, Delano, and Rockford. St. Michael has a limited number of general occupancy rental units, all of which were developed in the 1970s. For the most part rents are most affordable in Annandale, Cokato, and Clearwater. Careful comparisons should be made between the average rents as some communities have a .higher concentration of subsidized or market rate units. Also in some cases the averages are based on only one property. ' 41 ~ ~~~o~~~o~o ~c~~o 0 0 0 •-~ 0 0 0 0 0 cn ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~¢ Q~ t° ~~o~o~o~o~cv~•-+~0~0~0l0l010 0 0 0 0 .-+ 1 A 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 ~' ' Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Table 15 illustrates the utilities that are included in the rents and amenities found in the general occupancy projects. A substantial percentage (58.8%) of the projects include both heat and water in the monthly rent. Only three properties did not include water in the monthly rent. Very few properties pay electric costs, but in some cases utility allowances are provided and those are ' listed in the table. Just under 40% of the properties included dishwashers which tend to be in most newer ' properties. Only 7 of the 68 properties did not include some type of laundry facility or in-unit option. The majority of properties contained only a common laundry facility (63.2%), while others included both a common facility and hook-ups in individual units. In five of the properties washers and dryers were provided in the units. Air conditioning options varied greatly among the properties. Approximately 33.8% of the ' properties have central air and 23.5% have individual air conditioning units. The rema Wing 42.7% had no air conditioning, but it .should be noted that some properties did have window sleeves available. ' Very few properties had a pool or a community room, but just under 30% of the properties did have a playground. Approximately 57% of the properties did have garages for the tenants while most of the remaining properties had surfaced parking lots, some with plug-ins. Of the 39 .properties with garages, 13 or 33% include the garage in the cost of rent. The remaining 26 properties charge $20 to $50 per month for the garage. J G ~J ' 45 Table 15 Wright County Utilities/Amenities General Occupancy ' Utilities in Rent Amenities Dish- Comm Play Cost of Pro'ect Heat Water Elec. washer Laundry Dis osal A/C Pool Room ound Gaza a '!' Albertville Westwind A artments X X X C C X $35 Albertville Meadows X X X C C X $45 nandale Annandale S uaze A is X X C/H X S race Manor A is X C Mazcdale A artments X X X I Waldale A aztments X X X C Simon A aztments X H $30 Buffalo Hidden Cave X X X H I X X $40 Ever een S uaze X X X C I X $30 uffalo Court X X $23/28 C X Lake Point South X X C X I $35 ' Meadowbrook A is X "X X X C $40 orthrid e X X X C X I X $40 Kestrel Woods X X W/D C X $0 Lakeside A artments X X C I X Ma le Dell X C I Maria Uilla A artments X $32/40 C ~' Lakeview A artments X X C Midtowne/Iiillcrest TH X H/C C Colcato f' Golfview A aztments X X X C C Cokato Parkview X X 15/18/58 C/H X F ' Clearwater ~ , Clearwater River A is X C - X X Pazkview A aztments X X H X Bittersweet A aztments X X C C $0 ak Manor A artments X C C X $0 Clearwater A aztments C Delano Hon ee A aztments X $65/68 C X $30 Rock Meadows X X C X $30 , Delview A aztments X X C Franklin Avenue A is X C I Elm Avenue A aztments X C I !' 282 Raikoad Ave X X X C I~ Utilities in Rent Amenities Pro'ect Heat Water Elec. Dish- washer Laundry Disposal A/C Pool Comm Room Play ound Cost of Garage oward Lake Churchill Pra erties X C I $50 Howard Lake A is X X X C I X Water's Edge A is X X X H/C I $30 Deer Run A artment X X $29/32 X C I $35 Shoreline Townhomes X X X H $0 Lee A artments X X C C Ma le Lake Land o Lakes X X X C $0 West Manor A artments X X X C $20 Muller Pro erties X X Montrose Homes for Us X X W/D X C $0 Monticello Monticello Villa e A is X X C C X $35 Rid emont A artments X X X C X Rid eway A artments X X C/H $30 Hillside A artments H/C $30 Terrace View A `artments X X C C X $25 River Road A artmetns X X X C C X $25 Jefferson Heights Apts. X X X C C $30 M ood A artments X X X C C $0 7th Street Town~omes X C $0 Twelve Oaks Townhome X X W/D X C $0 /A X X X C C $0 Courtyard A artments X X W/D X C $0 Ramse Townhomes X X W/D X C $0 Riverview A artments X H C $25 Park Place A artments X X X C C $40 