HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK February 28, 2006
Sl\NDbVE~
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Conference Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order - 6:00 pm
2. Recess to Special Council Meeting
3. Reconvene City Council Workshop
4. Community Survey DiscussionlDecision Resources Inc. - Administration
5. Railroad Quiet Zones/06-l 0 - Engineering
6. Discuss Metropolitan Council Housing Needs Letter - Planning
7. Emergency PlanlNational Incident Management System Update - Fire/Administration
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Recess to Special Council Meeting.
DATE: February 28, 2006
@
After the City Council Workshop that was scheduled at a regular Council meeting is called to
order, the Mayor is requested to recess to a Special City Council meeting in the Council
Chambers to deal with one City business item.
@
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Reconvene City Council Workshop
DATE: February 28, 2006
After the adjournment February 28, 2006 Special City Council meeting in the Council Chambers
the Mayor is requested to reconvene the City Council Workshop in City Hall Conference Rooms
A&B.
GJ
C I T Y 0 F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Community Survey DiscussionlDecision Resources Inc.
DATE: February 28, 2006
INTRODUCTION
An Andover Council 2005-2006 goal is to conduct a citizen survey. The first action step is to
determine the extent of the survey.
DISCUSSION
While preparing for the initial discussion of this topic, I contacted the research firm, Decision
Resources that conducted the community survey (Attached) for the City of Andover in 2001.
That survey was utilized in the decision making process for the AndoverNMCA Community
Center project. Based on those discussions Decision Resources provided the following ballpark
budgeting for the cost of a community survey (telephone, random sample, scientific survey):
Base cost
$10,500.00
Fifty question survey, 4-5 tracking questions.
This will provide a quality of life survey.
A bond referendum survey would need
12-15 additional questions.
Add'l Questions
$135/question
Decision Resources indicated that most surveys range from $12,500 - $15,000.
Peter Leatherman from Decision Resources will be at the meeting to discuss his firm and various
options and insights.
BUDGET IMP ACT
The City Council has budgeted $20,000 for community survey related expenses as part of the
2006 Operating Budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a brief presentation from Decision Resources and to discuss
what type of survey they would like to conduct.
Attachment - Community Survey
C)D8 i~ QM~
City of Andover
2001 Residential Study
Presented to:
The City of Andover
Volume One:
Frequencies and Analysis
. Decision Resources, Ltd.
January, 2002
3128 Dean Court . MinneapOlis. Minnesota 55416 · (612) 920-0337 · Fax (612)929-6166
Survey Overview
Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present the results of this study to the City of .
Andover. This section provides a brief introduction to the specifications of the survey and
a guide to the organization of the written analysis.
While the most statistically sound procedures have been used to collect and analyze the
information presented herein, it must always be kept in mind that surveys are not predictions.
They are designed to measure public opinion within identifiable limits of accuracy at specific
points in time. This survey is in no way a prediction of opinions, perceptions, or actions at any
future point in time. After all, in public policy analysis, the major task is to impact these
revealed opinions in a constructive fashion.
The Principal Investigator for this study was Dr. William D. Morris; the Project Director
overseeing all phases of the research and analysis was Mr. Peter
Research Design
This study contains the results of a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected residents
of the City of Andover. Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers across the
community between September 19th and October 2nd, 2001.
The average interview took twenty-six minutes.
All respondents interviewed in this study were part of a randomly generated sample of
the city residents. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to their
respective universe within::l: 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases.
Interviews were conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd., trained personnel from
telephone banks in St. Paul, Minnesota. Approximately twenty percent of all interviews were
independently validated for procedure and content by a Decision Resources, Ltd., supervisor.
Completed interviews were edited and coded at the company's headquarters in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Statistical analysis and cross-tabulations were produced by the company's CfMC
Mentor Analysis System and SPSS for Windows 10.0 Statistical Package.
Organization of the Study
The results of this study are presented in the following order:
The Analysis consists of a written report of the major findings. The results contained
herein were also presented verbally to the client.
The Questionnaire reproduces the survey instrument as it was used in the interviewing
process. This section also includes a response frequency distribution for each question.
The Graphics section provides a visual representation of the data assembled in this
survey analysis.
