Meeting notice.

They will be weighing in on whether the Bicycle Masterplan should be adopted.

Bicycle Masterplan.

Here are some facts you should know.

Minnesota bike facts.

• Minnesota has over 1500 jobs in the bike industry, 350 businesses, and 144 million in annual revenue.
• Biking / Walking in MN receives biking receives 1.5% of Federal funding, represents 12% of all trips, and 9% of all fatalities.
• The percentage of trips traveled by walking / biking is higher in cities and increasing.
• The cost of the entire bike masterplan is less that the Elk Run intersection.
• The cost of the entire bike masterplan is about 2.5% of total 2040 infrastructure spending. (per Phil Wheeler)
• “Gas Tax” revenues fund less than 2% of transportation infrastructure in Minnesota.
• The other 98+% comes from other sources.
• 40% of Minnesotans do not drive.
• Bike paths and bike lanes serve different users.

I want more safe routes for recreational and commuting bikers and fewer memorial bike rides.

USA today on the changing makeup of communities: USA Today

This is part of the reason why many of the downtown or close in developments like Orchard Hills Villas, The Hamilton, Cascade Creek have been successful while places like Pebble Creek in distant sprawled out areas have been failures.  It is also the reason Mac Hamilton’s new building and Metropolitan Market Place will be coming online (and there are more coming…)

From a policy standpoint I think it is crazy that we continue to heavily subsidize sprawl instead of make the users bear the full cost.  I opposed the rate increases to the Sewer fund because that in and of itself was a $60 million development subsidy.

Young Millennials and older Baby Boomers are rejecting traditional suburban lifestyles in favor of urban living and shorter commutes. Many want to live near city centers so they can walk to work, shops and restaurants or take public transportation. They also prefer smaller homes because they’re single or have no kids and don’t want to spend their free me maintaining their homes.

“It’s the kids (ages 18 to 32), the empty nesters (Baby Boomers with no kids at home),” says Chris Leinberger, president of Smart Growth America’s LOCUS (Latin for “place”), a national coalition of real estate developers and investors who support urban developments that encourage walking over driving. “These two generations combined are more than half of the American population.”

The housing bust of the last five years hit hardest in subdivisions in remote suburbs, drying up financing for such development. At the same time, gas prices soared and so did environmental consciousness, giving consumers pause about living in distant suburbs away from services, jobs and entertainment.

Michael,

I apologize for the delayed response to your question as to why City/County organizations are required to follow state statutes relative to medical plan designs (same-sex partner benefits) while the University of Minnesota/Rochester is not required to do such. 

In speaking with the HR Staff at the University, I learned it was formed in 1851 while Minnesota did not become a state until around 1858.  As a result, the U of M is identified as “constitutionally incorporated” and is not required to follow some of the statutes that we are, medical plan design being one of them.  They can chose to follow some of these statutes but are not necessarily mandated to do so.  And that is how they are able to offer medical plan benefits to same-sex partners.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Linda Hillenbrand

Director HR, SPHR, CCP | City of Rochester

The Need for Affordable Housing

 

The City of Rochester is suffering from a critical shortage of affordable housing (housing that, through subsidy or other means, costs no more than 30% of the household income of households earning 80% of the area’s median income).  The proportion of households in Rochester paying more than 30% for housing has increased from around 20% of households in 2000 to over 27% in 2010.[1] There were 11,430 households in Rochester paying over 30% of income for housing in 2010.

 

However, this understates the true extent of housing need. The true long term costs of affordable housing to the tenant or owner or the community can be best represented using an index made up of

 

H – The initial Housing construction or purchase cost is reflected in the rent or mortgage payment. Housing costs (excluding furnishings, supplies, and utilities) made up 21.9% of consumer expenditures in the U.S. in 2009[2]. (Adding utility costs brings the housing cost share up to 29.3%.)

 

E – The cost of Energy used to light or heat the apartment or house and the cost of energy used in travel. Utilities (electricity, heat, and so on) comprised 7.4% of total consumer expenditures in the US in 2009. Energy is one of the most volatile components of total housing cost  Energy codes have come a long way in the last 25 years, but there can still be huge difference between the best and the worst of construction. As a general rule, multifamily housing will always be more efficient than single family detached housing.  The location of housing will also determine whether gasoline costs will be significant or non-existent. 

 

A –  The Associated costs, sometimes in the form of an association fee but more commonly showing up as maintenance, averaged 2.3% of consumer expenditures in 2009.  The long term maintenance cost is typically inversely correlated with the upfront housing costs (H).  Cheaper construction carries with it higher long term maintenance costs and higher life-cycle costs.  Using interior and exterior materials that are designed to last no more than 10-15 years will lower the upfront price but actually make the total cost increase.

