01-11-11 CM Agenda PacketAGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
January 11, 2011
6:30 pm or immediately following the. HRA meeting
1. Senior Housing
2. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study
3. Model Tobacco Licensing Ordinance
4. Change in Polling Place for Precinct 7
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
°° This document is available in alternate-formats upon a 72-hour request. Please calf
763-593-8006 (TTY; 763-593-39b$} to make a rega~est. Examples taf alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiacassetfe, etc.
'Golden Valley
m .~ ~ ..~ ~ a _t.~ ~ ~~.w
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 11, 2011
Agenda Item
1. Senior Housing
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
At the November 9, 2010 Council/Manager meeting, the City Council discussed several
areas within the City that must be rezoned in order to implement land use designations in the
Comprehensive Plan. Several areas involve rezoning residential property to higher densities.
Based on current housing market conditions, it is assumed that higher-density senior housing
developments would occupy these areas. However, there are no provisions in the Zoning
Code that require that senior housing be exclusively developed, or that preclude the
development of non-senior housing.
The City Council directed staff to explore options that promote senior-only housing areas.
Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, researched controls that promote senior housing
options. This report discusses land use controls that can be used to designate senior-only
housing areas within the City.
Senior-Only Housing District
The City of Golden Valley currently utilizes four residential zoning districts and one multi-use
zoning district that permit housing options. None of the City's residential zoning districts
promote senior-only housing. However, in the state of Minnesota it is permissible to create a
specialized zoning district that promotes senior housing development by placing controls on
what type of housing can be developed.
The City of New Hope currently has a specialized zoning district entitled, "Senior and
Physical Disability Residential Housing." Highlights from New Hope's senior zoning are as
follows:
• Senior citizens are defined as those who are 55 years of age or older.
• Each housing facility that is constructed in this zoning district must limit at least 80% of
total housing units to senior citizens or persons with physical disabilities, as defined by
state statute.
• The front entrance of any housing unit within this zoning district must be located within
400 feet of regular transit service.
• No density limitations exist in this district.
• Development must conform to surrounding neighborhoods. The Planning Commission
performs an analysis to assess design conformity.
• This zoning district permits long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes and elder-
care sites, but does not permit hospitals and clinics.
• This zoning classification can only be given to land located on arterial or collector
streets.
• Setbacks for this zoning district are as follows:
o Front yard setback on local street - 30 feet
o Front yard setback on arterial or collector street - 25 feet
o Rear yard setback - 30 feet
o Side yard setback - 15 feet (30 feet if it abuts asingle-family residential
neighborhood)
• Conditional uses are permitted as accessories to the main housing area. Conditional
uses include:
o Financial institutions
o Personal services
o Limited retail sales
o Newsstands
o Pharmacies
o Clinics
• No exterior signage is allowed for conditional and accessory uses.
Eric Weiss, Community Development Assistant for the City of New Hope, reports that he has
witnessed an increased demand for senior housing opportunities in New Hope in recent
years. He feels that having a senior housing zoning district option helps guide senior
development to appropriate locations in the community (areas that are near transit options,
commerce, etc.). A copy of New Hope's zoning map has been attached for your reference.
Senior housing areas are represented by the "R-5" designation and are shown in the color
brown.
Conditional Use Permit
Another option that is available to help promote senior housing is to allow higher-density
senior housing as a conditional use in alower-density residential zoning district. For
example, the City's R-2 Moderate Density Residential Zoning District allows housing of up to
eight units per acre to be developed. This density level would accommodate a single family
home, a twin home, or aloes-density townhome development.
However, the City could allow senior housing to be built in the R-2 Moderate Density
Residential Zoning District at a higher density than 8 units per acre. This would prevent non-
senior housing developments from exceeding eight units per acre, while allowing senior
housing developments to be built at a higher density. In some cases, it could be argued that
senior housing produces fewer car trips and demands on certain city services; therefore,
higher density senior housing could have lower impacts to the surrounding community than
higher density non-senior housing.
Utilizing this option would require that the City officially define `senior housing'. The City
would have to determine what age is appropriate for people to be designated as senior
citizens. Additionally, the City would also have to determine which residential zoning districts
would be appropriate to allow higher density senior-only housing. As a note of caution,
allowing higher density senior housing to be located in less dense zoning areas would create
the possibility of higher density (senior) housing development in many areas throughout the
City.
Density Bonus
A density bonus is an incentive-based tool that permits developers to increase the maximum
allowable development on a property in exchange for helping a community to achieve
specific goals. Increasing development density may allow for increases in developed square
footage or increases in the number of developed units.
Providing a density bonus to developers can be done through amending the Subdivision
Code. If this is done, the City could designate an area to be zoned for low-density.
development, but increase density allotment at the time of subdivision approval for a senior
housing development. This act could be incorporated into the Subdivision Development
Agreement which is required to be implemented prior to approval of the final plat.
There are instances where properties may not have to be subdivided or consolidated in order
for development to occur. If this is the case density bonuses in the Subdivision Code would
not be applicable.
Other Options
The City could provide other incentives to promote senior housing without majorly amending
the Zoning or Subdivision Codes. Currently, the City requires multi-family housing
developments to provide two parking spaces per unit. However, elderly and senior housing is
allowed to have as little as one half of a parking space per every one dwelling unit.
Other incentive-based programs could include relaxed setback requirements for senior
housing, increased building height allowances for senior housing, and other relatively minor
deviances from municipal code requirements.
Professional Roundtable Discussion
Staff has asked several professionals who are knowledgeable in issues surrounding senior
housing to speak in a "roundtable" format at the Council/Manager meeting. Participants in the
roundtable discussion include Jennifer Schuller, graduate student at the University of
Minnesota -Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and author of "Housing for Minnesota's
Aging Population," a discussion paper sponsored by the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency.
Amanda Novak, senior project manager for CommonBond Communities will also be
participating in the roundtable discussion. CommonBond Communities specializes in
providing affordable housing for seniors and others in the twin cities area. CommonBond
Communities is the developer and property manager of the Valley Square Townhome
development, located across Winnetka Avenue from City Hall.
Diane Sprague, director of the "Lifetime Home Project", has also been invited to participate at
the roundtable discussion. From 1980 through 2005, Ms. Sprague served on the staff of the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Unfortunately, Ms. Sprague has a prior engagement
and will be unable to attend the roundtable discussion. However, she has agreed to create a
handout that will capture some of her thoughts on senior housing issues. This handout will be
distributed. at the meeting.
Ms. Schuller and Ms. Novak will speak generally about issues surrounding senior housing,
and will focus on the following discussion points:
• Minnesota's aging population and the increasing need for senior housing.
• Senior housing options.
• Local examples of well-planned senior housing communities.
• Attached articles and other material.
Further Actions
Staff requests City Council direction in implementing senior housing incentives. Staff
recommends that the City determine whether or not to proceed with zoning changes prior to
rezoning housing areas as part of the implementation process of the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment
City of New Hope Zoning Map (1 page)
"Where will seniors live?" Star Tribune article dated December 1, 2010 (5 pages)
"Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population" report (35 pages)
' J.~ S T-' e- I1. ~~ _. ~ R~ III ~ ~ ~,~~~pt°~ •;r
R.1 r _i~ ~"~ J fir- }
\I +~~ _ Rd--~_ - - ~-RI Rd I - i ~
. ~ ~ i
RI R[} ~
S "_ ' RI {'-1 RI wR~~ R~ ~~B ~ J R-z -0 ~
~_- lei , B
/ ~ t-__ I ~ RI ~ ~ RO L ••~ R
~ Fe ((
~~ I I ~:~
1 R ~i l ~ M a,
~ ~ _ ~~ 711 ~- - ~ .
~~ I
'^R~ i =l` i
_~ ~~ ~\
iI ~; ~~
I~ I~ ~
3 ~~.
~~
.~ _ _ _ _ T'~T~ , _ _
~,. ~~~ ~t , - ~~
I
~~
~x 1 ~JJ LL~ I~ ~7 ~ ~'-I RI
J ~ r~ ~ L ¢ ~ E ~.~
J
~_ ~ ~.
_,
4 -~' ~~
' ,~ ~ _ ~ -~
-~,c~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ITL1- - - ~ :,,~~ I:
L ~_~ C~l~J L l ~ R.1 ~~-__ ~ IR i
~~ 1~,~ i{ B ~ 1 ~
~~~~~,- ~<,•~ = IRp~ ~a~~,_ ~ ~ II-dB d it ~B ~B m
~' ~-_ y ~:~ ~ - ~ _, ce- fee
~ ~- -E
n~~T~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ _-
~'~ - ~4 -
~;
7
_~>~-~~ _ - ~. I ~~
1y A / I lL ~ I ~ T_ ~. `~
I ~ I U ~ ~ :~~mI ~.r. p,~ , , ~- ~ r
r/~
[_ I_I ~%
11
~~
r ~ ) MO -~ ~, ~ Y
-'~
~i~~ -
r
RI ~
N
-1 a~ i ! i _ ~ i_L`-~J '~T1- Cl Rr T~
,...1
_ F ~ I `r _ _
- 3 ~ ~`~ \L
Chi ~
J 911 ~_ F I
-i~r ,~~ ~ _ -_ M
X ~° i~ ~q ..,,,. f
~,~~ >°''~~,-r-- e, hI '3
1Y~a~ I a t~
c ~ I~fL~ €
!~ ( ~
..'~~~~~' - -- {{II _ _ i i ~ ~~ ~ ~r
J -I V S
i1 . ~f~+Tl~` r I r-I-T9~q-r. I~-~s~ 1~.~. ~-5- ~~e~
City of New Hope
ZONING
MAP
October 2006
Zoning Classifications
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-2 Single/Two Family Residential
R-3 Mediuim Density Residential
R-4 High Density Residential
'r~: R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential
} R-B Residential Business
R-O Residential Office
PUD Planned lise Development
f,.; R-PUD Res. Planned Use Development
CB Community Business
I Industrial
LB Limited Business
Open Space/Public
Water
City Limits
Parcels Outside of City
/v City Parcels
N
W E
S
Feet
tooo o iooo 2000
Bonestroo
l i:\3q\3gmap\cad\avprojects\zone_2oo6.apr 51
Format Dynamics :: C1eanPrint :: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/111163024.... Page 1 of 5
..~ ~ ~ ,L. _ `,.. F ~ .
~ r ~ Pflink your
~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~/ ~ ~ ~; ., rtao±lile brflro~S~r to
13ttp;~%startriburie.eam
Where will seniors live?
,3eanne N#ul#en, 89, enjoyed her water aer®bics c#ass
at Soutwe## Landing in Oak Park Heights. "I just fee#
befiter when I exercise,,, she said.
An aging Minnesota population has
the housing industry trying to meet
yet-to-be defined needs.
By WARREN WOLFE, DAVID PETERSON and MARY
JANE SMETANKA ,Star Tribune staff writers
serving residents of five cities spread across
Dakota County. Modeled on a successful
project in Boston, it aimed to provide rides,
handymen and other services so that elderly
people could. age in place as they became
frail
The iVlinnesota version, however, will. die at
the end of this month, a few of its services
picked up by a Dakota County social services
agency. Despite $275,000 in support from a
private foundation, the project could nat
attract the critical mass of participants willing
to fork over the $600 annual fee.
"In the end, we could not interest enough
people to enroll in a program that they didn't
absolutely need right now," said Mark.
Hoisser, CEO of DARTS, the sponsoring
agency.
With Mirmesota's elderly population expected
to double in the next two decades,
gerontologists and urban planners agree that
the state needs to expand. its stock of senior
housing. Attempts to build for the future can
been seen all across the 'I win Cities, from
"granny pods" in. Scott County to high-rise
condos in Richfield.
Last update: C)eceber 1, 2010 - 10:21 PM
River Bluffs Village sprang to life in January
2009 as a virtual retirement community
The question is: Will baby boomers go for
them when it's their turn to retire? Or will the
Advertisement
~~l~g~Y~~~~ ,
'.-. ~ ,~,
i k„".. ~ ,.(k>r ~~f"~1 V ~~ L]i.i._7L l'L/(11d ff7 ~~iVl
~, "• . ~` , aL71EC EM~f R ~'' - 5, 2 t~ 1 C? tl'tt~l 1`t~t.~ `dL.L.
,.
~~ ~ ~a,'~ ~ ~1€-i~~~'t~tt.~At~Af~.A~~E,~T~Vf'~''~TfC`Llt~t}J~l ~~ ~t(~
:.>'~. ~ r Or+~~sr~.~1~'.4~~3N3?akVi¢+.71aarIi~SAwk ~~~,...
1'rir~t l~~r~vercl 6
http://www. startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1291321624073 12/2/2010
F2ichard Tsong-Taatarii, Star Tribune
Format Dynamics :: C1eanPrint :: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/1 1 1 1 63024.... Page 2 of 5
~,~
{'oi€~k your
~,
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ rr,ob,l€ bro n ser to
I tlp ;~'st3rtrit}ur,e_c{~rn
projects flop -- the failed. dreams of well-
intentioned planners?
"Whatever the boomers say they want now,
they're going to change their minds,"
predicted Robert Kramer of the National
Investment Center f'or the Seniors Housing &
Care Industry in Annapolis, Md.
"What I know is they won't want to be called
seniors, anal most of them won't want to be
living with a. bunch of old people -- even
when tihey are the old people."
As a result, developers and civic leaders are
wading gingerly into this demographic wave,
watching what works and. what doesn't
across the Twin Cities landscape.
"We've had a lot of change over the past 10
years," said Kathryn Roberts, CF.,O of
Ecumen, achurch-affiliated senior housing
nonprofit in Shoreview. "But what's coming?
We're only guessing."
"This is all old people!"
Construction of new senior housing slowed
sharply in 2007 as the real estate market
collapsed. But the Twin Cities was adding m
are than 1,000 new units a year in the
l 990s, and experts expect same recovery
soon.
In the mid-1980s Richfield made a conscious
choice to try to lure seniors out of their
single-family homes but keep them in the
community. The result was a densely built
neighborhood. of shops, restaurants, condos
and apartments designed for easy living near
the intersection. of 66th Street and L}rndale
Avenue.