Any further questions the reader may have about this study which are not answered in
this report should be directed to either Dr. Morris or Mr. Leatherman.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Residential Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Residential Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Residential Longevity .............................................. 6
Household Composition ............................................ 7
Age of Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gender of Respondent ............................................. 10
Location of Residence ............................................. 10
Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter Two: Quality of Life Issues .............................................. 12
Quality of Life Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Reasons for Moving to Andover ..................................... 13
Like Most about Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Most Serious Issue Facing the Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Property Tax Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chapter Three: Park and Recreation Usage and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Park and Recreation Usage and Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 18
Rating of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Maintenance and Upkeep of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Park System Components .......................................... 19
Sufficiency of Recreational Facilities .................................27
Recreational Facilities Leakage .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Participation in Organized Sports Offerings ............................ 29
Participation in School District Recreational Programs ................... 31
Sufficiency of Recreational Programs........ ... . . ..... . . ........... . .33
Expansion of City Recreational Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Tax Increase for Improvements and Expansions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter Four: Community Facility/Athletic Complex Issues ........................... 38
Community Facility/ Athletic Complex Issues ................................ 39
Components to Include in Community Facility/ Athletic Complex .......... 39
Specific Components for Inclusion ................................... 40
Position on Construction of an Andover Community Facility and Athletic
Complex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Park Development Priorities ........................................ 48
Tax Increase for Construction of a Community Center/Athletic Complex . . . . . 49
Community Facility Operating Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter Five: Final Thoughts ................................................... 53
Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3
.. Decision
.. Resources Ltd.
5
Andover residents were asked a series of questions about their demographic backgrounds. These
questions were asked for two reasons: first, to validate this sample against recent 2000 U.S.
Census fmdings; and, second, to track any differences between subgroups and the rest of the
population. There were no statistically significant differences between the findings of this
survey and the census data. And, throughout the course of this study, subgroup differences will
be discussed.
Residential Longevity
Andover residents were initially asked:
Approximately how many years have you lived in
Andover?
The typical adult resident had lived in Andover for 8.1 years:
LESS THAN ONE YEAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4%
ONE TO TWO YEARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12%
THREE TO FIVE YEARS ........................... 20%
SIX TO TEN YEARS ............................:.. 28%
11 TO 20 YEARS .................................. 25%
OVER 20 YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 %
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
While sixteen percent had arrived in the community during the past two years, eleven percent
had resided there for over twenty years.
"Less than one year" was indicated at a higher rate by eighteen to thirty-four year olds. "One to
two years" was reported more often by eighteen to thirty-four year oIds, owners of over
$250,000 homes and Precincts Seven, Eight and Nine residents. "Three to five years" was cited
more frequently by members of households containing children, thirty-five to forty-four year
olds and those who live on a city lot. "Six to ten years" was offered more often by thirty-five to
forty-four year olds, while "eleven to twenty years" was mentioned more often by forty-five to
fifty-four year olds, residents living outside the Andover High School attendance zone and
Precincts One, Two and Three residents. "Over twenty years" was stated more often by empty
nesters, over fifty-four year olds, those who live on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres and owners
of under $150,000 homes.
6
HOllsehold Composition
Respondents were asked a series of six questions about the composition of their household.
First, the number of seniors in residence was ascertained:
Could you tell me how many people in each of the fol-
lowing age groups live in your household. Let's start
oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself....
First, persons 65 years old and over?
Six percent of the households contained seniors over 65 years old:
NONE ........................................... 940/0
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40/0
TWO OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
This level was very low in comparison with neighboring communities.
Adults under 65 years old?
Two percent of the households in the community were composed entirely of seniors:
NONE ............................................ 2%
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79%
THREE OR MORE .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13%
The typical household contained two adults. Seventeen percent of the households reported the
presence of adult children.
Children aged 16 to 18 years old?
Seventeen percent of the households contained older teenagers:
NONE ........................................... 830/0
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . .. 12%
TWO OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Most residences contained only one teenager in this age subcategory.
Children aged 11 to 15 years old?
Thirty percent of the households contained adolescents:
7
NONE ........................................... 71%
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
TWO OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
REFUSED ......................................... 1 %
Again, most households contained only one person in this age category.
Children aged 6 to 10 years old?
Thirty-three percent ofthe households reported containing school-aged children in the six-to-ten
year age category:
NONE ........................................... 67%
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
TWO OR MORE .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 11 %
REFUSED ......................................... 1%
Again, most residences contained only one child in this age subcategory.
Children under 6 years old?
Twenty-nine percent of the households contained children under the age of six years old:
NONE ........................................... 71'%'
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18%
TWO OR MORE . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . ... II %
REFUSED ......................................... 10/0
As in the other categories, most residents contained only one child in this age subcategory.