4-Plex X X H X C $0 Rockford Caun line A artments X X X C I X $35 Tower Rid e T.H. X Walnut Place T.H. X $75/100 H X $25 Devonshire A artments X X X C I X $30 Halter Oaks A artment X X C X Crow River Rid e A is X C 6230 Mechanic St. X St. Michael Wood Crest X X C I $35 Pine Cone A arkments X X X C averl arrell A artments X X X right County Housing Data December 2001 '~ Elderly. Rental Analysis Table lb illustrates those age restricted properties that participated in the survey. Most market rate housing products typically allow those age 55 and over to reside in the units. Subsidized ~~ projects are restricted to those age 62 and over or individuals with a disability. It should be noted that in the analysis different types of housing products are offered. ~. Most housing units are independent units which do not offer any services. Congregate senior apartments are typically structured with optional services or they include these services in the ' monthly rent. These services will typically include items such as meals and light housekeeping. Assisted Living provides more supportive services and these fees are usually included in the rents. These services may include meals, transportation, personal care, and housekeeping. The `~ most intensive types of housing for seniors are memory care or nursing home beds which have high levels of assistance with the housing. I, Most units surveyed are independent or congregate units. In addition, a few assisted living projects are also listed in the analysis. A total of 901 units were surveyed with a vacancy rate of 3.0%. Some areas had no units available among the properties surveyed including Buffalo, Delano, Maple Lake, Monticello, and Waverly. The City of Cokato had an extremely high vacancy rate for senior housing. The City of Cokato had 16 .vacancies accounting fora 12.5% vacancy rate. A large share of these units were located in-the oldest subsidized project in-the community. A strong amount of development has occurred ~ in Cokato lately that creates the entire .continuum for the. senior population from independent ~' market rate and subsidized units through nursing home care. -These new units have likely created a softer housing market for senior_housing which will likely balance. out. ~~ The City of Montrose had a 6.7% vacancy rate which is above a healthy market of 5%, but this is the result of 2 vacancies among a 30 unit project. Howard Lake was exactly at 5% and Annandale was at 3.1%. The City of St. Michael had a very low vacancy rate at l.l% with only ' one vacancy. The following are the rental vacancy rates for elderly projects by community: Cokato 12.5% Montrose 6.7% Howard Lake 5.0% Annandale 3.1 St. Michael 1.1 Maple Lake 0.0% Monticello 0.0% Buffalo 0.0% Delano 0.0% Waverly 0.0% 48 i ~~;.~ ' a ~c o n~ ,-., a .~ ~ ,~ U --~ ~ +~ `° 'r'~ ~ W F .~' ~ . ;.~ ;d ~' a ~~I 0 J L i Wright County Housing Data December 2001 The ranges shown for some of the subsidized projects illustrate the basic and market rents for the units. As illustrated in the chart average rents vary greatly among senior housing. The rents for senior housing can often times be misleading as information is collected on market rents. In most cases rents are based on 30% of income or tenants pay a basic rent. Also with senior housing there is a continuum of services that result in various pricing levels for housing. While most of the units listed are considered independent senior living, some do offer services such as meals, light .housekeeping, etc in the rent. ' Table 17 lists utilities included in the rent and amenities. Approximately 87% of the properties include both heat and water in the monthly rent. A few units also include electricity, and if utility allowances are provided those are also included in the table. ' Very few properties included dishwashers in the units. All but one property indicated that some type of laundry facility or hook ups in units were provided. Nine of the units (30%) include central air conditioning and three (10%) had individual units. Some of the remaining properties also had window sleeves available for air conditioning units. A small number of buildings had activities or a dining room available for the residents. Approximately 63% did have a community room located in the building. Only 8 of the 30 properties had garages available, and of those only 2 included the garage with the rent. The ' .remaining properties charged $35 to $50 per month for the garage. Wright County also has various nursing homes which meet a service intensive need for some of the senior population. The following are the nursing home. facilities located in the County: C~ Facility Name Beds ' Annandale Annandale Care Center 60 Buffalo Ebenezer Covenant Home 65 Buffalo Park View Care Center 154 Cokato Cokato Manor 66 Delano Delano Healthcare Center 64 Howard Lake Howard Lake Good Samaritan Center 60 1 Monticello Monticello-Big Lake Community Nursing 91 Total 560 beds Some observations of the rental market in Wri ht Coon indicates that some areas lack rental g tY housing options including St. Michael, Otsego, and Hanover. Senior housing is in limited supply, especially market rate units in Delano and Rockford. Many communities lack family rental units that have three bedrooms. 51 ~ Table 17 Wright County Utilities/Amenities I Elderly ' ~ Utilities in Rent , Amenities Dish- Dining Comm Cost of Pro'ect Heat Water Elec. washer Laundry A/C Activities Room Room Gara e , Annandale Annandale Costa es X X $0 Centennial Villa - AL X X X In Rent C X X X $40 Goldendale Homes X X X C C X Centennial Villa X X X C C X X $40 ; Oakdale A artments X X C C X ' Knollwood S ware X X $25/30 C X Annandale S uare II X X C X Buffalo Woodmere A artments X X C X X X Lakeside A artments X X C I X arrin on A artments X X C X i Cokato Ed ewood Gables X X X H $150/s X X X $50 Cokato A is #1 X X C Cokato A is #2 X X C Cokato A is #3 X X C Cokato A is #4 X X C ~' Delano Crow River Villa X X X C X X Rid e Manor A is X X C X X !~ Howard Lake Herita e S uare X X X C I X $40 ; Shoreline Commons X X H/C I X $40 ~ Towerin Pines X X C C X ~ Ma le Lake Ma le Manor A is X X $17/21 C Monticello St. Benedict's Villa e 'ssissi i Shores X X X X C C $35 'ver Park View A ts. X C C Broadway S uare X X C X Montrose RoseHaven I& II X X $32 C C X Rockford Rockford Manor X X C X St. Michael Coon ide Cotta e X X H $0 ' Ri a Drive artments X $19/28 C C X averl Waverl Comm. Homes X X C 1 1 C~ u ~I' Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Single Family Housing As previously mentioned, homeownership rates are highest in Otsego, Hanover, and St. Michael. Data produced by the Minnesota Department of Revenue indicated that the median sales price of existing houses in Wright County has been increasing dramatically and aze the highest in the State excluding metropolitan counties. Over the past ten yeazs sales prices in Wright County have increased 92% and over 10% in the past yeaz. The following are the median sales prices of existing houses since 1984/1985 excluding new construction. 1984/1985 $58,295 1989!1990 $69,000 1995/1996 $97,000 1998/1999 $120,000 1999/2000 $132,500 In addition, data was also gathered from the Wright County Assessors Office for communities that had housing plans completed. These figures are based on November. data over the past three years and are found in Table 18. Sales data indicates that housing costs are highest among communities that border Hennepin County. Housing prices tend to decline as you move outward from this area. It should be noted that this data only gives a small perspective of the housing trends and does not take into account a long-term trend over the course of the year which was not available. The cost of housing tends to be much higher in communities based on interviews with local Realtors and MLS sales data. 53 right County Housing Data December 2001 Table 18 Median Sales Price Select Cities in Wright County 1998 1999 2000 andale $85,00 $89,90 $116,00 Cokato $81,30 $93,900 $110,50 elano $125,00 $133,500 $155,00 oward Lake $86,00 $96,200 $90,00 onticello $106,00 $114,500 $132,00 ockford $125,00 $131,000 $153,00 St. Michael $123,50 $129,500 $150,00 Source: Wright County Assessor Eleven area Realtors were surveyed to gather information on listing time for homes, pricing of homes, and new housing construction. Realtors in Delano, Buffalo, and Rockford noted that the average listing time for homes ranged between 30 and 45 days. The communities of St. Michael, Monticello, Waverly/Montrose; and Howard Lake typically had listing times of 60 days or more. The .Maple Lake, Annandale, Clearwater and Cokato study areas had listing times typically between 70 to 90 days. Realtors were'also :asked to provide a price range for existing and newly constructed housing