It worked, said John Stark, the city's director
of community development. Single-family
houses turned over, and Richfield's
homeowners are now among the youngest in.
the Twin Cities.
But after that burst of development, the City
Council decided. against putting mare senior
developments at the Lyndale hub. Some of
the older projects now have vacancy
problems, Stark said.
"When senior developmen s opened. in 1990,
a bunch. of people who were 65 moved in," lie
said. "Now there are a bunch of 85-year-olds
living there. And when they try to market it,
someone who is 65 walks around and says,
'Wait a minute, this is all old people.' "
Along the downtown Minneapolis riverfront,
the fledgling Mill City Commons is trying a
Advertisement
1'rir~t ~'caw~r~cl ~y
http://www. startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1291321624073 12/2/2010
Format Dynamics :: C1eanPrint :: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/111163024.... Page 3 of 5
,~
~ ~ Paink your ~ ~~
~.
~~-~' ~~~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~~ n~obilc 6ro~n~ser to
htt~~J,Jstartribur~ie,com
different experiment. Like the Boston project,
it offers a combination of services and
activities for senior residents of several.
bur dings, and so far it's succeeding.
"We're building a community where we
support each other," said board chairwoman
Marcia Townley, a retired philanthropic
adviser who returned from New York. City to
be near family. "Is this a choice our kids
might make? I really don't know. But if our
kids join, I suspect they will reshape Mi11 City
Conunons, as they have everything else."
Near Stillwater, Presbyterian Homes launched
Boutwell Landing a few years ago as a
campus of the future for seniors, a
"continuum of care" village with apartments,
townhomes, a nursing home, shops and a
movie theater.
But it could be the nonprofit's last huge
development. "We can plan only four or five
years out," said Dan. Lindh, CEO at
Presbyterian Homes & Services of Roseville.
"Maybe the baby boomers will want
something like what they're choosing for
their parents now -- but. maybe not."
Getting rid of the chores
Last summer the state Department of fIuman
Services, which has been working for more
than a decade to prepare Minnesota for the
aging wave, commissioned a survey of baby
boomers' plans. Most boomers are optimistic
and happy enough with their current housing
and comnnmity, but many intend. to make
changes iti retirement. Only a few plan to
head for the sunny South; most say they'll
stay nearby, a few more in condos,
townhouses or apartments.
"What they like is single-level living and
getting rid of some of the chores, like snow
shoveling," said Loren Colman, assistant
commissioner. "Remember, these are people
who have moved more than their parents,
and are more willing to spend money for
services that fit their lifestyles," he said.
"Choices they make at age 65 or 75 or even
85 may not he their final choices."
What's apparent is that baby boomers want
to live as independently as possible at home,
whether that's a house, a condo or even an
assisted-living apartment.
Some of the changes are starting one family
at a time. Over the past two to three years,
for instance, something started to change in
the semi.-rural townships of Scott County.
"We were viewing building permits for the
Advertisement
,,
~s ; ~. ~ r ~~ ~~.~~ r~~~f~~lE~ ~ ..
~_ ; ~ , ; rrcr~t~r~ sr~a~r gar ~~ ~ `c #~ E
~' ~ L
s GR[]UP R~i7EfT AND PA6KAGl~l~ A1IJ4PLA8L?
CA$kN~+ }i CJi ~1
~,„~~~~~-~„,~~ mysticlake.corn
F'rir~t 1'cswer~cl lay
~~~f~ r~~~~ ~~~ ~.
http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1291321624073 12/2/2010
Format Dynamics :: C1eanPrint :: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/111163024.... Page 4 of 5
... ._
Point your
mobile 6tawJr to
~~~~. ~ ~~~~ " ".~ http:/st~tr~rit~u€ie.casm
larger homes going up in the eastern part of
the county," recalls planning manager Brad
Davis, "and seeing floor plans that showed a
second living unit -- usually on the second
or third floor or over an attached garage."
When the county warned applicants that it
allows only single-family homes, the
homeowners said they wanted separate units
-- for an aging parent, perhaps, or an adult
child returning home.
Early in September in the nearby town of New
Prague, Ken Ondich sent out arr all-paints
bulletin to fellow city planners on his
professional association's website.
Ondich wrote that he was confronting for the
first time a request for what's been called a
"granny pod" - a separate pre-built housing
unit trucked rota town and plopped onto
someone's back yard.
What was he supposed to do? No one with
any sort of heart could fail to empathize.
But, Ondich said, "I'm thinking: This is a
slippery slope that could open the door to
some really crowded lots and bad. rental
units." Some neighbors worried that what
started as a kind gesture could turn into
income-producing properly -- or dumpy-
looking additions and a clutter of cars.
Scott County commissioners eventually
drafted a strict ordinance: "Al] kitchen
appliances and/or phunbing equipment shall
be removed. once the accessory dwelling unit
is no longer occupied by a family member."
How much is enough?
to Bloomington, many seniors have chosen.
to remain in their ramblers, which are easily
remodeled. and often have bath, kitchen and.
bedrooms on one floor. But the city has
encouraged a range of senior housing,
including condos, apartments and
specialized projects such as housing far
people with Alzheimer's disease.
Such projects, however, sometimes trigger
controversy in Bloomington. and iaeighbo~•ing
Edina. The most common abjection: density.
"People are usually comforted by the fact that
the residents will be seniors," said. Larry Lee,
Bloomington's director of community
development.
Even more senior housing is on the way in
these two iconic suburbs, but figuring out
just what sort is an art, :Lee said. He said
today's seniors are not the same as people
who turned 65 even 20 years ago.
Advertisement
l~rir~t 1"'awer~rl E3y
http://vvww. startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1291321624073 12/2/2010
Format Dynamics :: C1eanPrint :: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/111163024.... Page 5 of 5
~.
_...
y ~ '' Point your
~t~obile bro~n~srr to
~~ I~ttp;/,~~tartri~unc,et~raz
~~~~~~~ ~
"Everybody has a story of a 90-year-old
grandma still Living in her single-family
home," he explained. "We're learning that a
variety of choices is the best thing that works
for us."
What the future holds
In interview after interview, planners and
developers say this is their best guess for the
future: Single-family Domes will. became
more high-tech, with mare devices atld
sen~ices to help frail people stay put and help
their families monitor their condition from
afar.
The line between independent-living
apartments and assisted living will blur, with
assistance services, including nursing care,
available in all manner of housing.
Nursing homes «rill become more like
hospitals -- short-term options for people
who need. intensive medical. care.
"Older people are going to be even more
engaged and active ir~i the community," said
Ecumen's Roberts, at 59 squarely in the
boomer generation.
"Most of us will. be healthier. And wealthier?
Not all will be. As a nation we still have to
figure out how to finance long-term care and
convince more people to be responsible far
their care as they grow old.
"But overall, this is really exciting stuff. Tlje
boomers have always been changers, and
that's never going to stop."
Wolfe@startribune.coml • 61.2-673-7253,
dapeterson(u~startribune • 952-882-9023,
smetai~~ startribune.com2 • 612-673-7380
Shortcuts To Links In Article
1. http://ezurl.co/1bbc1
2. http://ezurl.co/911e1
Advertisement
~~
r~~a~~~~~~ ~~~~~~-,~
-~.~ ~_ .
SAVE ~o G4°~
~~~~~ ~~
3 ~ ~if`ts
E~rirtt F'ower~cl By
~, ,
,,
http://www. startribune.com/templates/fdcp? 1291321624073 12/2/2010
Discussion Paper
Housing for Minnesota's
Aging Population
Jennifer Schuller
Graduate Student
University of Minnesota,
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
....
....
Minnesota
Housing
Research and Evaluation Unit
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population: Discussion Paper
Author
Jennifer Schuller
Candidate, Master of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Minnesota, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Date
August 2010
Acknoivledc~c-n~ents
The following individuals provided feedback and perspective to guide development of this report. Thank you!
• Andrew Schlack, Greater Minnesota Housing Fund
• Annette Sandler, Jewish Family and Children's Service of Minneapolis
• Ben Winchester, University of Minnesota Extension Services, Center for Small Towns
• Diane Sprague, Lifetime Homes
• Gail Gilman Waldner, Minnesota River Area Agency on Aging
• John Patterson, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
• LaRhae Knatterud and Peter Spuit, Minnesota Department of Human Services
• Marilyn Bruin, University of Minnesota Housing Studies Program
• Tom DeCrans, Karen Thompson, and Terry Louwagie, USDA Rural Development, Minnesota Office
• Tom Gillaspy, Minnesota State Demographer's Office
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population
Discussion Paper
Table of Contents
Introduction &Summary ...............................................................................................................................................1
I. Minnesota's Aging Population ....................................................................................................................................2
II. Seniors' and Boomers' Homes ...................................................................................................................................8
Housing types :...................................................................................................................................................8
Satisfaction with housing ...................................................................................................................................9
Moving and future housing preferences .........................................................................................................10
III. Meeting Seniors' Housing Needs ............................................................................................................................13
Housing and disablement ................................................................................................................................13
Housing design for healthy living and healthy aging .......................................................................................14
Senior and boomer preferences in housing design .........................................................................................16
Comparing modifications with other housing and care options .....................................................................17
IV. Applications to the Minnesota Market ..................................................................................................................20
Special considerations for the low- to moderate- income housing market ....................................................20
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................22
References ...................................................................................................................................................................23
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................25
Appendix A: County Indicators ................................................................................................................................26
Appendix B: Select Universal Design Elements for All Housing ...............................................................................30
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Introduction & Summary
Baby boomer retirement over the next twenty years will usher in a major demographic shift in
Minnesota, with adults at least age 65 increasing from 12% to 20% of the state's population.
Boomers have dominated the housing market throughout their adult lives, and will likely
continue to do so as they begin to retire this year.
Traditional forms of senior housing, however, do not match the preferences of most baby
boomers and younger seniors. Older adults primarily own single-family homes and desire to
remain there as they age. Nevertheless, health and activity limitations generally increase with
age, and the current housing stock is not equipped to enable an aging population to remain in
their homes and communities. Very few single-family homes units are built to be accessible, but
an estimated 60% of these units will house at least one person with a disability over the unit's
lifetime. Over 300,000 older Minnesotans now report a need for housing repair or modification
to remain in their homes.
At the same time, the State is seeking community-based alternatives to senior housing and care
in an effort to control burgeoning long-term care costs. This juncture presents an opportunity
for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to support a new paradigm of senior housing, one
which both meets the desires of seniors and boomers to remain in the communities and social
networks they've chosen and aids the state creating a more cost-effective housing and care
system for seniors. Core universal design components can underpin an effort to design and
build homes that enable all types of households-seniors, families with children, people with
disabilities-to live with ease in their communities.
1
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
1. Mj~~~~~~~~rt~~`~ i~~„iit~ I'~~)at~(atj~~~r
In 2010, nearly 680,000 seniors and 1,470,000 baby boomers live in Minnesota. By 2030, the
expected senior population will be nearly 1.3 million, or 20% of the state's population (as
compared to 12% in 2010). However, these seniors and baby boomers are not distributed
evenly throughout the state. While less than half (47%) of the state's total population lives
outside the seven-county Twin Cities metro area, over half of seniors (55%) and over half of
boomers (58%) live in non-metro Minnesota. Baby boomers-the seniors of 2030-also make
up a significant proportion (26 to 31%) of suburban and exurban populations.
Over the next twenty years, Minnesota's total population is projected to increase by about 16%
while its senior population will nearly double. Given the large size of the boomer cohort and
decreasing birth rates across the state, the State Demographic Center projects that the older-
adult cohort is expected to grow faster than the overall population in all regions of the statel,
as shown in Figure 1. The most explosive growth in the total and senior populations is expected
in Central Minnesota, while regions like the Twin Cities area will experience a sizable but more
moderate overall growth, with a doubling of the senior cohort. Still other areas face zero or
negative population growth along with increasing numbers of seniors.
Looking at individual counties, Maps 1 and 2 show the proportion of each county's population
that is age 65 and older in the years 2010 and 2030 (projected). Currently, counties coded in
yellow in Map 1 and stretching from St. Cloud into southeastern Minnesota have a younger and
Figure 1: Projected total and senior population growth (2010-2030), by region 1
Minnesota
DEED Regions 1 Northwest
2 Headwaters'
3 Arrowhead
4 West Central
5 North Central
6E Mid-Minnesota
6W Upper Minnesota Valley _3.69
7E East Central
7W Central
8 Southwest
9 South Central
10 Southeast
11 Twin Cities Area
91.99
~~'~ ^ 65+ population
- 60.39
Total population
s17s~
9
- 66.69
- 74.89
0
85.7Yo
~9
~ 70.89
~ 45.09
132.09
40.7%
147.89
aa.s9
~ ao.s9
- 65.69
ss.o9
39
101.39
1 Minnesota State Demographic Center (June 2007). Population Projections 2005-2035.
2
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
faster-growing population than other areas of the state, with seniors making up 15% or less of
the population. In most other counties, seniors are 15 to 25% of the population, with just 15
counties having populations where over 30% of the population are seniors. Counties in slow-
growth regions with a lower proportion of seniors are predominantly home to a college or
university, e.g. Bemidji State University in Beltrami County and Southwest State University in
Lyon County.
By 2030, shown in Figure 3, only three counties are projected to have populations in which
seniors account for 15% or less of the population, and the younger central and southeastern
regions of the state will reach the proportion of seniors that other regions experienced in 2010
(15 to 25%).2 In fact, by 2030, seniors will account for nearly 40% of the population in Aitkin,
Cook, and Kittson counties.
Rates of increase in the senior population between 2010 and 2030 also vary across the state
(see Map 3). Counties with older populations in 2010 will continue to age, with increasing
numbers of seniors in older age cohorts, including ages 75 to 85 and 85+; however, they will
have smaller increases in the overall senior population. Counties with lower proportions of
seniors in 2010, in contrast, are projected to experience a dramatic aging trend. In eighteen
counties-most of which are located in central and southeastern Minnesota-the number of
seniors will more than double in the next 20 years. In fact, Scott County is anticipating a 255%
increase while Traverse County, with its already older population, is projected to begin the
trend toward a numeric and proportional decrease in its senior population.