A solid majority of households in the City of Andover reported the presence of children.
Age of Respondent
Residents were asked:
What is your age, please?
The typical adult resident was 41.9 years of age:
18-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30/0
25-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 170/0
35-44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420/0
45-54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240/0
55-64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120/0
8
65 AND OVER ..................................... 30/0
REFUSED ......................................... 00/0
While twenty percent of the residents were in the 18-34 year age category, fifty percent posted
ages in the over 54 year age category. In fact, a very concentrated forty-two percent posted ages
in the 35-44 year old range.
Residence
Respondents were initially asked:
Do you live on a city lot, a rural lot of less than 2.5
acres, or a rural lot ofmore than 2.5 acres?
Fifty-seven percent of the city's residents lived on "city lots:"
CITY LOT ......................... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 57%
RURAL/2.5 OR LESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
RURAL/2.5 OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19%
REFUSED ......................................... 0%
Twenty-five percent resided on rural lots less than 2.5 acres in area, and the remaining nineteen
percent of the households were sited on large rural lots.
Next, respondents were queried:
What is the property value of your residence?
The median property value of Andover residences was calculated as $192,500.00:
LESS THAN $100,000 ............................... 1%
$100,000-$149,999 ................................. 15%
$150,000-$199,999 ................................. 36%
$200,000-$249,999 ................................. 21%
$250,000-$299,999 ................................. 10%
OVER $300,000 . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . 9%
DON'T KNOW ..................................... 8%
REFUSED ......................................... 2%
Sixteen percent posted values under $150,000.00, while nineteen percent indicated values over
$250,000.00. A majority of residences in the community were valued between $150,000.00 and
$250,000.00.
9
Gender of Respondent
The gender of each respondent was noted:
MALE ........................................... 480/0
FEMALE ......................................... 520/0
Women comprised four percent more of the sample than men.
Location of Residence
The School District of each respondent was determined from their address:
ANOKA-HENNEPIN ............................... 91%
SAINT FRANCIS ................................... 90/0
Over ninety percent of the households resided in the Anoka-Hennepin Public School District.
Next, the specific high school attendance zone was similarly determined:
ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL ......................... 63%
REST OF CITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
Sixty-three percent of the sample resided in the Andover High School Attendance Area.
Finally, the precinct of each household was deduced from locations on a city map:
ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13%
TWO ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13%
THREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12%
FOUR ............................................ 6%
FIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90/0
SIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18%
SEVEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 %
EIGHT ............................................ 9%
NINE ........................... . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . .. 100/0
Thirty-eight percent of the residents lived in Precincts One through Three. Thirty-three percent
resided in Precincts Four through Six, while thirty percent lived in Precincts Seven though Nine.
10
Summary and
Conclusions
Thirty-six percent of Andover residents reported moving to the community within the past five
years, while thirty-six percent had lived there for more than twenty years. The median
residential longevity proved to be 8.1 years, reflective of an suburban growth area. Senior
households composed only six percent of the community's residences; in fact, only two percent
of the households were composed completely of senior citizens. Seventeen percent of the
households reported the presence of 16-18 year olds, while twenty-nine percent had 11-15 year
olds and thirty-three percent, 6-10 year olds. In addition, twenty-nine percent of the households
also contained children under six years old. The average age of an adult resident was found to
be 41.9 years old. In fact, forty-two percent of the population was found in the 35-44 year age
range. Women outnumbered men by four percent in the sample.
Fifty-seven percent of the sample reported living in a "city lot." Twenty-five percent resided on
a rura110t ofIess than 2.5 acres, while nineteen percent were on rural lots of more than 2.5 acres.
The median value of residential property within the community was found to be $192,500.00.
Sixteen percent reported property values under $150,000, while nineteen percent reported them
over $250,000.
The location of each respondent was also noted. Ninety-one percent reported living in the
Anoka-Hennepin School District, while nine percent resided in the Saint Francis School District.
Sixty-three percent were in the Andover High School Attendance Area, while the remainder
were not. And, twenty-six percent of the sample resided in Precincts 1 & 2, while twenty-seven
percent lived in Precincts 3-5, and twenty-nine percent resided in Precincts 6 & 7, with the
remaining nineteen percent in Precincts 8 & 9.