that was being sold in the community. The following are the prices ranges for existing homes being sold in the communities.. Delano Rockford Cokato Annandale St. Michael Howard Lake Buffalo Monticello Maple Lake Clearwater Waverly/Montrose Ranee $130,000 to $350,000 $97,000 to $300,000 $96,000 to $250,000 $75,000 to $300,000 $118,000 to $294,000 $69,000 to $349,000 $104,000 to $250,000 $100,000 to $250,000 $99,000 to $275,000 $129,000 to $260,000 $90,000 to $200,000 Average I i D ~i~ C $220,000 , $189,000 t $175,000 $175,000 $174,000 $171,261 $165,000 ' $155,000 $155,000 $139,000 $110,000 Some Realtors did exclude land located outside the communities on acreages and the Waverly/Montrose figure does not include properties on the lake resulting in a lower average. This information does include some different results than information collected on sales from the local Assessors office. Most Realtors take into account a larger area than the community and in many cases recreational amenities such as lakes do factor into higher housing costs in some areas. 54 U i~ C u ii ii Wright County Housing Data December 2001 Information was also collected on newly constructed housing in areas. Delano Rockford St. Michael Annandale Buffalo Monticello Maple Lake Clearwater Waverly/Montrose Howard Lake Range Average $170,000 to $400,000 $240;000 $175,000 to $495,000 $210,000 $176,000 to $300,000 $200,000 $140,000 and over $200,000 $162,000 to $399,000 $199,000 $100,000 to $299,000 `$168,000 $144,000 to $250,000 $160,000 $155,000 an d over $160,000 $130,000 to $300,000 $150,000 $130,000 to $350,000 $150,000 2000 Census data is not yet available for the median value ofowner-occupied homes, so information from the 1990 Census as this examines the entire community verses sales data. Table 19 Wright County Cities Median Owner Occupied Value 1990 Ci Median Value anover $91,900 bertville $80,300 St. Michael $79,400 ockford $77,700 tsego $76,900 onticello $76,200 elano $73,300 uffalo $72,100 andale $62,400 ontrose $59,200 a le Lake $58,600 okato $56,800 averly $55,500 Clearwater $53,000 oward Lake $52,400 South Haven $36,300 right County $75,000 e 55 Wright County Housing ata December 2001 Housing Demand Demand calculations were developed for all the communities that participated in the housing plan process. Housing demand for the communities was calculated by utilizing a variety of factors. The first indicator is the expected household growth the community will be experiencing. A second indicator is pent-up demand which calculates the units that are needed to meet past growth and to allow for healthy vacancy rates closer to 5% for rental units and around 1 to 2% for single-family units. A final indicator are replacement needs which represent a need for new units to replace older dilapidated units that are not suitable for habitation and are more economical to demolish than repair. This can also represent units that are functionally obsolete and not desirable by the market according to some feature. The following information illustrates the overall housing demand for those communities that participated in the housing planning process. City of St. Michael City of Monticello City of Delano City of Rockford City of Annandale City of Howard Lake City of Cokato 1,482 units 644 units 229 units 196 units 148 units 83 units 73 units Between 2000 and 2005 Wright County is expected to add 4,615 new households. With a limited supply of existing housing units much of this household growth will demand new housing units. Table 19 illustrates some of the detailed demand for housing types in the communities. More specific data can be found in each community's individual housing plan. Affordable single family homes refer to those homes priced under $1.50,000. Affordable rental units will typically refer to units that are targeted at those earning 60% or less of the area median income. The area median income for Wright County is $74,700. For Wright County the following income limits apply to those at 60% of the area median income. Family Size 1 $31,380 2 $35,880 3 $40,320 4 $44,820 5 $48,420 6 $52,020 56 n r 0 ~ ~ A O ~ U w ~ ~ A ~ ~~ •~ H ~ ~ :'~ -..i MMO W ~„~ V Z/2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~n d- ~o ~o o ~ 0 0 „y M 00 M M O ..~ ~ O N ~ N N ~ 0 "' O N 0 r.i ~ ~I') ,. ~ O ,_,., O O ~,~„ O ~ O O M M ~ M ~ N ~ '-r O r-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M N " " 1..