In general, varying growth rates and proportions of seniors by county mean that communities
are and will continue to experience the aging of the population to varying degrees. The elderly
dependency ratio, which is the number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons in the
population aged 15 through 64 years, provides one indicator of the extent of the financial and
direct care burden on working adults in counties throughout Minnesota. For example, the
statewide elderly dependency ratio in 2008 was 18.4 but, by county, the measure ranges from
9.9 to 51.8. Counties around the Twin Cities area, central and southeastern Minnesota have
ratios under 20, while counties on western edge of the state typically have ratios above 35. By
2030, the statewide elderly dependency ratio will increase to 34.0, with counties ranging from
19.9 to 76.4. (A table with county-level elderly care ratios and other indicators is included in
Appendix A.)
Z Minnesota State Demographic Center (June 2007). Population Projections 2005-2035.
3
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Map 1
Proportion of Population
Aged 65 and Older (2010)
- 20.1%- 30% ~ 6.5%- 15°/0
0 12 5 25 50 Miles
i ~ ~ ~ i
Source. Minnesota State
Demographic Center
nn
Minnesota
Housing
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Map 2
Proportion of Population
Aged fi5 and Older (2030)
3t) 1°io-4U% ~_j 15.1°ru-ZU%
- 20.1% - 30% u 10.5% - 150!0
0 12.5 25 50 Miles
t ~ ~ ~ i
Source Minnesota State
Demographic Center
p fl
Minnesota
Housing
~,
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Map 3
Projected Change in
0 12.5 25 50 Miles
Senior Population (2010-2030) , ,
_ 95 9% to 255 4% ~ 49% to 68.7%
- 68.8%to 95.8% ~_~ 19 1%to 48.9% Source Minnesota State
Demographic Center
C__~ -13.3%
n ra>t
Minnesota
Housing
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Non-metro population will continue to be older than the total population because retirees are
moving to non-metro counties3 and because older people make up larger share of population in
population loss counties.4 In addition, migration patterns change with age, with older adults
less likely to migrate than younger cohorts, but more likely to migrate to rural non-metro-
adjacent counties, especially if they have adult children nearby. Compounding this trend as
boomers reach retirement, boomers have historically had higher rural migration rates than
other generational cohorts.s
Within metropolitan areas, a recent study examining 2005 Current Population Survey data from
U.S. metropolitan areas including the Twin Cities, found that just two percent of all empty-nest
retirement-age suburban homeowners can be expected to move to an urban area; seniors and
empty-nesters in suburbs are at least as likely to move to a small town as to the city.6 Surveys
of seniors and boomers in Minnesota confirm that preference.'
Policy Ii~~plicntions:
Given the size of the senior and boomer cohorts, older adults will dominate the housing market
in the state for the next twenty to thirty-five years. Builders and remodelers, as well as public
officials, will need to tune into this aging population to find efficient and multi-purpose housing
and care solutions that meet the needs of an aging population while contributing to a future
housing stock that is attractive and adaptable to Minnesota's future population. Safe and
connected sidewalks, doors with easily-maneuverable lever handles, and entrances that
accommodate strollers as well as wheelchairs are examples of features worth investing in
because they enhance life for people of all ages and abilities.
And, as noted earlier, communities throughout Minnesota are and will continue to experience
this demographic change in different ways. In some communities, the next twenty years will
feel like a sprint toward an older demographic, while in others it will feel like the second half of
an endurance race. Effective policy responses should therefore recognize that requests for
assistance may vary in tone and emphasis and, to the extent possible, provide flexibility for
various types and levels of responses throughout the state.
s Cromartie and Nelson (2009).
° Jones, Kandel, and Parker (2007).
5 Cromartie and Nelson (2009).
a Englehardt (2006).
Ecumen (2007).
7
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
lI..Sk~N~ri~il!°s' Auld Boo>Ine~°s' )l~~rnes
Responding to the housing needs of an aging population requires understanding of the
population beyond its numeric dominance throughout the state. To meet projected market
demands in a cost-effective manner, examination of current housing types, levels of
satisfaction, and future housing preferences of today's seniors and boomers is essential.
At any given time, only a small number of older adults live in nursing homes,
assisted living facilities, or other care facilities. In fact, a recent study of the need for long-term
care found that elders 65 years old today will need an average of three years of long-term care
(nursing facility, home care, or informal care).$ In 2009, 27,444 senior Minnesotans were in 281
nursing facilities9; this total constitutes 4% of all seniors in the state. Assisted living provides
housing and care for an estimated 57,261 Minnesota seniors (8%).
Figure 5: Minnesota homeownership rates, by age
(2006-2008)10
100 ,-- ---_
~o ov 83.9Y 86.19'0 87.3% 85.99'0 __ __,
80%
60~
409
20%
OY
15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and All ages
over
-------Baby boomers -------
The remaining 88% of seniors are in more traditional housing. Overwhelmingly, seniors and
boomers are owners of single-family detached homes. As shown in Figure 5, baby boomers and
seniors have home ownership rates exceeding the state rate of 75%.10 Ownership rates
decrease as seniors age and sell their homes, but an estimated 20% of householders age 65+
carry a mortgage on their home.ll
Older Minnesotans who rent in Minnesota reside in a range of housing types, with about one
third in low-density rentals (e.g. townhomes and triplexes), one third in larger multi-family
properties, and the remaining third in age-restricted multi-family properties. As shown in Figure
a Kemper, Komisar, and Alecxih (2006).
9 Harrington, Carrillo, and Blank (2010).
to American Communities Survey (2006-2008).
11 Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies (2006), MetLife (2009).
8
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
6, this means that 7% of older Minnesotans reside in age-restricted multi-family rental
properties.12
Figure 6: Current residence of Minnesotans, age 55+
(2005)1z
Single-family home
^Mutti-family home, including
townhomes, condos, duplexes,
and triplexes
Apartment in multi-family
structure
Apartment in age-restricted
multi-family structure
7%
7%
78%
The age and condition of the housing stock in regions around the state varies significantly. In
southwest and west central counties, and along the Iowa border, the median age of the
housing stock is currently around 50 to 60 years. In counties surrounding Hennepin and Ramsey
counties, and in retirement destination areas around Bemidji and Brainerd, the median age of
housing is only about 15 to 30 years.13 In general, the condition of rural housing has improved
over the past century, but research finds that senior homeowners tend to live in the oldest
homes in the community14 and are less likely to move than older adults in urban areas.ls
Satisfaction with hou;~ :Housing type, however, does not appear to have a significant influence
Table 1: Senior and boomer satisfaction with
current housing, by age cohort1e
Age of Percent of respondents
Respondent rating housing satisfaction
at least 8.0 of 10.0
on satisfaction with current housing. Adults 55
and older are generally very satisfied with their
current housing, ranking their satisfaction at an
average of 8.7 out of 10 (10 being highly
satisfied) in 2009.16 In addition, the level of
satisfaction with their housing increases with age,
45 to 54 years 75
55 to 64 years 82
65 to 74 years 85
75+ years 86
as shown in Table 1.
Satisfaction with housing is related to housing's
perceived impacts on wellbeing, access to social
and civic opportunities, and monetary benefits to
iz Minnesota Board on Aging (2005). Survey of Older Minnesotans. Table 59: Live in Senior Housing, Table 60: Housing Tenure
i3 American Community Survey, 2006-2008.
14 Strathers (2009).
15 MN Board on Aging (2005). Survey of Older Minnesotans. Table 63: Planning to Move.
i6 MetLife Mature Market Institute and National Association of Home Builders (2009).
9
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
residents17. In detailed surveys of seniors in five communities and housing settings across the
United States, residents reported that both renting and ownership had a positive impact on
wellbeing, both provided social and civic opportunities for residents, and both provided
monetary benefits. Elderly Minnesota residents receiving assisted living services in their homes
also overwhelmingly report satisfaction with care received (99%) and that their lives are better
because of the assistance (85%).18
High satisfaction is common even when assistance is needed to maintain the home. Forty
percent of older Minnesotan noted that they needed some type of assistance to remain in their
home. Most common types of assistance needed were maintenance and repair (23.8%),
structural upkeep (18.9%), and accessible features (6.9%).19 Respondents who were female,
lived alone or had lower incomes were more likely to report need for assistance to remain in
their home. Shown in Figure 7, the need for home modification also increases with age, with
twice as many modification needs reported by adults age 75 and older as by respondents age
50 to 59.
Figure 7: Older Minnesotans' need for home repair or
modification to remain in home, 200519
~ 90
c 80
eo
70
60
~ 50
d 40
~ 30
..
d 20
v
a`, 10
a 0
Associated with reported high levels of satisfaction, the
Minnesota Board on Aging found that 80% of older Minnesotans have no plans to move.20
Relocation can be traumatic for older adults, even within continuing care retirement
communities (CCRCs), because it is seen as disempowering and final2l or because the move was
precipitated by a "shock," such as loss of a spouse or caregiver.22 Older adults may voluntarily
"Altus and Matthews (2002).
'a Minnesota Department of Human Services (2009).
19 Minnesota Board on Aging (2005). Survey of Older Minnesotans. Table 64: Percent Needing Assistance to Stay in Own Home.
20 Minnesota Board on Aging (2005). Table 63: Planning to Move.
zi Shippee (2009), Coughlan and Ward (2007), Heisler, Evans, & Moen. (2004).
~~ Calvo, Haverstick, and Zhivan (2009).
10
Ongoing Maintenance StruduralUpkeep Wheelchair or NoASSistance
and Repair Handicapped Needed
Accessible
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
move to CCRCs to maintain autonomy and increase social integration as they age, but
transitions within CCRCs often reflect administrative decisions and may result in decreased
social integration and satisfaction. Movement from independent living to assisted living or to
nursing care is especially traumatic, as independent living is a symbol of retaining control.
Demonstrating this tendency, 62% of older Minnesotans expressed concern about living in a
nursing home some day.23 Additionally, a senior housing provider study in Minnesota found
that, even if they or their spouse have a debilitating illness, 89% of Minnesota boomers want to
live at home, with just 3% stating a preference for "active adult" communities, 1% for assisted
living, and 0% for nursing homes.24 Nearly two thirds (65%) want a combination of professional
and family care in their own home. (These preference rates for assisted living are lower than
those found in national studies, where boomers reported preference for assisted living at five
to eight percent, and nursing homes at two to three percent.zs)
When older adults consider relocating, reasons for moving can be grouped into pull factors and
push factors, with push factors dominating: z6
• Pull Factors include proximity to grown children, church, shopping, or health care (24%).
• Push Factors include the desire to reduce housing costs, including maintenance (76%).
Studies also reveal a preference for low-density neighborhoods and communities in small
towns and suburban areas. A randomized phone survey of Minnesota baby boomers revealed a
preference for rural locations (52%), followed by suburban neighborhoods (37%) and urban
neighborhoods (10%).27
When older adults' examine a range of housing-care combinations, assisted living is favored by
the oldest households (especially those with the oldest person over 85) and when there are no
adult children nearby; however, this preference is unaffected by the presence of difficulties
with activities of daily living.28 Shared housing, or the "Golden Girls"/roommate model, is
favored by households with difficulties with activities of daily living and households with non-
resident children. Supported housing, or in-home care, is favored as a second choice by
households having difficulties with activities of daily living.
Policy Implications:
Most baby boomers clearly want to stay in their current homes (typically single-family) and
communities. If services are needed, they want them provided by family, friends and
ze Minnesota Board on Aging. 2005 Survey of Older Minnesotans. Table 77: Concerned about ending up in a nursing home.
za Ecumen (2007).
zs Kane, Chan, and Kane (2007).
z6 Bailey and Gilmore (2004), Kane, Chan, and Kane (2007).
z~ Ecumen (2007).
28 Shafer (1999).
11
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
professionals in their homes. Consequently, meeting the market demand for the senior housing
of the future requires solutions that address single-family homes; concentrated senior housing,
especially in larger multi-unit properties, is likely a limited part of the solution.
Additionally, helping seniors maintain their independence requires coordinated housing and
support services. The wellbeing that seniors feel in their homes is often directly connected to
their ability to remain as independent as possible. When the solution demands some ongoing
services, a plan for those services should be in place in conjunction with any home modification
activities. In addition, identifying and prioritizing naturally occurring retirement communities
(Census tracts or places where 25% of the population is seniors) may help to build in efficiencies
in service delivery.
~z
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
111, Meeting Seniors' Hou~in~ Needs
As people age, they are more likely to experience health or mobility Iimitations.29 At the same
time, the current senior and boomer population predominantly own and plan to remain in
homes that are not designed for people with disabilities. This incongruence points to an
unprecedented need for home modifications and forward-thinking design in new homes.
Environmental factors like home and neighborhood design set the
threshold for when limitations become a disability and, correspondingly, when assistance is
required.30 For example, someone who has difficulty getting in/out of bathtub may be
considered disabled; however, the same person may not be considered disabled if a grab bar
enabled the individual to perform the task without other assistance. As reported in the
Medicare Beneficiary Survey (2007) and shown in Figure 7, over nine percent of adults age 65+
have difficulty bathing or showering,31 both activities with which grab bars could be beneficial.
Twenty-two percent have difficulty walking and could benefit from zero-step entrances and
main-floor baths and laundries.
Figure 8: Medicare recipients with difficulty
performing selected activities of daily living, 200729
45
40
35
30
..
~ 25
u
d 20
a
15
10
5
0
Using Toilet
Also demonstrated in Figure 8, activity limitations and need for assistance also increase with
age. Correspondingly, areas of the state in which older cohorts are larger will likely have higher
levels of disability and needs for home modification compared to regions with senior
populations dominated by younger cohorts. For example, in 2030, seniors will make up about
24% of the population in both West Central and the Headwaters (Bemidji) regions of the state.
However, seniors at least age 85 will make up 5.7% of the population in the west central region
z9 Medicare Beneficiary Survey (CDC/NCHS).
so Stineman (2001), Stineman, Ross, Masilin, and Gray (2007).
31 Medicare Beneficiary Survey (CDC/NCHS).
13
65 to 74 75 to 84 85+ 65+
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
and only 2.8% around Bemidji, indicating that modification needs per senior may be higher in
west central Minnesota.