11
12
Andover residents were asked a short series of questions about their general perceptions of the
community. Their reason for moving to the city, as well as what they like most and what they
see as the most serious issue facing the community were ascertained. Finally, the perceptions
about property taxes were examined.
Reasons for Moving to
Andover
Respondents were initially asked:
Thinking back to when you moved to Andover, what
factors were most important to you in selecting the city?
"Affordable housing and land," at twenty-five percent, as well as "convenient location," at
twenty-three percent led the list of the most important factors in their move:
UNSURE .......................................... 2%
LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
OPEN SP ACE/RURAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17%
AFFORDABLEHOUSING/LAND ....................25%
SCHOOLS ................................... . . '. .. 14%
QUlET/PEACEFUL ................................. 4%
GOOD COMMUNITY ............................... 3%
FAMILY..........................................4%
NEIGHBORHOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
PARKS/NATURE .. .. ..... . . ..... . . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. 2%
NEW GROWING AREA ............................. 3%
SCATTERED ...................................... 1%
"Open space and rural character," at seventeen percent, and "good schools," at fourteen percent
formed the second tier of reasons.
"Affor:dable housing/land" was key to city residents for six to ten years, those who live on a rural
lot of more than 2.5 acres, owners of over $250,000 homes and Precincts One, Two and Three
residents. "Location" was offered at a higher rate by owners of under $150,000 homes, while
"open space/rural" was important to members of households containing seniors, those who live
on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres and owners of$150,000 to $200,000 homes. "Schools" was
reported more frequently by city residents for five years orJess, members of households
containing children, eighteen to forty-four year aids, those who live on a city lot and owners of
$200,000 to $250,000 homes.
13
Like other high growth communities, the reasons for moving to the city reflected both suburban
motives - convenience and schools - as well as "exurb an" - rural ambience and land.
Like Most about
Community
Andover residents were asked:
What do you like most about living in Andover?
"Convenient location," at twenty-two percent, and "open space and rural ambience," at eighteen
percent were the most frequently cited assets:
UNSURE .......................................... 4%
NOTHING .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
SAFE ............................................ 2%
QUlET/PEACEFUL ................................ 13%
HOUSE/LAND ...................................... 6%
SMALL TOWN FEEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
OPEN SPACE/RURAL .............................. 18%
PEOPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6%
SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
GOOD SHOPPING .................................. 3%
NEIGHBORHOOD ......................... . . . . . . . . . 6%
PARKS/NATURE ...................................3%
SCATTERED ...................................... 2%
Just behind, "quiet and peacefulness," at thirteen percent, ranked next. Seven percent pointed to
"schools," while six percent each mentioned "house/land," "nice people," and "strong
neighborhood. "
"Location" was cited most frequently by eighteen to thirty-four year olds and Precincts Four,
Five and Six residents. "Open space/rural" was offered at a higher rate by city residents for
more than ten years, empty nesters, men, those who live on a rural lot and Precincts One, Two
and Three residents. "Quiet/peaceful" was mentioned most frequently by city residents for five
years or less and men.
Most Serious Issue Facing
the Community
Residents were queried:
What is the most serious issue facing the community
today?
14
"Growth," at twenty-four percent, led the list of serious issues, followed by "school funding," at
fifteen percent:
UNSURE .................................... . . . .. 13%
NONE ............................................. 3%
GROWTH ......................................... 24%
TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
CRIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
SCHOOL FUNDING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15%
NEED POLICE DEPARTMENT ....................... 4%
LOW INCOME HOUSING. . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . 2%
SCHOOL BOUNDARIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
TAXES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
NEED WATER TREATMENT PLANT ..................4%
ROADS .......................,................... 7%
MORE FOR PARKS ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
NEED MORE BUSINESSES .......................... 2%
SCATTERED ...................................... 3%
Nine percent pointed to "traffic congestion," while seven percent cited "road maintenance."
"Growth" troubled those who live on a rural lot of more than 2.5 acres, while "school funding"
was a concern among members of households containing children, women, residents living in the
Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. "Traffic" was
cited most frequently by empty nesters, while "roads" was posted more often by city residents
for more than ten years, those who live on a rural lot of less than 25 acres, residents living in the
Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts Seven; Eight and Nine residents.
In comparison with other high growth areas, concern over the increasing population was lower
than the norm.
Property Tax Climate
Andover residents were asked:
In comparison to neighboring communities, do you
consider your property taxes to be very high, somewhat
high, about average, somewhat low or very low?