~ O O ~ O O oo ' d- oo N O M O M d N ~--~ ~ ~ ~--~ N a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~--+ •--~ ~ .-y O N ~ N ~--+ O M O ~ O o _~ Ga „~ ~ M ~t N ~ M ~ N ~n [~ ~n N y A ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ 00 ~ O r, O O .--~ V7 O M [~ ~ N M ~ N U ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ N ~ .~ ra ~ v, v, ~ ~ ° v°. o ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ x . ~ ° x o '7 ~ C C7 W o w ~ cn . ~ ~ c7 a~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ° ~' ~ a ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ w x a c Wri t oun H i to m er 2001 '' Maximum rents at 60% of the area median income published by MI-~A in the June 2001 funding round were as follows: ~ 1 Bedroom $840 2 Bedroom $1,008 3 Bedroom $1,165 Fair market rents for Wright County published in the federal register on October 1, 2001 are as , follows: 1 Bedroom $674 2 Bedroom $862 3 Bedroom $1,166 Single-family housing will be the predominant housing type demanded through 2005, which is consistent with current housing trends. In some communities it has and will continue to be extremely difficult to develop housing units priced under $150,000. A household needs to earn approximately $47,500 per year to afford a home at this price based on a 30 year fixed mortgage at 7% with 5% downpayment. This problem can be dramatically intensified if there ,is a lack of existing homes or rental options that would be affordable. Some areas also are facing a lack of rental options that are available for seniors hat want to downsize to an apartment from asingle-family home. This can be a substantial barrier for. a community to have a good turnover of homes, especially more .affordable starter homes. For some communities this can also result in population losses among age segments if they have to move to other areas for housing options. Finally, many communities stressed during the plarmixig process the importance and local priority of maintaining existing housing units. Information was calculated for each community that defines these local rehabilitation needs. u 58 u right Countv Housing Data December 2001 ' Funding Resources for Housing Activities ' Note: The following information lists the primary resources available for housing development and rehabilitation activities and is not an all-inclusive list of resources that are available. ' Minnesota Housing Finance Agency To provide for a simplified and collaborative effort twice a year the MHFA issues a request for proposals through their two housing divisions: the HOMES Division which includes programs ' for home ownership, home improvement, and rehabilitation loans and the Multifamily Division. The RFP is a method where project no longer apply for specific programs but request funding for a specific housing development that meets a local housing need. These consolidated programs ' include some of the following resources in addition to some resources listed under the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund. Housing Trust Fund Three types of activities can be funded through the Housing Trust Fund 'including capital, operating subsidy (both operating support and project based rental assistance), and tenant based ' rental assistance. Funds are generally awarded in the form of a zero interest deferred loan for construction, acquisition, preservation, and rehabilitation oflow-income rental housing.. Eligible applicants include anon-profit, for-profit organization, limited dividend entity, cooperative ' housing corporation, a local unit of government, an Indian Tribe, a Joint Powers Board established by two or more cities, individual, or a private developer. Note: Rules for this program are. currently under review and are subject to change. ' Economic Develo ment and Challen e Pro ram ~- This program includes the consolidation of the. following programs: ARIF, MURL, Employer ' Matching Grants, and Community Rehabilitation Fund. The program provides grants or loans for the purpose of construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, construction financing, permanent financing, interest rate reduction, refinancing, and gap financing of housing that supports ' economic development activities or job creation in an area. Minnesota Families Affordable Rental Investment Program ~MARIF~ Provides a first mortgage or subordinated loan