Beyond individual disability rates, however, housing researchers have recently turned to using
household disability rates instead of individual disability rates due to their better fit with
housing units. Household disability rates, or the percentage of households with at least one
person with a disability, are approximately twice that of individual rates and increase as the
household ages. Using medium assumptions regarding rates of disability and the number of
different households that could reside in asingle-family home during its lifetime, there is a 60%
probability that, during its expected lifetime, anewly-built single family house will house at
least one resident with a physical limitation disability, and a 27% probability of housing at least
one resident with aself-care limitation, such as using the toilet.32 When disabled visitors are
accounted for, probabilities rise to 91% and 53%, respectively. Consequently, the current stock
of housing will not meet the needs of the aging baby boomers without some intervention.
Affordable housing with good initial design or
home modifications can significantly increase the length of time residents can live safely and
independently in their homes. Design modifications can potentially prevent a disability from
occurring, stop or slow the process of disablement, or possibly even reverse the disablement
process. In a controlled study of accessibility modifications in the homes of older adults with
mobility limitations,33 older adults with baseline modifications such as railings and bathroom
modifications were less likely than their counterparts without modifications to experience
subsequent decline in functional ability two years later. (However, there may be a health or
disability threshold after which modifications reap a limited benefit.)
Factors strongly associated with having residential modifications are health conditions, older
age, and living alone. Other factors involved in the decision to have home modifications include
residents' and family members' level of awareness, affordability, and beliefs of beneficiality of
modifications.34 These factors concerning home-modification decisions hint at some of the
barriers to having one's home modified. Lack of resources or information for home
modification, lack of expertise/training for professionals, inertia on part of
homeowners/homebuyers were reported in a national study.35 Also prominent is homeowners'
desire to maintain "normal" or "non-disabled" perception. New homebuyers also demonstrate
reluctance to incorporate accessibility features (or accessible-ready features); most homes are
sz Smith, Rayer, and Smith (2008).
ss Liu and Lapane (2009).
sa Kutty (1999), Pynoos (1993).
ss Stafford and Harlan-Simmons (2003).
14
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
purchased by younger adult households, who are unaware or in denial of future needs at
purchase.36
To overcome perception barriers to home modifications, Universal Design may provide a
framework for construction and modification that meets the needs of seniors without placing
emphasis on disabilities or limitations. Rather than being geared solely to older adults and
people with disabilities, universal design features are intended to have general utility and
market appeal. Universal design focuses on design beyond the "average adult user model" of
conventional design, creating models with broader performance capabilities for the population
as a whole, including children, short and very tall adults, those with temporary limitations like
pregnancy or a leg injury, and persons who are frail or have various disabilities.37
Core components of universal design are non-intrusive and non-specific, improving ease of
living for people. These core elements include at least one zero-step entrance, a bath and
bedroom on the main level, and broad blocking in walls around toilet, tub, and shower allowing
for future placement and relocation of grab bars. (The key with grab bars is having the
bathroom framed so that they can be added in the future at minimal cost.) Other examples of
universal design features include multiple countertop heights, wide doorways, lever faucets,
and a curbless shower with handheld adjustable shower head.
While modifications can be expensive, several assessments have found that universal design
feature costs are minimal if incorporated into the construction of new units, but can be
substantial if added to existing homes.38 Although a handrail installation may add only $100 to a
new construction project, major structural renovations to an existing home to accommodate
handrails can cost $50,000 or more. However, even the cost of major modifications should be
evaluated in the context of costs of other housing options, e.g. nursing home care at $64,000 to
$74,000 per year. 39
Along with structural modifications for ease of mobility, telehealth services and televideo
assessments for home modification have also proven effective in providing assistance to more
remote or underserved populations.40 Remote (televideo) assessment of home modification
needs for older adults are slightly less accurate in identification of problems, but were as
effective as in-home inspections in finding agreement on solutions. Remote assessments also
involve significantly less cost for residents in rural and other underserved areas.41
as Lemmon (2007).
37 Lifetime Homes (no date).
38 Pynoos and Nishita (2003), Duncan (1998), Lansley et al (2004).
a9 MetLife Mature Market Institute (2005).
40 Minnesota Department of Health (2008).
41 Sanford and Butterfield (2005)
15
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Overlapping with some Universal Design
components and directly connecting with seniors and boomers' desire to increase ease of living
in their own homes, older adult buyers prefer features that enable them to 1) reduce
maintenance, energy costs, or physical strain, and 2) maintain the "family home" role, having
space for guests and family events.
Boomers prefer homes that are:
• larger (3-4 bedrooms),
• high-tech (broadband internet and security systems), and
• low maintenance or energy efficient.a2
Respondents connected technology to both social interactions and to current or future home
health care needs.
Additionally, a 2006 national research study of over 6,000 householders age 45+ points out that
only 5% of upper Midwestern adults age 45+ want to downsize when they next move.43 About
one-third (32%) desire two bedrooms, nearly half (47%) prefer three bedrooms, and 18% want
four bedrooms in single-family detached homes. Sixty-four percent also want one-story homes,
but respondents show little interest in high-profile accessibility features. When the question
was framed without reference to universal design, however, 42% of upper Midwestern
householders age 45+ stated they were likely or very likely to purchase a home with universal
design features (Figure 9). Householders age 55-64 were more likely to say they would
Figure 9: Likelihood of purchasing auniversal-
design home, by age groupaz
60 _ __ - Likely ^ Very likely
so _ -
40 20
u 30 16 _..:.:;; 20
C. 53 49
41 45
20
34
10 I 26 29 25
0 ; ----
45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 76+
age group
42 National Association of Home Builders (2009). Survey of builders and buyers age 45+.
43 Wylde (2008).
16
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
purchase a universally designed home than were householders ages 75+. Declining interest
with age is primarily a result of older households being less likely to purchase a new home than
younger households.
Explaining the lack of interest in overt accessibility features, homebuyers of all ages buy, build,
and remodel homes that demonstrate their independence and ability to provide for
themselves.44 As such, they do not generally choose products or designs that appear
institutional (e.g. rails in hallways) or emphasize need for assistance (e.g. grab bars or roll-in
showers) unless a household member has an immediate need for those products or designs.
Also worth noting: Seniors and boomers are supported by federal law in their desire to receive
care in their homes even as disability levels increase. The 1999 Olmstead Supreme Court
decision45 mandated that services be provided to people in the "most integrated setting" in
keeping with the Americans with Disabilities Act's integration mandate.
As noted previously, home
modifications can be expensive if work cannot be done in conjunction with larger home
renovation projects or if homes are not designed to facilitate accessibility features. However,
compared to more traditional models of housing and care for aging or frail adults, modifications
with appropriate home care can preserve a sense of independence while saving money for
older adults, their families, and the State.
Table 2 compares the estimated annual costs associated with long-term care options in
Minnesota. While individual needs affect the care required, the housing choices for persons
with high needs represent vastly different costs.46 The third column, High with home care and
Adult Day Care, most closely reflects seniors and boomers stated desire for a combination of
professional and family care in their home and community. This option also presents a more
cost effective choice for seniors, with expenses approximately 42 to 45% lower than nursing
home care and 17 to 20% lower than professional home care alone. (Adult day services provide
health, social, and therapeutic activities in a supportive group environment.)
Reliable studies documenting the value of reductions in level or type of care needed as a result
of home modifications are not yet available. However, because the home environment
determines when a limitation becomes a disability, it is reasonable to assume that a successful
home modification could reduce reliance on some high-intensity (and high-cost) services47. This
could create potential savings for the family and/or the state when the individual is Medicaid
44 Golant (2007).
45 Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
as The Gerontology Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, and Wider Opportunities for Women (2009), Genworth
(2010).
47 Lansley et al (2004), Tanner, Tilse, and de Jonge (2008).
17
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
eligible. However, even in cases where the total cost of modification and home care is equal to
the cost of long-term care in another setting, it is important to note that the modification
allows the family or community to retain a home that is in better condition and is more
marketable than the non-modified housing would have been.
Table 2: Estimated Annual Long-Term Care Costs at Public Reimbursement and Private Pay Rates
in Minnesota (2008)46
Level of Need for Long-Term Care:
High with High with
home care professional High with
& Adult Day home care Nursing
Low Medium Care only Home Care
Hours Per Week 6 16 36 36
Public Rates: All of Minnesota $7,008 $18,701 $36,758 $46,024 $66,795
Private Rates: Twin Cities (il Counties) $8,311 $22,231 $40,288 $48,492 $73,175
Private Rates: Balance of Minnesota $7,262 $19,514 $34,974 $43,798 $60,225
Policy Implications:
Overall, the pattern of increasing disability with age has specific implications for estimating
housing modification and care needs in different regions of the state. Areas that have a higher
proportion of the population that is over 75 or over 85 may have higher demands than the
overall senior population would suggest. Varying needs and geographic realities may demand
consideration of a broader set of eligible activities in home modification and rehabilitation
projects. For example, creating accessory units (i.e. mother-in-law apartments) within larger
suburban homes can support family caregiving while maintaining a sense of privacy for family
members. However, in more geographically isolated areas, equipping homes with telehealth (or
telehealth-ready Internet connections) more effectively promote independent living.
Because the living environment sets the threshold for disability and service/care responses,
home designs should be as accessible as possible. However, the existing housing stock does not
meet the needs of an aging population and, in fact, contributes to the disability level of aging
adults. Certain housing designs, such as split levels or split entries, should be discouraged and
phased out because they create an environment with a very low threshold at which a limitation
becomes a disability, thus requiring modification or assistance. Floor plans like split levels
inhibit livability as designed and would involve very expensive modifications to meet even the
core universal design requirements.
Related to universal design, quality design that facilitates daily living is clearly welcome and
desired, but accessibility features should not be prominent or visible corrections to the existing
structure. For example, bathrooms should be framed so that grab bars can be installed without
18
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
extensive work or expense; alternate entrances or berms integrated into the landscaping
should be considered in place of prominent ramps. Significant effort may be required to
educate homebuilders and remodelers on flexible design strategies and non-intrusive
alternatives to institutional products, among other topics. Coordination with other home
modification funders and specialists, including DEED and statewide Centers for Independent
Living, could build expertise and control costs across the industry. In addition, connecting
builders to forward-thinking disability specialists or occupational therapists on an ongoing basis
could help to form relationships that facilitate responsible and individualized solutions to
housing and care problems.
Finally, selling universal design may require new language and new angles. Concepts such as
easy living, convenience, enablement, and young family-friendly design may be more
convincing to seniors and new homebuyers who may otherwise feel that they are
compromising their housing desires. For example, the same zero-step entrance that prevents
falls for seniors also prevents falls for toddlers, and more easily accommodates strollers than
traditional step entrances. Open floor plans enable caregivers of children and older adults to
work in the kitchen and maintain a line of sight to the living room.
19
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
IV. Applications to the Minnesota Market
In Minnesota, the percentages of older adults who report a need for home repair or
modification may appear small, with five to eleven percent of adults by age reporting a need for
accessibility modifications (see Figure 7 on page 10).48 However, when these percentages are
applied to the total number of persons in these age groups, the scope of the need is
substantial. As shown in Table 3, applied to 2010 population estimates from the Minnesota
State Demographic Center, over 300,000 older adult households need assistance with structural
upkeep or repair and 100,000 need wheelchair or handicapped accessibility modifications. In
addition, the numbers are likely to grow as the baby boomers age into the 75+ age group.
Table 3: Estimated older Minnesotans needing assistance with selected home maintenance tasks48
Age Cohort
People (2010)
50-59 Total Population 763,130
Need assistance with ongoing maintenance and repair (14.6%) 111,417
Need assistance with structural upkeep (11.5%) 87,760
Need assistance with wheelchair or handicapped accessibility (34.2%) 36,630
60-74 Total Population 631,250
Need assistance with ongoing maintenance and repair (27.7%) 174,856
Need assistance with structural upkeep (22.4%) 141,400
Need assistance with wheelchair or handicapped accessibility (6.6%) 41,663
75+ Total Population 327,640
Need assistance with ongoing maintenance and repair (34.2%) 112,053
Need assistance with structural upkeep (26.6%) 87,152
Need assistance with wheelchair or handicapped accessibility (11.3%) 37,023
All 50+ Total Population 1,722,020
Need assistance with ongoing maintenance and repair (23.1%) 398,326
Need assistance with structural upkeep (18.3%) 316,312
Need assistance with wheelchair or handicapped accessibility (6.7%) 115,316
In addition, considering these self-reported need estimates in the context of older adults'
consistently high satisfaction with their current housing, it is possible that structural repair and
modification needs are underestimated.
Assisted living, with little
government regulation or financing (as compared to other housing-care options for seniors),
has grown where the population can afford this more expensive care option; assisted living
facilities and services are disproportionately located in areas with higher educational
attainment, income, and housing wealth.49 Thus, low-income aging adults, including minorities
48 Minnesota Board on Aging (2005). Survey of Older Minnesotans. Table 64: Percent Needing Assistance to Stay in Own Home.
a9 Stevenson and Grabowski (2010).
20
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
and people in rural areas, have substantially less access to assisted living services due to
financial resources and proximity issues. These adults are more likely to move directly from
their homes to nursing homes (which are heavily funded with public dollars), both because of
the dearth of other housing options and because the individual is likely to be more frail once
they move.
Limited access to housing and care options can contribute to expensive undercare and overcare
in underserved populations.50 For older adults with some care needs, both overcare (e.g.
nursing home care when 24-hour care is not needed) and undercare (e.g. limited or no home
care despite need) result in greater health care costs for individuals and society over their
lifetime. This under- or overcare can be more prevalent in areas underserved by mid-level care
services, including home care.
Figure 10: Percentage of adults 65+ with
activity limitations, by incomesl
40
35
30
« 25
C
L 20
d
n- is
io
s
0
Compounding the impact of over- or under-care on overall health care costs and Medicare
spending, data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies and large independent
studies have found that income is inversely related to activity limitations in older adults.51 In
other words, higher levels of disability are associated with lower incomes and vice a versa. As
shown in Figure 10, 38% of older adults with incomes below $30,000 report limitations that
affect daily activities; the rate decreases by almost half for those with mid-range incomes, and
is nearly halved again for persons with high incomes.