 

T –  The final component of examining the true cost of affordable housing is transportation (T).  The energy cost of transportation and the costs of vehicle ownership, insurance, maintenance, and so on add significantly to household budgets, averaging 15.6% of U.S. consumer expenditures in 2009. Over the last decade public agencies have started to reflect the cost of transportation as part of the true cost of affordable housing.  Most medium to large sized cities have the transit capacity to locate affordable housing in places that potentially eliminate all or most of this expense.  By providing affordable housing opportunities in mixed use, mixed income, transit oriented areas we can create an environment where resources and opportunities are present without the need for expensive transportation options.

 

In addition to associated costs that pertain to the resident, there are associated costs incurred by the city or other taxing authorities contributing to the cost of a project or absorbing costs as a result of a development.  Such costs may include subsidizing new infrastructure such as roadway, water, sewer, or stormwater infrastructure.  By examining the total Housing, Energy, Associated, and Transportation costs, we can make a better determination as to whether or not housing is truly affordable. 

 

Many of the jobs that are created by area employees rely on workers working at moderate wage rates.  According to a number of economic forecasters, the major impediment to the continued economic growth of the Rochester-Olmsted community will be difficulty in attracting the labor force needed to replace retiring baby boomers. The ability of employers to attract workers is adversely affected by the shortage of truly affordable housing.

 

The Need for Integration

 

Some neighborhood groups have opposed affordable housing proposals based in part on concerns about increased traffic, increased crime, and adverse impacts on property values. Opposition to affordable housing in areas adjacent to established neighborhoods threatens to exclude affordable housing from newly developing areas. Such exclusion may result both in a shortage of affordable housing as well as in a community that is segregated by income class. Segregation by income class may lead to de facto segregation by race in our community. Continuing to curtail the supply of sites for affordable housing in fringe locations will jeopardize the supply of affordable housing and will result in concentrating affordable housing in a few heavily impacted neighborhoods.

 

The 21^st Century Partnership Diversity Task Force Report discusses the need to increase the supply of affordable housing and the need to provide affordable housing in scattered locations throughout area communities. Evidence from a number of national studies confirms that scattered subsidized and other lower cost housing development does not adversely affect adjacent areas. On the other hand, studies indicate that segregating lower cost housing in a few neighborhoods clearly destabilizes those neighborhoods, leading to declining housing stock quality, declining performance in neighborhood schools, and other social problems.

 

We are at a crossroads in our community. We can design our future to consist of integrated neighborhoods with an adequate supply of housing in a variety of price ranges. Or we can design our community to consist of concentrated pockets of lower cost housing isolated from the remainder of the community. The experience of other cities in the US clearly indicates that integration is the more desirable future.

 

Dividing our community either by income or by race fosters inequity, isolation, barriers to communication, and ultimately divisiveness. Income class segregation, even without corresponding race segregation, is inimical to the long term cohesiveness of our community and to our quality of life. Community segregation leads to family, neighborhood, and ultimately community instability.

 

What is true of income class and race is also true of other groups within the community. Separating the elderly and the disabled from neighborhood life inappropriately isolates these residents from community life. Our challenge is to build a community made up of inclusive neighborhoods that provide safe, secure, and neighborly environments in which all of us can  thrive. 

 

Rochester’s Diversity Principles

 

The City of Rochesteris committed to building an inclusive community. To this end, the City of Rochester is committed to:

 

·        Supporting  the Olmsted County Human Rights  Ordinance and the work of the Olmsted County Human Rights Commission in implementing the Ordinance;

 

·        Supporting low income tax credit housing and other subsidized housing of high quality, in locations that are accessible to employment, neighborhood amenities, and commercial services.

 

·        Supporting well designed private development proposals that include townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and appropriate commercial uses as part of neighborhood development areas.

 

·        Enforcing minimum standards for housing and enforce such ordinances as the Disorderly Use Ordinance in order to address neighborhood concerns about crime and potential impacts on property values.

 

·        Increasing the supply of land zoned for lower cost housing, especially providing for mixtures of housing by style and cost.

 

·        Providing for neighborhoods that are integrated by income class, race, age, and  ability, and that are accessible to all modes of travel by all age and ability levels.

 

·        Providing incentives to developers to accommodate affordable housing up front as part of well-planned communities.

 

·        Communicating to neighborhood groups and community members

 

Øthat lower income households are not equivalent to lower quality families,

 

Øthat the “goodness” of a neighborhood is not measured by the price of its structures but by the character of its residents, and

 

Øthat the quality of a community is not measured by the degree to which it is exclusive.

 

·        Encouraging neighborhood organizations to create a welcoming environment in all neighborhoods for persons of diverse age, ability, ethnic, and economic backgrounds.

 

---

[1] US Census American Community Survey 2010.