Sixty percent regarded their property taxes to be "about average" in comparison with
neighboring communities:
VERY HIGH ....................................... 6%
SOMEWHAT HIGH ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
ABOUT AVERAGE ................................ 60%
SOMEWHAT LOW ................................. 7%
15
VERY LOW..... ................................... 10/0
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ............................ 8%
Twenty-six percent thought they were either "very high" or "somewhat high," while eight
percent saw it as either "somewhat low" or "very low."
"High" was offered more often by forty-five to fifty-four year olds, those who live on a rural lot
of more than 2.5 acres and residents living in the Andover High School attendance zone. "About
average" was posted more often by residents living outside the Andover High School attendance
zone.
Summary and
Conclusions
Andover citizens were very contented with their community. Several key reasons for moving to
Andover in the first place were noted: "affordable housing and available land" proved key to
twenty-five percent, while "location" was noted by twenty-three percent. "Open space and rural
ambience" drew seventeen percent, and "schools" proved the major factor for fourteen percent.
Smaller numbers pointed to "quiet and peacefulness," "good community," "family there,"
"strong neighborhood," and "parks and natural amenities." When asked what they liked most
about the community, twenty-two percent of the residents pointed to "convenient location of the
community." "Open space and rural ambience" was cited by eighteen percent, while "quiet and
peacefulness" was posted by eighteen percent. Small numbers mentioned "safety," "house and
land," "small town ambience," "nice people," "good schools," "ample shopping," "strong
neighborhoods," and "parks and natural areas." Two major serious issues facing the community
were identified: "growth and development," at twenty-four percent and "school funding," at
fifteen percent. "Traffic congestion" at nine percent, and "condition of roads," at seven percent,
ranked next highest. Smaller numbers commented on "crime," "need for a police department,"
"low income housing," "school boundaries," "high taxes," "need for a water treatment plant,"
"need for more parks," and the "need for more business development."
Generally, the property tax climate in the City of Andover must be considered "benign." Only
twenty-six percent thought their property taxes were "high" in comparison with neighboring
communities, while a large sixty percent called them "about average." In addition, eight percent
classified their property taxes as "low," and a similar percentage were "uncertain."
16
17
Andover residents were asked a series of questions about the park and recreation facilities and
services available within the city. First, ratings of recreational facilities and maintenance and
upkeep were ascertained. Usage and evaluations of each of the current Andover Park System
components were garnered. Questions were also asked in more detail about the city's trail
system. The sufficiency of the current mix offacilities was established as well regular
departures from the city to recreate elsewhere. Participation in organized sports offered in the
city was estimated, as well as satisfaction with those offerings. Recreational programs offered
by the School Districts were discussed, with a final judgment about their adequacy for household
members. Finally, support both in concept and in terms of tax money for an expansion of
facilities or programs was established.
Rating of Facilities
Residents were initially asked:
How would you rate park and recreational facilities in
Andover - excellent, good, only fair or poor?
A moderately high seventy percent rated park and recreational facilities as either "excellent" or
"good:"
EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 12%
GOOD ........................................... 580/0
ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19%
POOR ............................................ 60/0
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5%
Twenty-five percent, though, rated it lower as either "only fair" or "poor."
Ratings were higher among city residents for six to ten years and over fifty-four year olds. They
were lower among thirty-five to forty-four year olds and residents living outside the Andover
High School attendance zone.
Maintenance and Upkeep
of Facilities
Andover respondents were next queried:
And, how would you rate the maintenance and upkeep
of Andover's parks, trails and facilities - excellent,
18
good, only fair or poor?
A solid eighty-one percent rated the maintenance and upkeep of Andover's parks, trails and
facilities highly:
EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17%
GOOD ................................:.......... 64%
ONLY FAIR.................................... ... 13%
POOR ............................................ 2%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ... ...... . .. ... ....... .. . .. . 5%
Fifteen percent, though, were more negative in their judgments.
Ratings increased among owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes and residents living in the
Andover High School attendance zone. They decreased among thirty-five to forty-four year
olds, owners of $ I 50,000 to $200,000 homes, residents living outside the Andover High School
attendance zone and Precincts One, Two and Three residents.
Critics were then asked a follow-up question:
Why did you rate the upkeep and maintenance as(only
fairlpoor)?