Clustered housing with services may present an affordable housing option for lower-income
seniors with service needs and preserve (or create) service efficiencies for long-term care
so Lawler (2001).
51 Wylde (2008-.
21
<$30,000 $30,000 - $50,000 - $70,000 - $100,000 - $150,000+
49,999 69,999 99,999 149,999
income
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
providers.52 However, considering the various impacts of resident income and asset levels on
eligibility for housing subsidy or health services, coordination of housing finance and health
service provision can be extremely difficult.53 A new paradigm of senior housing, with
coordinated services and housing supports in the resident's home, needs to be investigated.
Policy Implicntions:
Although multi-family rental units may not be the primary avenue of senior housing in the
future, it may be a key component of Minnesota Housing's strategy for serving seniors. Because
about half of low-income seniors are renters, new construction and modification projects in
rental units that serve seniors should respond appropriately to the higher levels of disability in
the lower-income population (versus levels in all seniors and the general population). ADA
minimum requirements may not be adequate.
Financing mechanisms should not dissuade older adults from participating in programs
designed for them. Requirements such as extended residency or repayment due in full when
the unit is no longer the primary residence are reasonable in most circumstances, but may
prevent seniors and their families from seeking assistance with necessary modifications. In
addition, home values of lower-income senior homeowners can be minimal, especially in
greater Minnesota; thus, modification financing tied to housing value could be problematic.
~,QII(`~1111i?(1S
Minnesota's aging seniors and baby boomers are bringing to bear new demands on the state's
housing and services. While the needs are extraordinary and immediate, Minnesota Housing
has the opportunity to contribute to solutions that are both responsive and responsible. Being
responsive to the needs of seniors and the State's budget goals, Minnesota Housing can work
quickly to coordinate housing initiatives with senior care initiatives, and develop program
guidelines that encompass the range of housing and care solutions that can help seniors remain
safely and affordably housed in their communities throughout the state. Being responsible to
customers and funders, Minnesota Housing can also develop and adapt quality housing that
meets the needs of people of all ages and abilities, creating a backbone of flexible and
affordable housing options for Minnesotans-now and in the years ahead.
sz Golant (2008).
ss Evashwick and Holt (2000), Ormond et al (2004).
22
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
References
Altus, D. E. and Mathews, R. M. (2002) "Comparing the
Satisfaction of Rural Seniors with Housing Co-Ops and
Congregate Apartments." Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 16: 1, 39 - 50.
Bailey C. and K. Gilmore (2004). "Highlights of a survey of
older adults in Ramsey County." Wilder Research Center.
www.wilder.org/research
Harrington, C., H. Carrillo, and B. Blank. Table 1, "Nursing,
Facilities, Staffing, Residents, and Facility Deficiencies,
2001 Through 2009," Department of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
www.pascenter.org. Based on the Online Survey,
Certification, and Reporting system (OSCAR), Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Calvo, E., K. Haverstick, and N. Zhivan (2009).
"Determinants and consequences of moving decisions for
older Americans." WP#2009-16. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center
for Retirement Research at Boston College.
http://crr.bc.edu/images/stories/Working_Papers/wp_200
9-16.pdf.
Coughlan , R., & L. Ward (2007). Experience of recently
relocated residents of a long-term care facility in Ontario:
Assessing quality qualitatively. International Journal of
Nursing Studies , 44 , 47 - 57.
Cromartie, J., and P.Nelson. (August 2009) .Baby Boom
Migration and Its Impact on Rural America, ERR-79, U.S.
Dept. of Agri., Econ. Res. Serv.
Duncan, R. (1998). Funding, financing and other resources
for home modifications. Technology and Disability, 8 (1),
37-50.
Ecumen (2007). "Age Wave" Study.
www.ecumen.org/app/webroot/files/file/White%20Paper
s/Age-Wave-Stu dy. pdf.
Englehardt, G. (2006) "Housing Trends Among Baby
Boomers." Research Institute for Housing America.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1491747.
Evashwick, C., & T. Holt (2000). Integrating long-term care,
acute care, and housing: Building success through a
continuum of care. St. Louis, M0: The Catholic Health
Association of the United States.
The Gerontology Institute, University of Massachusetts
Boston, and Wider Opportunities for Women (2009). The
Elder Economic Security Standard Index for Minnesota.
www.wowonline.org/ourprogra ms/eesi/state-
resources/documents/FinalElderl ndexReportforM N. pdf.
Gitlin, L. N., L. Winter, M. Dennis, M. Corcoran, S.
Schinfeld, & W. Hauck (2006). A randomized trial of a
multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional
difficulties in older adults. Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 54(5), 809-816.
Golant, S. (2007). Supportive Housing for Frail, Low-
Income Older Adults: Identifying Need and Allocating
Resources. Generations, vol. 29, no. 4, 37-43.
Golant, S. (2008) "Affordable Clustered Housing-Care: A
Category of Long-Term Care Options for the Elderly Poor."
Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 22: 1, 3 - 44
Heisler, E. G. , W. Evans, & P. Moen. (2004). Health and
social outcomes of moving to a continuing care retirement
community. Journal of Housing for the Elderly , 18, 5 - 24
Jones, C., W. Kandel, and T. Parker (2007). "Population
dynamics are changing the profile of rural areas." Amber
Waves. USDA, Economic Research Service.
www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/Apri107/PDF/Population.
pdf.
Kane, R.A., 1. Chan, and R. L. Kane (2007). "Assisted Living
Literature Through May 2004: Taking Stock." The
Gerontologist. Vol. 47, Special Issue III, 125-140.
Kemper, P., Komisar, H., & Alecxih, L. (2006). Long-term
care over an uncertain future: What can current retirees
expect? Inquiry, 42, 335-350.
Kutty , N. D. (1999 ). Demand for home modifications: A
household production function approach .Applied
Economics , 31, 1273 -1281.
Lansley, P., C. McCreadie, A. Tinker (2004). "Can adapting
the homes of older people and providing assistive
technology pay its way?" Age and Ageing 2004; 33: 571-
576.
Lawler, K. (2001). "Aging in Place Coordinating Housing
and Health Care Provision for America's Growing Elderly
Population." Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University & Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
Lemmon, W. (2007). Reality check from the homebuilder's
sales floor. Planning Commissioners Journal, PlannersWeb.
http://pcj.typepad.com/plann ing_comm issionersJo/2007
/04/reality_check_f.html
Lifetime Homes (no date). "Background on Accessible,
Adaptable, Universal, and Visitable Design."
www.lifetimehome. us.
Liu and Lapane (2009). "Residential Modifi cations and
Decline in Physical Function Among Community-Dwelling
Older Adults." The Gerontologist, Vol. 49, No. 3, 344-354.
Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (2007). "Difficulty
performing activities of daily living among Medicare
beneficiaries, ages 65+; US, 1992-2007." U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and the National Center for Health
Statistics.
23
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
MetLife Mature Market Institute and the National
Association of Home Builders (April 2009). Housing for the
55+ market: trends and insights on boomers and beyond.
www. MatureMarketlnstitute.com.
MetLife Mature Market Institute and the National
Association of Home Builders (September 2009). 55+
Housing: Builders, buyers and beyond.
www. MatureMarketlnstitute.com.
MetLife Mature Market Institute and the National
Association of Home Builders (2009). Housing for the 55+
market: trends and insights on boomers and beyond.
www. MatureMarketlnstitute.com.
Minnesota Board on Aging (2005). 2005 Survey of Older
Minnesotans. Table 59: Live in Senior Housing; Table 60:
Housing Tenure; Table 63: Planning to Move; Table 64:
Percent Needing Assistance to Stay in Own Home; Table
77: Concerned about ending up in a nursing home.
Minnesota Department of Health, Office of Rural and
Primary Care (2008). "Successful Model:
Mental/Behavioral Health-Primary Care Integration and
Telemedicine."
www. health.state.mn.us/divs/orhpc/models/index.html.M
innesota Department of Human Services (May 2008).
Elderly Waiver Statewide Consumer Experience Survey.
www.dhs.state.mn. us/main/groups/aging/documents/pub
/dhs16_141251.pdf
Minnesota State Demographic Center (June 2007).
Population Projections 2005-2035.
www.demography.state. m n. us/resource.html?Id=19167.
Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
Ormond, B., K. Black, 1. Tilly, & S. Thomas (2004).
Supportive services programs in naturally occurring
retirement communities. Washington, DC: Office of
Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Petersson, I., M. Lilja, J. Hammel, and A. Kottorp (2008).
"Impact of home modifications on ability in everyday life.'
Journal Rehabil Medicine; 40: 253-260.
Pynoos, J.(2008). Linking housing and services to facilitate
aging in place. Gerontologist. 48: 256-257 Sp. Iss. 3 Oct
2008.
Schafer, R. (2006). "Housing America's Seniors." Harvard
Joint Center for Housing Studies.
www.gsd.harvard.ed u/jcenter.
Shippee, T. P. (2009). "'But I Am Not Moving': Residents'
Perspectives on Transitions Within a Continuing Care
Retirement Community.' The Gerontologist, v. 49 no. 3
(June 2009) p. 418-27.
Smith, S., S. Rayer, and E. Smith (2008). "Aging and
Disability: Implications for the Housing Industry and
Housing Policy in the United States." Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 74, No. 3, 289-306.
Stafford, P. and J. Harlan-Simmons (2003). Home
Modification Services in Indiana: Statewide Survey Results
and Recommendations for Public Policy and Programs.
Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana
University.
www.usc.edu/dept/gero/nreshhm/resources/Indiana H M_
report.pdf.
Stevenson, D. and D. Grabowski (2010). "Sizing Up The
Market For Assisted Living." Health Affairs, 29, no. 1
(2010): 35-43.
Stineman , M. G. (2001 ). A model of health
environmental integration. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation ,
Stineman , M. G. , R. Ross, G. Masilin, & D. Gray (2007 ).
Population based study of home accessibility features and
the activities of daily living clinical and policy implications .
Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1165 -1175.
Strathers, C.(2005). "Housing Conditions and Housing
Options for Older Residents." Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 19: 1, 53 - 78.
Tanner, B., C. Tilse, and D. de Jonge (2008). "Restoring and
Sustaining Home: The Impact of Home Modifications on
the Meaning of Home for Older People." Journal of
Housing for the Elderly, 22: 3, 195 - 215.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community
Survey. Detailed tables: 625007. Tenure by age of
householder, 825037. Median year structure built by
tenure.
Wylde, M. (2008).Right house, right place, right time:
Community and lifestyle preferences of the 45+ housing
market. Washington, DC: BuilderBooks.
Pynoos, J. (1993). Towards a national policy on home
modification .Technology and Disability , 2, 1- 8 .
Pynoos, J., & Nishita, C. M. (2003). The cost of financing of
home modifications in the United States. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies 14 (2), 68-73.
Sanford, J. A., and T. Butterfield (2005). "Using Remote
Assessment to Provide Home Modification Services to
Underserved Elders." The Gerontologist, Vol. 45, No. 3,
389-398.
24
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Appendices
A: County Indicators
B: Select Universal Design Elements for All Housing
25
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
ADpen
Senior Population
AITKIN
ANOKA
BECKER
BELTRAMI
BENTON
BIG STONE
BLUE EARTH
BROWN
CARLTON
CARVER
CASS
CHIPPEWA
CHISAGO
CLAY
CLEARWATER
COOK
COTTONWOOD
CROW WING
DAKOTA
DODGE
DOUGLAS
FARIBAULT
FILLMORE
FREEBORN
GOODHUE
GRANT
HENNEPIN
HOUSTON
Elderly
Depen-
dency
Ratio
(2008)
eniors
(2010)
Pct. Of
County
Pop.
(2010)
eniors
(2030
projected)
Pct. of
County
Pop.
(2030
projected) Pct.
Change in
Senior
Population
(2010-
2030)
43.1 4050 24% 7310 38% 80%
12.3 33310 9% 77870 19% 134%
26.5 5670 17% 10370 26% 83%
19.8 5480 12% 11090 20% 102%
15.1 4590 10% 10210 18% 122%
44.5 1220 23% 1680 33% 38%
16.1 7100 12% 11980 18% 69%
28.7 4720 18% 7380 27% 56%
22.4 5350 14% 10610 23% 98%
11.7 7700 8% 24490 16% 218%
30.6 5790 19% 10490 29% 81%
30.7 2470 19% 3860 29% 56%
15.1 5690 10% 15290 17% 169%
18.1 6940 12% 12310 18% 77%
30.2 1550 18% 2500 26% 61%
25.3 1110 20% 2320 37% 109%
33.2 2420 21% 3210 27% 33%
28.3 11070 17% 21970 28% 98%
12.3 38870 9% 96860 20% 149%
18.3 2470 11% 5120 18% 107%
30.0 6640 18% 12480 27% 88%
34.5 3210 21% 4320 29% 35%
29.2 4010 18% 6210 26% 55%
30.7 6360 20% 8920 28% 40%
23.6 7450 16% 14590 26% 96%
39.5 1370 23% 2010 31% 47%
15.8 131510 11% 229170 19% 74%
25.5 3310 16% 6180 28% 87%
edian
Age of
Housing
Stock
(2010)
ederally
Subsidized
Housing
Units
(2010) Housing
enior
Housing
Cooperatives
(2010)
NAHB
Aging in
Place
Certified
builders
and
remodelers
(2010) Selected Health & Care Services
ursing Assisted
Hospital Home Living
Hospitals Beds Beds Providers
(2010) (2010) (2009) (2008)
35 115 0 0 1 24 153 4
28 1232 1 2 2 546 523 29
35 346 0 2 1 87 381 8
30 412 0 0 1 118 220 16
29 364 0 0 0 0 427 11
53 94 0 0 2 40 119 2
40 553 2 0 1 272 380 14
51 277 2 0 3 111 359 9
42 277 0 0 2 67 268 18
22 465 0 3 1 109 249 12
32 190 0 0 0 0 136 8
52 205 0 0 1 30 163 5
23 381 1 2 1 61 218 8
39 415 0 0 0 0 389 12
38 99 0 0 1 25 111 1
33 93 1 0 1 16 47 0
53 162 0 0 2 43 197 3
33 585 1 2 2 204 354 21
26 1028 8 10 2 207 1074 40
38 228 0 0 0 0 116 4
32 424 0 0 1 127 389 15
60 212 0 0 1 43 248 4
60 329 0 0 0 0 328 8
54 324 1 0 1 77 394 6
41 815 1 0 3 89 655 8
52 815 0 0 1 20 90 2
43 8694 22 30 11 5275 7141 159
44 184 0 0 0 0 210 3
26
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
unty
lderly
Depen-
dency
Ratio
(2009)
niors
(2010) Senior Population
ct. Of
County Seniors
Pop. (2030
(2010) projected)
ct. Of
County
Pop.