[2] Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures in 2009, for all cited expenditure data. In effect, these figures represent averages for households. Because the share of basic necessity expenditures is low for very affluent households, the median household shares for these expenditures would be significantly higher.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ON

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DIVERSITY

The Need for Affordable Housing

The City of Rochester is suffering from a critical shortage of affordable housing (housing that, through subsidy or other means, costs no more than 30% of the household income of households earning 80% of the area’s median income).  The proportion of households in Rochester paying more than 30% for housing has increased from around 20% of households in 2000 to over 27% in 2010.[1] There were 11,430 households in Rochester paying over 30% of income for housing in 2010.

However, this understates the true extent of housing need. The true long term costs of affordable housing to the tenant or owner or the community can be best represented using an index made up of

H – The initial Housing construction or purchase cost is reflected in the rent or mortgage payment. Housing costs (excluding furnishings, supplies, and utilities) made up 21.9% of consumer expenditures in the U.S. in 2009[2]. (Adding utility costs brings the housing cost share up to 29.3%.)

E – The cost of Energy used to light or heat the apartment or house and the cost of energy used in travel. Utilities (electricity, heat, and so on) comprised 7.4% of total consumer expenditures in the US in 2009. Energy is one of the most volatile components of total housing cost  Energy codes have come a long way in the last 25 years, but there can still be huge difference between the best and the worst of construction. As a general rule, multifamily housing will always be more efficient than single family detached housing.  The location of housing will also determine whether gasoline costs will be significant or non-existent. 

A –  The Associated costs, sometimes in the form of an association fee but more commonly showing up as maintenance, averaged 2.3% of consumer expenditures in 2009.  The long term maintenance cost is typically inversely correlated with the upfront housing costs (H).  Cheaper construction carries with it higher long term maintenance costs and higher life-cycle costs.  Using interior and exterior materials that are designed to last no more than 10-15 years will lower the upfront price but actually make the total cost increase.

T –  The final component of examining the true cost of affordable housing is transportation (T).  The energy cost of transportation and the costs of vehicle ownership, insurance, maintenance, and so on add significantly to household budgets, averaging 15.6% of U.S. consumer expenditures in 2009. Over the last decade public agencies have started to reflect the cost of transportation as part of the true cost of affordable housing.  Most medium to large sized cities have the transit capacity to locate affordable housing in places that potentially eliminate all or most of this expense.  By providing affordable housing opportunities in mixed use, mixed income, transit oriented areas we can create an environment where resources and opportunities are present without the need for expensive transportation options.

In addition to associated costs that pertain to the resident, there are associated costs incurred by the city or other taxing authorities contributing to the cost of a project or absorbing costs as a result of a development.  Such costs may include subsidizing new infrastructure such as roadway, water, sewer, or stormwater infrastructure.  By examining the total Housing, Energy, Associated, and Transportation costs, we can make a better determination as to whether or not housing is truly affordable. 

Many of the jobs that are created by area employees rely on workers working at moderate wage rates.  According to a number of economic forecasters, the major impediment to the continued economic growth of the Rochester-Olmsted community will be difficulty in attracting the labor force needed to replace retiring baby boomers. The ability of employers to attract workers is adversely affected by the shortage of truly affordable housing.

The Need for Integration

Some neighborhood groups have opposed affordable housing proposals based in part on concerns about increased traffic, increased crime, and adverse impacts on property values. Opposition to affordable housing in areas adjacent to established neighborhoods threatens to exclude affordable housing from newly developing areas. Such exclusion may result both in a shortage of affordable housing as well as in a community that is segregated by income class. Segregation by income class may lead to de facto segregation by race in our community. Continuing to curtail the supply of sites for affordable housing in fringe locations will jeopardize the supply of affordable housing and will result in concentrating affordable housing in a few heavily impacted neighborhoods.

The 21^st Century Partnership Diversity Task Force Report discusses the need to increase the supply of affordable housing and the need to provide affordable housing in scattered locations throughout area communities. Evidence from a number of national studies confirms that scattered subsidized and other lower cost housing development does not adversely affect adjacent areas. On the other hand, studies indicate that segregating lower cost housing in a few neighborhoods clearly destabilizes those neighborhoods, leading to declining housing stock quality, declining performance in neighborhood schools, and other social problems.

We are at a crossroads in our community. We can design our future to consist of integrated neighborhoods with an adequate supply of housing in a variety of price ranges. Or we can design our community to consist of concentrated pockets of lower cost housing isolated from the remainder of the community. The experience of other cities in the US clearly indicates that integration is the more desirable future.

Dividing our community either by income or by race fosters inequity, isolation, barriers to communication, and ultimately divisiveness. Income class segregation, even without corresponding race segregation, is inimical to the long term cohesiveness of our community and to our quality of life. Community segregation leads to family, neighborhood, and ultimately community instability.