for the new construction or acquisition andlor rehabilitation, of permanent rental and permanent supportive housing with a minimum of four units. Units assisted with MARIF funds must be occupied by family households who at the time of initial occupancy are current or recent MFIP participants. ' Innovative Housing Loan Prog am Provides interim Loan financing to housing developers to encourage the use of innovative constructian methods, materials, equipment, design, marketing or financing in the rehabilitation or development of single or multi-family housing. Low Income Housing Tax Credits Low income housing tax credits provide reduced federal income tax liability for qualifying ' property owners who agree to rent to low and moderate income tenants. The funds can be used for all costs associated with a residential development. 59 i' Hui D D e 2 0 Historic Tax Credits ', Any project utilizing historic tax credits must be a designated historic or a contn~buting member of a designated historic district to be eligible. They can only be used in conjunction with the ~, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing structure. Community Activity Set-Aside Pro~~CASAI ~' Provides lenders, local government and/or non-profit housing providers with set-asides of MHFA mortgage revenue bond funds to provide low interest rate financing for homeownership opportunities. '~ Other programs administered by MHFA that are not included in the RFP include: HOME Program Rental Rehabilitation Grant Prog asn Provides grants by utilizing Federal HOME funds for the rehabilitation of existing rental properties. Funding is coordinated through a local administrator which is the Central Minnesota Housing Partnership. Deferred Loan Proms This program assists low-income homeowners in financing home improvements with 0% deferred loans. This program is available through local Community Action Agencies. Great Minnesota Fix-Up Fund This program provides low interest loans to assist homeowners in making housing improvements that increase the livability and energy efficiency of existing housing. Greater Minnesota Housing Fund Multi-Family Development Assistance Three types of assistance can be provided for affordable multi-family rental housing. They include gap financing, interim financing and employer assisted housing. Gap financing provides 0 to 1% interest deferred loans with the term matching that of the project's first mortgage. Interim construction financing is available at a 0% interest rate for developers during the construction period. Finally, matching funds are available for multi-family projects that have a significant commitment from local employers. Single Family Assistance The Greater Minnesota Housing Fund has three programs which fund activities related to single family homeownership and include gap financing, homebuyer education financing, and entry cost assistance. Gap financing is typically structured as a 0% interest, deferred second mortgage loans that are due on resale. Gap financing can be structured through different programs including the Building Better Neighborhoods Home Initiative, the New Home Construction Program, and Employer Assisted Housing. ' GMHF also provides funding for pre and post purchase homebuyer counseling. The Central Minnesota Housing Partnership is the prunary provider of homebuyer education in Central Minnesota. bo ~ Wright County Housing Data Decemner 2001 ' Funding is also available to assist homebuyers with down payment and closing cost assistance. Entry cost assistance can include local down payment assistance programs, employer assisted ' housing, and partnering to participate in the MHFA Entry Cost Homeownership Opportunity (ECHO) Program. ' Department of Trade and Economic Development Community Development Block Grant -Small Cities Development Program Local Units of Government are the applicant with the Local Unit establishing terms, target areas and uses. Eligible uses are acquisition and demolition, site improvement, rehabilitation, assessment abatement, down payment/closing costs, construction costs, and administration costs. Redevelopment Grant This program provides grants to development authorities (cities, counties, port authorities, HRAs, and EDAs) for land acquisition, demolition, infrastructure improvements, ponding, environmental infrastructure and other eligible redevelopment costs. Grants pay up to 