(2030
projected)
ct.
Change in
Senior
Population
(2010-
2030)
edian
Age of
Housing
Stock
(2010)
ederally
Subsidized
Housing
Units
(2010) Housing
enior
Housing
Cooperatives
(2010)
NAHB
Aging in
Place
Certified
builders
and
remodelers
(2010) Selected Health & Care Services
ursing Assisted
Hospital Home Living
Hospitals Beds Beds Providers
(2010) (2010) (2009) (2008)
HUBBARD 33.6 3840 20% 6520 30% 70% 33 233 0 0 1 50 82 8
ISANTI 15.2 5030 11% 13360 19% 166% 28 299 1 0 1 86 293 4
ITASCA 28.1 8290 18% 14450 30% 74% 37 572 1 0 3 104 352 23 ;'
JACKSON 32.4 2070 18% 2790 24% 35% 56 112 0 0 1 20 112 5
KANABEC 22.4 2590 15% 5070 24°~ 96% 34 173 0 0 1 49 77 3
KANDIYOHI 24.0 6580 16% 11530 26°~ 75% 37 629 1 0 2 220 448 19
KITTSON 39.0 1040 24% 1390 37% 34% 50 149 0 0 1 15 129 2
KOOCHICHING 31.3 2780 20% 3940 30% 42% 43 257 0 0 1 49 171 3
LAC CtUIPARLE 36.5 1640 23% 2170 33% 32% 63 94 0 0 2 32 163 1
LAKE 32.1 2420 21% 4000 33% 65% 47 81 0 0 1 25 192 5
LAKE OF THE WOODS 33.4 880 20% 1530 34% 74% 34 32 0 0 1 15 SO 1
LESUEUR 21.3 4190 14% 8350 23% 99% 39 284 1 0 1 24 197 3
LINCOLN 43.5 1360 23% 1620 27% 19% 55 98 0 0 2 46 149 2
LYON 22.6 3530 15% 5150 21% 46% 43 460 0 0 2 74 221 4
MAHNOMEN 22.0 900 18% 1340 26% 49% 45 71 0 0 1 18 48 0
MARSHALL 30.2 1790 18% 2560 26% 43% 45 64 0 0 1 20 85 1
MARTIN 32.8 4120 20% 5920 30% 44% 58 404 1 0 1 57 290 4
MCLEOD 35.0 5710 15% 10290 23% 80% 37 460 1 0 2 115 303 8
MEEKER 25.0 3850 16% 6380 23% 66% 40 182 0 0 1 38 218 3
MILLE LACS 25.6 4430 15% 9380 23% 112% 33 503 0 0 1 28 301 4
MORRISON 24.0 5240 15% 9920 25% 89% 36 567 0 0 1 49 262 10
MOWER 30.0 6870 17% 10250 25% 49% 56 159 1 0 1 82 340 13
MURRAY 35.3 1840 21% 2790 33% 52% 54 92 0 0 1 25 124 2
NICOLLET 18.3 3580 11% 6570 18% 84% 36 184 1 0 1 17 135 5
NOBLES 27.5 3440 17% 5350 26°~ 56% 53 346 1 0 1 64 207 2
NORMAN 34.9 1340 19% 1780 25% 33% 53 96 0 0 1 14 180 0
OLMSTED 18.1 17940 12% 38470 21% 114% 30 1265 3 2 3 2012 636 25
OTTER TAIL 32.4 11810 20% 21330 33% 81% 41 671 1 0 2 137 824 22
PENNINGTON 23.5 2250 16% 3760 25% 67% 40 141 0 0 1 99 137 3
PINE 23.6 4780 16% 9150 25% 91% 35 401 0 0 2 40 141 5
27
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
unty
lderly
Depen-
dency
Ratio
(2009)
niors
(2010) Senior Population
ct. Of
County Seniors
Pop. (2030
(2010) projected)
ct. Of
County
Pop.
(2030
projected)
ct.
Change in
Senior
Population
(2010-
2030)
edian
Age of
Housing
Stock
(2010)
ederally
Subsidized
Housing
Units
(2010) Housing
enior
Housing
Cooperatives
(2010)
NAHB
Aging in
Place
Certified
builders
and
remodelers
(2010) Selected Health & Care Services
ursing Assisted
Hospital Home Living
Hospitals Beds Beds Providers
(2010) (2010) (2009) (2008)
PIPESTONE 35.7 1970 21% 2600 28% 32% 54 61 0 0 1 44 201 3
POLK 26.4 5280 17% 8340 24% 58% 47 336 0 0 2 92 432 9
POPE 33.8 2290 20% 3790 30% 66% 47 149 0 0 1 34 190 4
RAMSEY 19.4 61590 12% 92620 19% 50% 49 4593 7 6 7 2014 3314 57
RED LAKE 25.7 810 19% 1370 30% 69% 48 117 0 0 0 0 45 1
REDWOOD 31.5 3070 20% 4130 27% 35% 52 184 1 0 1 25 294 4
RENVILLE 29.4 3020 1S% 4520 26% 50% 54 239 0 0 1 35 285 6
RICE 17.1 7740 12% 15280 19% 97% 36 889 3 0 2 136 456 15
ROCK 31.6 1750 18% 2560 26% 46% 53 110 0 0 1 28 193 3
ROSEAU 18.8 2160 13% 4320 23°/6 100% 33 168 0 0 1 25 104 2
SAINT LOUIS 23.0 31300 16% 49490 24% 58% 53 2321 2 3 8 1132 1701 78
SCOTT 9.9 10050 7% 35720 13% 255% 16 426 0 0 2 142 363 12
SHERBURNE 11.0 7880 8% 23060 14% 193% 18 489 1 4 1 54 416 6
SIBLEY 24.0 2440 16% 3820 24% 57% 53 166 0 0 1 20 144 4
STEARNS 17.6 17380 11% 35480 19% 104% 31 1225 1 1 5 592 461 13
STEELE 21.0 4930 13% 9580 21% 94% 43 461 2 0 1 43 248 10
STEVENS 25.3 1470 15% 1840 18% 25% 46 154 0 0 1 54 104 2
SWIFT 28.0 1880 17% 2860 29% 52% 55 182 0 0 2 46 113 7
TODD 25.9 4110 16% 6830 26% 66% 44 253 0 0 1 34 173 3
TRAVERSE 51.8 900 25% 780 26% -13% 54 36 0 0 1 25 91 0
WABASHA 24.9 3450 15% 6080 24% 76% 40 132 0 0 1 31 173 2
WADENA 35.4 3060 22% 5150 34% 68% 42 157 0 0 2 89 266 3
WASECA 20.9 2800 14% 5280 25% 89% 46 157 1 0 1 35 175 3
WASHINGTON 12.7 24530 10% 62510 21% 155% 22 1087 1 3 2 183 606 20
WATONWAN 33.4 2110 19% 3140 31% 49% 55 196 1 0 2 50 146 1
WILKIN 24.9 1080 16% 1810 28% 68% 48 108 0 0 1 25 120 3
WINONA 20.0 6700 14% 11060 22% 65% 50 380 0 0 1 99 490 7
WRIGHT 12.9 11950 9% 34810 16% 191% 20 409 0 1 2 104 510 12
YELLOW MEDICINE 34.9 2010 20% 2800 29% 39% 57 152 0 0 2 55 192 3
28
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Sources ~ Definitions iit Ccun.n~ !nt~icator.~ TublF~
• Elderly dependency ratio: The number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons in the population aged 15 through 64 years. Minnesota Department of
Health, 2009 Minnesota County Health Tables: Demographics Table 3. (Analysis based on 2009 Census Estimates).
• Seniors (2010 and 2030): Persons 65 years and older. Minnesota State Demographic Center (June 2007). Population Projections 2005-2035.
www.demography.state. mn. us/resource.html?Id=1916.
• Median Age of Housing: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey. Detailed table 625037. Median year structure built by tenure.
• Federally Subsidized Housing Units: All subsidized housing units and vouchers funded by USDA Rural Development or the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Rural Development property data provided by Minnesota Rural Development Office July 19, 2010. HUD units identified through the
Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts Database, available online at http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/exp/mfhdiscl.cfm.
• Senior Housing Cooperatives: Number of self-identified senior co-operatives by county as of July 20, 2010. Senior Cooperative Foundation,
http://www.seniorcoops.org/list. php.
• NAHB Aging in Place Certified builders and remodelers: Number of builders or remodelers certified by the National Association of Homebuilders as Aging in
Place Specialists as of August 2, 2010. http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionlD=717&genericContentlD=8484.
• Hospitals, Hospital Beds, Nursing Home Beds, and Assisted Living Providers: Licensed or registered providers of these services as included in Minnesota
Department of Health Healthcare Provider and Facility Directory, updated August 6, 2010. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/fpc/directory/fpcdir.html.
29
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
Excerpted from "Residential Rehabilitation, Remodeling and Universal Design," The Center for Universal Design,
North Carolina State University College of Design (2006). Available online at:
http://www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsuldesign/sods/cud/pubs p/docs/residential remodelinl.pdf.
Entrances
1. Accessible parking convenient to dwelling (covered from the elements)
2. Accessible path of travel to dwelling from parking or drop off area (slope of 1:20 or less eliminates the
necessity for handrails, except when needed by a specific individual)
3. At least one entrance without steps and flush or low profile threshold
4. Minimum 5-feet X 5-feet maneuvering space at stepless entrance
5. 36-inch minimum exterior door with lever hardware
6. Movement sensor light at entrance
7. A sidelight or a peephole at 42 and 60 inches above the floor
8. Ambient and focused lighting at keyhole
9. High visibility address numbers
General Interior
1. Hall width 42 inches minimum (interior accessible route is 36 inches)
2. Interior door width 32-inch minimum (requires 34 or 36-inch wide door), equipped with lever hardware
3. Flush transitions between floor surfaces (maximum of 1/2-inch rise)
4. 5 pounds maximum force to open doors
5. 18-inch minimum space at latch side of door
6. 5-feet X S-feet maneuvering space in each room (after furniture is placed)
7. Increased number of electrical outlets for additional lighting and alarm indicators, especially in bedrooms
8. Electrical outlets at 18-inch minimum height
9. Light switches 44 inches maximum above floor
10. View windows at 36-inch maximum sill height and large enough to use as an escape route in the event of
an emergency
11. Crank operated (casement) or light weight sliding windows
12. Closet rods adjustable from 30 inches to 66 inches above the floor
13. Loop or other easy-to-use handle pulls on drawers and cabinets
14. High contrast, glare free floor surfaces and trim
15. Low pile carpet or smooth anti-slip flooring
16. High-speed Internet access data connection port and cabling
13athrtat~r~ns
1. 60-inch diameter turning circle
2. 30-inch X 48-inch area of approach (forward or parallel, depending on fixture type) in front of all fixtures
3. Toilet more usable by many if positioned in a 5-feet X 5-feet space with centerline 18 inches from sidewall
4. 32-inch minimum lavatory counter height with lever faucet control
5. Adaptable cabinets to reveal kneespace under lavatory. Exposed piping in kneespace should be padded or
concealed.
6. When tub or shower are installed, select models designed to accept a portable bench or bathing seat
7. Curbless or roll-in shower plus standard tub
8. Offset single-lever controls in tub and shower to minimize stooping, bending, and reaching
30
Housing for Minnesota's Aging Population -Discussion Paper September 2010
9. Adjustable height hand-held shower head in addition to standard fixed shower head
10. Anti-scald devices on all plumbing fixtures
11. Enlarged reinforced areas around toilet and bathing fixture to provide secure mounting locations for grab
bars and shower seats
12. Mirror to backsplash at lavatory
13. Contrasting color edge border at countertops
Kitchens
1. 60-inch diameter turning space
2. 30-inch X 48-inch area of approach (forward or parallel, depending on fixture type) in front of all
appliances
3. Cooktop or range with front- or side-mounted controls and staggered burners to eliminate dangerous
reaching
4. Front-mounted controls on washer and dryer
5. Adaptable cabinets to reveal kneespace (when needed) at sink and under work surface near cooking
appliance
6. Variable height sink adjustable between 32 and 40 inches
7. Exposed piping and any sharp or hot elements in any kneespace should be padded or concealed
8. Single-lever faucet controls
9. Full height pantry cabinets for high and low storage.
10. Adjustable height shelves in wall cabinets
11. Refrigerator /freezer with frozen food storage in the bottom or side-by-side refrigerator /freezer
12. Variable height counter surfaces or adjustable through a range of 28 to 40 inches
13. Base cabinets with pullout shelves or drawers
14. Contrasting color edge border at countertops
15. Microwave oven at countertop height with uninterrupted counter surface or pull out shelf to support the
safe transfer of hot and / or heavy cookware
16. Under cabinet glare free task lighting
31
'Golden Valley
~, ~ ~
Planning
763-593-8095 / 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 11, 2011
Agenda Item
2. Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Study
Prepared By
Rich Baker, Environmental Commission Chair
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
Since January 2010, the Environmental Commission has studied solid waste collection
practices and examined possible ways to improve the collection process in the City of Golden
Valley. In August the Commission provided an update report to the City Council outlining their
study process and their findings to date. At that meeting, the City Council recommended that
the Commission develop more explicit goals to guide its efforts.
In September, the Commission undertook agoal-setting exercise as recommended by the
Council. Out of that exercise, the Commission established the following four goals on which
to focus its waste management efforts:
1. Be at the forefront of new approaches in recycling by enhancing the City's recycling
contract.