What is true of income class and race is also true of other groups within the community. Separating the elderly and the disabled from neighborhood life inappropriately isolates these residents from community life. Our challenge is to build a community made up of inclusive neighborhoods that provide safe, secure, and neighborly environments in which all of us can  thrive. 

Rochester’s Diversity Principles

The City of Rochesteris committed to building an inclusive community. To this end, the City of Rochester is committed to:

·        Supporting  the Olmsted County Human Rights  Ordinance and the work of the Olmsted County Human Rights Commission in implementing the Ordinance;

·        Supporting low income tax credit housing and other subsidized housing of high quality, in locations that are accessible to employment, neighborhood amenities, and commercial services.

·        Supporting well designed private development proposals that include townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and appropriate commercial uses as part of neighborhood development areas.

·        Enforcing minimum standards for housing and enforce such ordinances as the Disorderly Use Ordinance in order to address neighborhood concerns about crime and potential impacts on property values.

·        Increasing the supply of land zoned for lower cost housing, especially providing for mixtures of housing by style and cost.

·        Providing for neighborhoods that are integrated by income class, race, age, and  ability, and that are accessible to all modes of travel by all age and ability levels.

·        Providing incentives to developers to accommodate affordable housing up front as part of well-planned communities.

·        Communicating to neighborhood groups and community members

Øthat lower income households are not equivalent to lower quality families,

Øthat the “goodness” of a neighborhood is not measured by the price of its structures but by the character of its residents, and

Øthat the quality of a community is not measured by the degree to which it is exclusive.

·        Encouraging neighborhood organizations to create a welcoming environment in all neighborhoods for persons of diverse age, ability, ethnic, and economic backgrounds.

Dear ZWP Members,

Over the last several months ZWP Planning Coordinator Norman Senjem has been working on a sediment reduction plan for the Zumbro River Watershed. This is an implementation plan funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to satisfy the requirements of the Zumbro turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study completed last year. Norman has held three public stakeholder meetings and also sought the input of ZWP’s technical partners in reviewing preliminary drafts of the plan. Using feedback from these meetings and partners, he has updated the plan to its most recent version. He would like to let you know that the Draft Plan is now posted on our website (http://www.zumbrowatershed.org/projects/active) for a final public review. Please take a moment to review the plan and provide comments by Tuesday, May 29th. Comments provided will be incorporated into a final draft which will then be routed to MPCA for approval.

After this plan is finalized, Norman will be turning his attention to developing the larger, comprehensive watershed management plan for the Zumbro.

Please let Norman or I know if you have any questions.

Thanks again for your help!

Lisa

• A small area North of Highway 14 was added.  No people live there.
• Bamber Valley Estates and Salem Sound moved to Ward 1.
• The entire Parkway and Historic Southwest Neighborhoods (outside of downtown) are now in Ward 2.
• All of Kutzky Park South of Cascade Creek is now in Ward 2.
• Precincts and polling places change significantly in all the neighborhoods west of Highway 52.
• Ward 2 appears to be the most dense in the City of Rochester (close with Ward 6).

People have different skill sets, but everybody found a way to help.  Many of you dug and planted trees, but others that were not able to do that found other ways of participating.  What an amazing event and an amazing group of people.

Great work everybody. 

Here is a note from our city forester:

Thank  you again to all of you that bravely scooped out the waterlogged clay that some of us call soil to plant over 1,200 trees in one day! As we found out yesterday – volunteering isn’t easy – but as we’ll all find out over the next decade….those trees will pay us back everything we put into them and more.

RNeighborwoods is a program that our entire community can be proud of. I consider it a privilege to be involved with such a selfless group of community members.

There are too many people to thank individually – on behalf of the City, RNeighbors and the Park and Recreation Department – please know that we’re very grateful!

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Jacob Ryg

City Forester

403 East Center Street

Rochester, MN 55904

507.328.2515

Sustainable Cities Network

While all developments – including luxury – can work towards LEED-ND certification, using it to measure sustainability in affordable housing may raise an eyebrow or two.

“A lot of green building is perceived to benefit the wealthy,” said Walker Wells, editor of Blueprint for Greening Affordable Housing and a program director for nonprofit Global Green USA.

BPAC Members,

Please see the web site below to find out about wayfinding signs and QR codes. It has current edition of e-newsletter from Olmsted County to inform Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) activities. Just a reminder May is National Bike Month. Thanks

http://www.co.olmsted.mn.us/OCPHS/programs/community/ship/Documents/SHIP Log May 2012.pdf

Muhammad Khan

Senior Transportation Planner
Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department
(507) 328 7134
e-mail: khan.muhammad@co.olmsted.mn.us

Election Campaign

$ 633 raised.

Choose donation amount: $ 100 $ 50 $ 25 Other

Powered by Donation Can.