50% of redevelopment costs for a qualifying site. USDA Rural Development Rural Housing Home Loan Provides fixed-rate loans to low to moderate income families for new or existing single-family homes:' ' 504 Pro ram Provides low-income homeowners with loans or grants to make necessary improvements. ' Grants are only available for very low-income households, 62 years or older. ' Rural Rental Housin Lg Daps Provides funds to build, purchase, and repair apartments along with rental assistance for low- u~comes residents. Public Facilities Prog~ Grants and low interest loans for public facilities Central Minnesota Housing Partnership The Central Minnesota Housing Partnership offers a broad range of housing services. The ' following are some samples of the programs and services they offer including: Home Rental Rehabilitation- CMHP administers these funds which are used to assist owners of ' affordable apartments make needed repairs on their buildings. Affordable Mortgage Products - CMHP now originates loans to better serve rural communities ' with affordable lending resources. CMHP works with local lenders to access more resources resulting in the most affordable payments possible. 61 r right County Housing Data December 2001 ~e Gap Financing - CMHP collaborates with the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund and local lenders to provide individuals/families experiencing anaffordability/value gap with interest free financing- '^ Project Packaging and Technical Assistance - CMHP provides technical assistance to communities and organizations developing housing projects including new development, preservation, or rehabilitation. They also assist in assembling a financial package for the project including grant writing. Minnesota Housing Partnership Predevelopment Loan Program Provides loans up to $50,000 to cover a variety of expenses necessary to finance, design, or plan a housing project for low to moderate income persons prior to acquiring, constructing or rehabilitating a project.. Some typical expenses may include architectural, engineering or other professional .fees; processing and financing expenses; and consultant or staff costs related to project planning or funding proposals. All expenses covered through this loan program must be reimbursable by permanent development fimders. Federal. Home Loan Bank The Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines provides low-cost short and long-term funding and community lending to participating institutions. Funds are available for new construction gap funding, rehabilitation gap funding, homebuyer assistance, construction financing, and funding for infrastructure. Other Resources Community Action A eg_ncies Local Community Action Agencies have funds available through their weatherization program that can assist homeowners in making repairs that provide a more energy efficient home. Funds are typically available for both repairs and energy assistance. Many agencies also administer funds through MHFA's rehabilitation loan program. Essential Function Bonds Revenue Bonds that are issued by the City or an Authority of the City (EDA). The Bonds are sold to investors and are backed by "good faith" guarantees of the City. The funds can be used e for any costs associated with the new construction or rehabilitation or conversion of residential rental property. Tax Increment Financing State law enables cities, port authorities, housing and redevelopment authorities, and economic development authorities to administer development, redevelopment, or rehabilitation activities that are financed by the increase in property taxes generated by the activity. This tool can be used to redevelop blighted areas, construct low and moderate income housing, along with many other development activities. C 62 right County Housing Data December 2001 Habitat for Humanity Central Minnesota has numerous Habitat for Humanity chapters that could potentially assist with housing projects. The Minnesota Affiliate list includes the following chapters: Aitkin County Habitat for Humanity Lakes Area Habitat for Humanity, Brainerd Carlton County Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity of Morrison County Wright County Habitat for Humanity Central Minnesota Habitat for Humanity, St. Cloud East Central Minnesota Habitat for Humanity serving Pine, Isanti, Chicago, Kanabec and Mille Lacs County 63