2. Use the City's solid waste hauler licensing procedures to encourage innovation in:
a. Energy efficiency
b. Organics collection
c. Longer-term waste collection contracts
d. Yard waste collection
e. Same-day collection for waste and recyclables
f. Convenient drop-off for organic waste materials
g. Sell-back opportunities for organic waste materials
h. Charging for waste collection based on weight of materials collected
3. Reduce illegal dumping of waste in parks and open spaces by requiring participation in
solid waste collection. This could be achieved by creating an ordinance that would
require all households in the City to contract with a licensed solid waste hauler.
4. Provide recycling services at commercial entities and apartment buildings. This could
be achieved by creating an ordinance that would require commercial and multi-family
residential properties to offer recycling services.
The City's current contract for residential recycling services will expire on December 31,
2011. For that reason, the Commission has chosen to first focus on the goal pertaining to
enhancing the recycling contract. Staff initiated this process by requesting that employees of
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Hennepin County Environmental
Services provide a "peer review" of Golden Valley's existing contract. Recommendations from
the reviewers were then brought to the Environmental Commission for further discussion.
After considering the results of the peer review, the Environmental Commission recommends
the following changes to the recycling contract:
• The City currently provides 22x17" recycling collection bins to residents. To increase
participation in recycling, the Environmental Commission is recommending that the
revised recycling contract offer residents the choice of utilizing larger, wheeled
recycling bins.
• The existing recycling contract states that the City shall receive 75% of recyclable
material revenues after subtracting the fee to process the materials. The
Environmental Commission recommends increasing the City's revenue sharing
amount to 100% of the recyclable material revenues. The MPCA reviewer indicated
that this is currently the practice in several other metro area communities.
• Materials that can be recycled under the City's current recycling contract include:
o Newspaper
o Corrugated cardboard
o Glass containers (clear, green and brown glass)
o Metal containers (aluminum, steel, bimetal and tin food and beverage
containers)
o Mixed plastic bottles (PSI resin ID # 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7)
o Glossy paper
o Mixed paper
o Boxboard
o Plastic-coated cartons (milk cartons, juice cartons, etc.)
Based upon the peer review, the Environmental Commission recommends that the
City remove "bimetal" from list of metal containers that can be recycled. Bimetal
products, composed of two or more metals, are expensive to recycle, difficult to sell as
a commodity and could cost the City money to dispose of if no end-market is found by
the recycler. Staff will conduct further research with the MPCA regarding the salability
of bimetal recycle material.
Additionally, the Environmental Commission recommends that Plastic #3 (vinyl and
PVC plastic) and Plastic #7 ("other plastic found in toys, sunglasses, DVD's, etc.) be
removed from the list of recyclable materials, as they also have weak end markets.
Strong end-markets exist for the following products. Therefore, the Environmental
Commission recommends adding the following to the City's allowable recyclable
materials:
o Plastic #4 (low density polyethylene most commonly found in plastic shopping
bags and squeezable juice bottles)
o Plastic #6 (polystyrene most commonly found in disposable plates, cups, and
egg cartons)
• The City currently offers weekly recycling collection. The Environmental Commission
recommends adding a clause in contract language to ensure that the weekly collection
schedule will continue.
Staff recently met with Public Works representatives from the cities of Plymouth and
Minnetonka to discuss the status of the recycling contracts that each city has with Waste
Management, Inc. for curbside recycling services. Although the three cities have individual
contracts with Waste Management, Inc., the contracts were originally coordinated as a joint
venture that benefited the three communities. The three contracts are very similar in content,
including the type of curbside container system and revenue sharing components.
As is the case in Golden Valley, Plymouth and Minnetonka's recycling contracts with Waste
Management will expire on December 31, 2011. The cities of Golden Valley and Minnetonka
have the option to extend the contracts with Waste Management under the same terms as
are currently under implementation. Staff has been informed that the City of Plymouth does
not have that extension option and will need to solicit proposals through a "Request for
Proposal" (RFP) process.
Staff seeks direction from the City Council in deciding whether or not to implement the
various changes recommended by the Environmental Commission to the recycling contract
language. Additionally, staff seeks Council direction in whether or not to consider extending
the recycling contract with Waste Management beyond December 31, 2011 (such as
Minnetonka is considering to do), or soliciting proposals for a new contract once the current
contract expires (such as Plymouth is considering to do).
Golden Valley
Fire Department
763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley City Council/Manager Meeting
January 11, 2011
Agenda Item
3. Model Tobacco Licensing Ordinance
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
On December 7, 2010, the City Council approved changes amending City Code Section 6.34:
Tobacco, to be in compliance with the Tobacco Modernization Act of 2010. The amended
City Code was effective December 17, 2010.
The League of Minnesota Cities and the Public Health Law Center developed a model
tobacco licensing ordinance. This ordinance contains a number of provisions the city may
adopt. The City Attorney has not reviewed the model ordinance.
Attachment
Golden Valley City Code, Section 6.34: Tobacco (3 pages)
League of Minnesota Cities, Public Health Law Center Model Tobacco Licensing Ordinance
(9 pages)
§ 6.34
Section 6.34: Tobacco
Subdivision 1. Definitions
For the purpose of this Section, the following terms have the meaning stated:
A. Self Service Merchandising: means the open display of tobacco product
where the public has access to the tobacco products without the intervention
of an adult employee, and shall include the use of a vending machine.
B. Tobacco Products: means cigarettes and any products containing, made, or
derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, whether
chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed or ingested
by any other means, or any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco
product, including, but not limited to, cigars; cheroots; stogies; perique;
granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco;
snuff; snuff flower; Cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; 1=lne cut and other
chewing tobaccos; shorts, refuse scrips, clippings, cutting and sweepings of
tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco. Tobacco excludes any
products that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product, as a tobacco
dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is being marketed
and sold solely for such an approved purpose.
C. Tobacco-Related Devices: means cigarette papers or pipes for smoking.
Subdivision 2. License Required
No person shall directly or indirectly, by coin or vending machine, or otherwise,
keep for sale, sell or otherwise dispose of any tobacco products or tobacco-related
devices at any place in the City unless they have obtained a license therefore as
provided herein.
Subdivision 3. License Facility
Separate licenses shall be required for each place of business selling tobacco
products or tobacco-related devices. No license shall be issued for a movable place
of business.
Subdivision 4. Display of License
Every license issued under this Section
business to which it has been issued.
shall be openly displayed in the place of
Subdivision 5. Prohibited Acts
A. No person shall sell, give away or furnish any tobacco product or tobacco-
related devices to any person under the age of eighteen (18).
Golden Valley City Code Page Y of 3
§ 6.34
B. No person shall use self service merchandising for tobacco products or
tobacco-related devices.
Subdivision 6. Actions Required by Licensees
A. Persons licensed under this Section shall be required to train all employees
on the requirements of this Section.
B. Checkout registers using computer scanners shall be programmed to remind
seller to check identification of purchasers of tobacco products or tobacco-
related devices, unless such a reminder is not available in said register
program.
C. Every licensee under this Section shall be responsible for the conduct of its
employees while on the licensed premises and any violation of this Section by
an employee shall be considered a violation of the licensee for purposes of
imposing an administrative fine, license suspension or revocation.
Subdivision 7. Violations
A. Administrative Civil Penalties: Individuals. Any person who sells, gives away
or furnishes any tobacco product or tobacco-related devices to a person
under the age of 18 years is subject to an administrative penalty. The
Council shall impose an administrative penalty for violation of subdivision 5
of this Section as follows.
1. First violation. The Council shall impose a civil fine not to exceed fifty
dollars ($50).
2. Second violation within twelve (12) months. The Council shall impose a
civil fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
3. Third violation within twelve (12) months. The Council shall impose a civil
fine not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).
B. Administrative Civil Penalties: Licensee. If a licensee or an employee of a
licensee is found to have sold, given away or furnished tobacco product or
tobacco-related devices to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
The licensee shall be subject to an administrative penalty for violation of
subdivision 5 of this Section as follows:
1. First violation. The Council shall impose a civil fine not to exceed one
hundred fifty dollars ($150).
2. Second violation within twelve (12) months. The Council shall impose a
civil fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 3
§ 6.34
3. Third violation within twelve (12) months. The Council shall impose a civil
fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
C. Administrative Penalty Procedures. No suspension or penalty may take effect
until the licensee has received, notice (served personally or by mail) of the
alleged violation, and an opportunity for a hearing before a person authorized
by the licensing authority to conduct the hearing. A decision that a violation
has occurred must be in writing.
D. Defense. It is a defense to the charge of selling tobacco or tobacco-related
devices to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years, that the licensee
or individual, in making the sale, reasonably and in good faith relied upon
representation of proof of age described in Minnesota Statutes section
340A.503, subdivision 6.
E. Exceptions. An Indian may furnish tobacco to an Indian under the age of
eighteen (18) years if the tobacco is furnished as part of a traditional Indian
spiritual or cultural ceremony. For purposes of this paragraph an Indian is a
person who is a member of an Indian tribe as defined in Minnesota Statutes
section 260.755, subdivision 12.
Subdivision 8. Compliance Monitoring
Periodically, but no less than once each calendar year, the City shall complete
compliance checks of all licensees within the City. At the time of license application,
applicant shall be made aware of this Subdivision. Violators of this Section may be
checked more frequently than non-violators. The Department of Public Safety shall
make an annual report to the Council on the compliance checks.
Subdivision 9. Violation a Misdemeanor
Every person who violates a section, subdivision, paragraph or provision of this
Section, when such person performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful,
or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, and
upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor or gross
misdemeanor and may also be subject to administrative penalties as otherwise
stated in specific provisions hereof.
Source: Ordinance No. 451, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 12-17-10
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF
TOBACCO AND TOBACCO IZELATED DEVICES AND PRODUCTS WITHIN THE CITY
OF MINNESOTA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ,MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN:
Section
1 Purpose and intent
2 Definitions
3 License
4 Fees
5 Basis for denial of license
6 Prohibited sales
7 Self=service sales
8 Responsibility
9 Compliance checks and inspections
10 Other illegal acts
11 Exceptions and. defenses
12 Severability
13 Violations and penalty
SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT.
Because the city recognizes that many persons under the age of 1.8 years purchase or otherwise obtain,
possess and use tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery
devices, and the sales, possession, and use are violations of both state and federal laws; and because
studies, which the city hereby accepts and adopts, have shown that most smokers begin smoking before
they have reached the age of 18 years and that those persons who reach the age of 18 years without having
started smoking are significantly less likely to begin smoking; and because smoking has been shown to be
the cause of several serious health problems which subsequently place a financial burden on all levels of
government; this ordinance shall be intended to regulate the sale, possession and use of tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery devices for the purpose of enforcing and
furthering existing laws, to protect minors against the serious effects associated with the illegal use of
tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery devices, and to further
the official public policy of the state in regard to preventing young people from starting to smoke as stated
in M.S. § 144.391, as it may be amended from time to time. In making these findings, the City Council
accepts the conclusions and recommendations of Center for Disease Control in their study "Selected
Cigarette Smoking Initiation and Quitting Behaviors Among High School Students, United States, 1997,"
and of the following medical professionals in these medical journals: Khuder SA, et al., "Age at Smoking
Onset and its Effect on Smoking Cessation," Addictive Behavior 24(5):673-7, September-October 1999;
D'Avanzo B, et al., "Age at Starting Smoking and Number ofCigarettes Smoked,"Annals ofRpidemiology
4(6):455-59, November 1994; Chen, J & Millar, WJ, "Age of Smoking Initiation: hnplications for
Quitting," Health Reports 9(4):39-46, Spring l 998; Everett SA, et al., "Initiation ofCigarette Smoking and
Subsequent Smoking Behavior Among U.S. High School Students," Preventive Medicine, 29(5):327-33,
November 1999, copies of which are adopted by reference.
SECTION 2. DEYINI'1t'IONS.
Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their
commonly accepted definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless
the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
COMPLIANCE CHECKS. The system the city uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to
sell tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery devices are
following and complying with th.e requirements of this ordinance. COMPLIANCE CHECKS shall involve
the use of minors as authorized by this ordinance. COMPLIANCE CHECKS shall also mean the use of
minors who attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia
delivery devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by state and federal Laws.
COMPLIANCE CHECKS may also be conducted by other units of government for the purpose of
enforcing appropriate federal, state or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products,
tobacco-related devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery devices.
INDIVIDUALLY PACKAGED. The practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product wrapped
individually for sale. Individually wrapped tobacco and tobacco products shall include but not be limited to
single cigarette packs, single bags or cans ofloose tobacco in any form, and single cans or other packaging
of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single pack or other
container as described in this definition shall not be considered individually packaged.
INDOOR AREA. All space between a floor and. a cei.iing that is bounded by walls, doorways, or
windows, whether open or closed, covering more than 50 percent of the combined surface area of the
vertical planes constituting the perimeter of the area. A wall includes any retractable divider, garage door,
or other physical barrier; whether temporary or permanent.
LOOSIES. The common term used to refer to a single or individually packaged cigarette or any other
tobacco product that has been removed from its packaging and sold individually. The term "loosies" does
not include individual cigars with a retail price, before any sales tares, of more than $2.00 per cigar.
MINOR Any natural person who has not yet reached the age of 18 years.
MOVEABLE PLACE OFBUSINESS. Any form ofbusiness operated out of a truck, van, automobile
or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a f xed address store front or other permanent type
of structure authorized for sates transactions.
NICOTINE OR LOBELIA DELI VERYDEVICES. Any product containing or delivering nicotine or
lobelia intended for human consumption, or any part of such a. product, that is not tobacco as defined in this
section, not including any product that has been approved or otherwise certified for legal sale by the United
States Food and Drug Administration for tobacco use cessation, harm reduction, or for other medical
purposes, and is being marketed and sold solely for that approved purpose..
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. Any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-
related devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices are available for sale to the general public. The
phrase shall include but not be limited to grocery stores, convenience stores, restaurants, and drug stores.
SALE. Any transfer of goads for money, trade, barter or other consideration.
SELF-SERVICEMERCHAIYDISING. Open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related
devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the
tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices, without the
assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's employee. The assistance or intervention shall
entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device, or nicotine or
lobelia delivery device between the customer and the licensee or employee: Self-service sales are
interpreted as being any sale where there is not an actual physical exchange of the product between the
clerk and the customer.