"Messy and/or high grass" and "ignoring of certain parks" led the list of reasons for lower
evaluations:
UNSURE ....................................... . . . 50/0
COULD IMPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18%
OUTDATED EQUIPMENT..................... ..... 13%
CERTAIN PARKS IGNORED ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%
GRAFFITI/V ANDALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
MESSYIHIGH GRASS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
SCATTERED ...................................... 5%
"Room for improvement" and "outdate equipment" were secondary reasons for negative
postings. "Could improve" was offered more often by members of households containing
semors.
Park System Components
Residents were instructed:
The Andover Park System is primarily composed of a
trail system; small neighborhood parks; and larger
community parks, such as Sunshine and Kelsey/Round
Lake. For each of the following, first, tell me if you or
members of your household have used it during the past
19
year. Then, for those you have used, please rate them
as excellent, good, only fair or poor. lfyou have no
opinion, just say so....
A list of fourteen components was then read:
Trail system?
Fifty-seven percent of the residents reported household members had used the trail system
during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 37%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 36%
USED/ONLY FAIR ..................................4%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6%
Ninety-one percent of the system users rated it as either "excellent" or "good."
"Not used" was cited more often by over fifty-four year olds. Ratings were higher among city
residents for five years or less, eighteen to thirty-four year olds, those who live on a city lot and
residents living in the Andover High School attendance zone. They were lower among city
residents for more than ten years, owners of$150,000 to $200,000 homes and Precincts Four,
Five and Six residents.
Users of the trail system were then asked:
How do you or members of your household primarily
use the trail system - walking, running, biking, in-line
skating, or a combination of activities?
Fifty-six percent reported using the trail system for a "combination" of activities:
WALKlNG........................................ 19%
RUNNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20/0
BIKrnG .......................................... 20%
IN-LINE SKATING... ............. .................. 3%
COMBINA nON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ... . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . .. .. . ..... 1 %
Twenty percent exclusively used the trails for "biking," while nineteen percent used them for
"walking."
"Walking" was stated more frequently by city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters,
over fifty-four year olds and those who live on a rural lot of less than 2.5 acres. "Combination"
was posted more often by city residents for five years or less, members of households containing
children, thirty-five to forty-four year olds and Precincts Four, Five and Six residents.
20
As a short digression, all respondents were then specifically asked:
Would you support or oppose the future expansion of
the current trail system? And do you feel strongly that
way?
An overwhelming eighty-one percent to nine percent margin endorsed the future expansion of
the current trail system:
STRONGLY SUPPORT ............................. 49%
SUPPORT ........................................ 32%
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
STRONGLY OPPOSE ............................... 6%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10%
In fact, just under fifty percent "strongly supported" a future expansion.
Supporters were more apt to be city residents for ten years or less, eighteen to forty-four year
olds, men, those who live on a city lot, residents living in the Andover High School attendance
zone and Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. Opponents were more likely to be city residents
for more than ten years and forty-five to fifty-four year olds. '
The list of fourteen components was then continued:
Again, for each of the following, tell me if you or mem-
bers of your household have used it during the past
year. Then, for those you have used, please rate them
as excellent, good, only fair or poor. Jfyou have no
opinion, just say so....
Smaller neighborhood parks?
Sixty-seven percent ofthe residents reported household members had used smaller neighborhood
parks during the past year:
NOT USED .......................................33%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 40%
USED/ONLY FAIR... . . ... .. ... . . . .. .... . . . . ....... 15%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 %
Among users, sixty-eight percent rated them highly.
"Not used" was stated more often by city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters, over
forty-four year olds, those who live on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres and Precincts Seven,
Eight and Nine residents. Unfavorable ratings were posted more often by thirty- five to forty-
four year olds.
21
Larger community parks?
Fifty-eight percent of the households reported members had used the larger community parks
during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 420/0
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 39%
USED/ONLY FAIR.................................. 3%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Ninety-five percent of the users rated these facilities as either "excellent" or "good."
"Not used" was cited at a higher rate by empty nesters and over fifty-four year olds. Ratings
were higher among members of households containing children, thirty-five to forty-four year
olds and residents living in the Andover High School attendance zone. They were lower among
women, those who live on a rural lot of more than 2.5 acres, residents living outside the Andover
High School attendance zone and Precincts One, Two and Three residents.
Baseball ballfields?
Thirty-seven percent of the households contained members using the baseball baUfields during
the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 63%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 24%
USED/ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ....... . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. 1 %
Eighty-four percent of the users posted favorable evaluations.