SMOKING. Inhaling or exhaling smoke from any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other
lighted or heated tobacco or plant product: Smoking also includes carrying a lighted or heated cigar,
cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation.
TOBACCO or TOBACCO PRODUCTS. Tobacco and tobacco products includes cigarettes and any
product containing, made, or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, whether
chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, or any
component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product; cigars; cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated, plug cut,
crimp cut, ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff; snuff flour; Cavendish; plug and twist tobacco;
fine cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco;
and other kinds and forms of tobacco. Tobacco excludes any tobacco product that has been approved by the
United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product, as a tobacco
dependence product, or far other medical purposes, and is being marketed and sold solely for such an
approved purpose.
TOBACCO-RELATED DEVICES. Tobacco-related devices includes any tobacco product as well as a
pipe, rolling papers, ashtray, or other device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner
which enables the chewing; sniffing or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products.
VENDING MACHINE. Any mechanical, electric or electronic, or other type of device which
dispenses tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco-related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens or
other form of payment directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase the tobacco, tobacco
product or tobacco-related. device.
S11'JCTION 3. LICEI~ISE.
{A) License required. No person shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-
related device, ar nicotine or lobelia delivery device without first having obtained a license to do so from
the city.
{B) Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related
devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices shall be made on a form provided by the city. The
application shall contain the full name of the applicant, the applicant's residential and business addresses
and telephone numbers, the name of the business for which the license is sought, and any additional
information the city deems necessary. Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Clerk shall forward
the application to the City Council for action at its next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. If the
City Clerk shall determine that an application is incomplete, he or she shall return the application to the
applicant with notice of the information necessary to make the application complete.
{C) Action. The City Council may either approve or deny the license, or it may delay action for a
reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the application or the applicant it
deems necessary. If the City Council shall approve the license, the City Clerk shall issue the license to the
applicant. If the City Council denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the applicant along
with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the City Council's decision.
(D} Term. All licenses issued under this section shall be valid far one calendar year from the date of
issue.
(E) Revocation or suspension. Any license issued under this section may be revoked or suspended as
provided in Section 14.
{F} Transfers. All licenses issued under this section shall be valid only on the premises for which the
license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was issued.. No transfer of any license to
another location or person shall be valid without the prior approval of the City Council.
(G} Moveable place of business. No license shall be issued to a moveable place ofbusiness. Only fixed
location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed. under this section.
(H) Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on the
licensed premise.
(I) Renewals. The renewal. of a license issued under this section shall be handled in the same manner
as the original application. The request for a renewal shall be made at least 30 days but no more than 60
days before the expiration of the current license.
(J) Issuance as privilege and not a right. The issuance of a license issued under this section shall be
considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder to an
automatic renewal of the license.
(K) Proximity to youth-oriented facilities. No license shall be granted pursuant to this section to any
person for any retail sales of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia.
delivery devices within 1,000 feet of any school, playground, house of worship, oryouth-oriented facility,
as measured by the shortest line between the space to be occupied by the proposed licensee and the
occupied space of the school, playground, house of worship, or youth-oriented facility, unless that person
has been in the business of selling such products in that location before the date this section was enacted
into law for at least one year. For the purpose of this section, ayouth-oriented facility is defined to include
any facility with residents, customers, visitors, or inhabitants of which 25 percent or more are regularly
under the age of 21 or which. primarily sells, rents, or offers services or products that are consumed or used
primarily by persons under the age of 21.
{L} Proximity to other tobacco retailers. No license shall be granted pursuant to this section to any
person for any retail sales of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices., or nicotine or lobelia
delivery devices within two thousand feet of any other establishment holding such a license, as measured by
the shortest line between the space to be occupied by the proposed licensee and the occupied space of the
nearest existing licensee, unless that person. has been in the business of selling such products in that
location before the date this section was enacted into law for at least one year.
(M) Smoking. Smoking shall not be permitted and no person shall smoke within the indoor area of any
establishment with a retail tobacco license. Smoking for the purposes of sampling tobacco and tobacco
related products i.s prohibited.
Penalty, see Section 14.
SECTION 4. FEES.
No license shall be issued under this chapter until. the appropriate license fee shall be paid in full. The
fee for a license under this chapter shall be established in the city's Ordinance Establishing Fees and
Charges, as it maybe amended from time to time.
Penalty, see Section 14.
SECTION 5. BASIS FOIL DENIAL OF LICENSE.
(A) Grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license under this chapter include but are not
limited to the following:
{1) The applicant is under the age of 18 years.
(2) The applicant ha.s been convicted within the past five years of any violation of a federal, state,
or local law, ordinance provision, or other regulation relating to tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related
devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices.
(3) The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or
nicotine or lobelia delivery devices revoked within the preceding 12 months of the date of application.
(4} The applicant fails to provide any information required on the application, or provides false or
misleading information.
(5) The applicant is prohibited by federal, state, or other local law, ordinance, or other regulation
from holding a license.
(B) However, except as may otherwise be provided by law, the existence of any particular ground for
denial does not mean that the city must deny the license.
(C) if a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a person, it shall be revoked upon the discovery that
the person was ineligible for the license under this chapter.
Penalty, see Section I4:
SECTION b. PROHIBITED SALES.
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product,
tobacco-related device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery device:
(A) To any person under the age of 18 years.
(B) By means of any type of vending machine.
{C} By means of self-service methods whereby the customer does not need to a make a verbal or
written request to an employee of the licensed premise in order to receive the tobacco, tobacco product,
tobacco-related device, or nicotine or Lobelia delivery device and whereby the there is not a physical
exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device; or nicotine or lobelia delivery device
between the licensee, or the licensee's employee, and the customer.
(D) By means of loosies as defined in Section 2.
(E) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, belladonna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or other.
deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic or controlled substances except nicotine and other substances found
naturally in tobacco or added as part of an. otherwise lawful manufacturing process. It is not the intention of
this provision to ban the sale of lawfully manufactured cigarettes or other tobacco products.
(F) By any other means, to any other person, on in any other manner or form prohibited by federal,
state or other local law, ordinance provision, or other regulation.
Penalty, see Section 14.
SECTION 7. SELF-SERVICE SALES.
It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this chapter to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products,
tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia. delivery devices by any means where by the customer may
have access to those items without having to request the item from the licensee or the Iicensee`s employee
and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device, or
nicotine or lobelia delivery device between the licensee or his or her clerk and the customer. All tobacco,
tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, and nicotine or lobelia delivery devices shall either be stored
behind a counter or other area not freely accessible to customers, or in a case or other storage unit not left
open and accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related
devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices at the time this chapter is adopted shall comply with this
section within 90 days following the effective date of this chapter.
Penalty, see Section 14.
SECTION 8. RESPONSIBILITY.
All licensees under this chapter shall be responsible far the actions of their employees in regard to the
sale of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices on the
licensed premises, and the sale of an item by an employee shall be considered a sale by the license holder.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the city from also subjecting the clerk to whatever
penalties are appropriate under this chapter, state or federal law, or other applicable law or regulation.
Penalty,. see Section 14.
SECTION 9. COMPLIANCE CII:ECKS AND INSPECTIONS.
All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by the city police or other authorized. city official
during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least once per year, the city shall conduct
compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians, minors over the age
of l 5 years but less than 18 years to enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco
products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices. Minors used for the purpose of
compliance checks shall be supervised. by city designated law enforcement officers or other designated city
personnel. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty of unlawful possession of tobacco,
tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia. delivery devices when those items are
obtained as a part of the compliance check. No minor used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false
identification misrepresenting the minor's age, and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall
answer all questions about the minor's age asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce
any identification, if any exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in this section shall prohibit
compliance checks authorized by state or federal laws for educational, research, or training purposes, or
required for the enforcement of a particular state or federal law.
Penalty, see Section 14.
SECTION l0.OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS.
Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation of this chapter:
(A) Illegal sales. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to sell or otherwise provide any
tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery device to any minor.
(B) Illegal possession. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any minor to have in his or her
possession any tobacco, tobacco product; tobacco-related device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery device. This
division (B) shall n.ot apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
(C) Illegal use. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any minor to smoke, chew, sniff or otherwise
use any tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery device.
(D) Illegal procurement. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any minor to purchase or attempt to
purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related device, or nicotine or lobelia
delivery device, and it shall be a violation of this chapter for any person to purchase or otherwise obtain
those items on behalf of a minor. It shall further be a violation. for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce
a minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-related
device, or nicotine or lobelia. delivery device. This division (D) shall not apply to minors lawfully involved
in a compliance- check.
(E) Use of,false identification. It shall be a violation of this ch. apter for any minor to attempt to
disguise his or her true age by the use of a false form of identification, whether the identification is that of
another person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with t.o represent an
age older than the actual age of the person.
Penalty, see Section 14.
SECTION 11. EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENSES.
Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the providing of tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related
devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices to a minor as part of a lawfully recognized religious,
spiritual, or cultural cereinony.lt shall bean affirmative defense to the violation ofthis chapter for a person
to have reasonably relied on proof of age as described by state law.
SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY.
If any section or provision of this ordinance i s held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other sections or
provisions which can be given force and effect without the invalidated section or provision.
SECTION 13. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY.
(A) Misdemeanor prosecution. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the city from seeking prosecution.
as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this ordinance.
(B) Violations.
(1) Notice. A person violating this chapter may be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation
that sets forth the alleged violation and that informs the alleged violator of his ar her right to a hearing on
the matter. The citation shall provide notice that a hearing must be requested within ten (10) business days
of receipt and that hearing rights shall he terminated if a hearing is not promptly requested. The citation
shall provide information on how and where a hearing may be requested, including a contact address and
phone number.
(2) Hearings.
(a) Upon issuance of a citation, a person accused of violating this chapter may request in
writing a hearing on the matter. Hearing requests must be made within ten. (10) business days of the
issuance of the citation and delivered to the city clerk or other designated city officer. Failure to request a.
hearing within ten (] 0) business days of the issuance of the citation will terminate the person's right to a
hearing.
(b) The city clerk or other designated city off cer shall set the time and place for the hearing.
Written notice of the hearing time and place shall be mailed or delivered to the accused violator at least ten
(10) business days prior to the hearing.
(3) Hearing Officer. The city official designated by the City Council shall serve as the hearing
officer. The hearing officer must be an impartial employee of the city or an impartial person. retained by the
city to conduct the hearing.
(4) Decision.
(a) A decision shall be issued by the hearing officer within ten (l0) business days. If the
hearing officer determines that a violation of this chapter did occur, that decision, along with the hearing
officer's reasons for finding a violation and the penalty to be imposed under division {B) of this section,
shall be recorded in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to the city and the accused violator by in
person delivery or mail as soon as practicable Likewise, if the hearing officer finds that no violation
occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, those findings shall be recorded and a copy
provided to the city and the acquitted accused violatorby in person delivery or mail as soon as practicable.
(b) Costs. if the citation is upheld by the hearing officer, the city's actual expenses in holding
the hearing up to a maximum of $ l ,000.00 shall be paid by the person requesting the hearing.
(c) The decision of the hearing officer is final.
(S) Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed in the district
court for the city in which the alleged violation occurred within ten {10) business days.
(6) Continued violation. Each violation, and every day in which a violation occurs or continues,
shall constitute a separate offense.
(C} Administrative penalties.
(1} Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this chapter, or whose employee shall have
violated this chapter, shall be charged an administrative fine of $75 for a first violation of this chapter; $200
for a second offense at the same licensed premises within a 24-month period; and $250 for a third or
subsequent offense at the same location within a 24-month period. In addition, after the third offense, the
license shall be suspended for not less than seven consecutive days.
{2) Other individuals. Other individuals, other than minors regulated by division (C)(3) of this
section, found to be in violation of this chapter shall be charged an administrative fine of $50.
(3} 111inors. Minors found in unlawful possession of or who unlawfully purchase or attempt to
purchase, tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco-related devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery devices, shall
be subject to an administrative fine, or may be subject to tobacco-related education classes, diversion
programs, community services; or another penalty that the city believes will be appropriate and effective.
The administrative fine or other penalty shall be established by City Council ordinance upon the City
Council`s consultation with interested parties of the courts, educators, parents and children to determine an
appropriate penalty for minors in the city. This admini strative fine or other penalty may also be established
from time to time by the Ordinance Establishing Fees and Charges, as it may be amended from time to
time.
(4) Statutory penalties. lfthe administrative penalties authorized to be imposed by M.S.§ 461.12,
as it may be amended from time to time, differ from those established in this section, then the statutory
penalties shall prevail:
SECTION 14. EFFECTIV)/ HATE.
This ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication, or upon the publication of a summary
of the ordinance as provided by Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 4, as it maybe amended from time to
time, which meets the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 10, as it may be amended from
time to time.
Cir~y~
~,f
o e n
galley
~..~. ~~ i -~.,
Finance
763-593-8013 1763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
January 11, 2011
Agenda Item
4. Change in Polling Place for Precinct 7
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Polling places are hard to find in the City because of a variety of issues: parking and
accessibility requirements, availability for one or two times a year; voting hours from 7 am to
8 pm; and the need to hold approximately 2,000 voters during that time.
Staff is requesting the Precinct 7 polling location be moved to Sandburg School, 2400
Sandburg Lane. This facility has more available parking and meets the minimum
requirements for accessibility. All registered voters will be notified by postcard once this
action has been approved.
Attachments
Resolution Approving Change in Polling Place for Precinct 7 (1 page)
Precinct 7 Map showing one mile radius (1 page)
Resolution 11- February 1, 2011
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE IN POLLING PLACE FOR PRECINCT 7
WHEREAS, the polling place for Precinct 7 was Christian Life Center, 8025
Medicine Lake Road; and
WHEREAS, Precinct 7 is required to have a polling place for elections; and
WHEREAS, the Sandburg School, 2400 Sandburg Lane, is located outside the
boundary but within one mile from the precinct boundary and has authorized the use of its
facility as a polling place for elections; and
WHEREAS, the Sandburg School building meets state guidelines for accessibility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley hereby designates the Sandburg School, 2400 Sandburg Lane, as the polling place
for Precinct 7 in the City of Golden Valley.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.