"Not used" was reported more frequently by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and
Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. Favorable ratings were given more often by thirty-five to
forty-four year olds and owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes. Unfavorable ratings were
posted at a higher rate by those who live on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres, owners of$150,000
to $200,000 homes and Precincts One, Two and Three residents.
Softball ballfields?
Thirty-one percent of the residents reported household members had used softball ballfields
during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 69%
22
USEDIEXCELLENT . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .... 10%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 18%
USED/ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . .. ... .... . ..... . . . . ... . . ... 1%
Users posted an overall ninety percent favorable evaluation.
"Not used" was indicated more often by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds, owners of under
$150,000 homes and Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. Ratings increased among owners of
$200,000 to $250,000 homes and Precincts One, Two and Three residents. They decreased
among city residents for more than ten years and owners of $150,000 to $200,000 homes.
Outdoor ice skating rinks?
Thirty-two percent of the households contained users of the outdoor ice skating rinks:
NOT USED ....................................... 68%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. 2%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 17%
USED/ONLY FAIR . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. 10%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
Fifty-nine percent of the users rated these facilities highly.
"Not used" was cited more often by members of households containing seniors, empty nesters
and over fifty-four year olds. Unfavorable ratings were given most often by city residents for
more than ten years.
Tennis courts?
Twenty percent of the residents reported household members had used tennis courts during the
past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 80%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 11%
USED/ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............................ 2%
Sixty-eight percent of the users of the tennis courts rated them highly.
"Not used" was selected most often by empty nesters and over fifty-four year olds. Favorable
ratings were posted more frequently by members of households containing children, while
23
unfavorable ratings were given most often by thirty-five to forty-four year olds and Precincts
Four, Five and Six residents.
Playground equipment?
Fifty-nine percent of the residents reported household members had used phiyground equipment
during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 41%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 36%
USED/ONLY FAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 %
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40/0
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 %
Seventy-six percent of the users rated the equipment favorably.
"Not used" was reported at a higher rate by city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters,
over forty-four year olds, those who live on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres and owners of under
$150,000 homes. Ratings were higher among city residents for ten years or less, eighteen to
thirty-four year olds, those who live on a city lot, owners of over $250,000 homes and residents
living in the Andover High School attendance zone. They were lower among Precincts Four,
Five and Six residents.
Soccer fields?
Thirty-three percent of the households reported members had used the soccer fields during the
past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 670/0
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 20%
USED/ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Eighty-one percent of the users rated the soccer fields as either "excellent" or "good."
"Not used" was cited more often by members of households containing seniors, empty nesters,
over fifty-four year olds and women. Ratings peaked among thirty-five to forty-four year aids
and men.
Gymnasium space?
Twenty-six percent of the households contained members who had used city gymnasium space
during the past year:
24
NOT USED ....................................... 76%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 13%
USED/ONLY FAIR . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . 2%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ................. .. . . . . . .. . . 4%
Seventy-six percent of the users rated the gymnasium space positively.
"Not used" was mentioned more often by empty nesters and over fifty-four year olds.
Unfavorable ratings were cited at a higher rate by thirty-five to forty-four year olds and owners
of$200,000 to $250,000 homes.
Outdoor basketball courts?
Eighteen percent of the households contained members who had used the city's outdoor
basketball courts during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 82%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 %
USED/GOOD ...................................... 9%
USED/ONLY FAIR. .. . . ..... . . . ... ...... . . . . .. . . . .. . 4%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 %
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Sixty-seven percent of the outdoor basketball court users rated these facilities as either
"excellent" or "good."
"Not used" was indicated most frequently by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and
women. Favorable ratings were posted more often by members of households containing
children, while unfavorable ratings were mentioned more often by owners of $200,000 to
$250,000 homes.
Open space and natural areas?
Sixty-two percent of the households contained members who had visited open space and natural
areas:
NOT USED ....................................... 38%
USEDIEXCELLENT ................................ 13%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 42%
USED/ONLY FAIR... ............................ ...3%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 %
DON'TKNOWIREFUSED ............................3%
A very solid ninety-three percent of the visitors rated these facilities higWy.
25
"Not used" was reported more often by city residents for more than ten years, over fifty-four
year olds and Precincts Seven, Eight and Nine residents. Ratings were higher among city
residents for five years or less, while they were lower among thirty-five to forty-four year olds
and owners of under $150,000 homes.
Indoor swimming pool at Oakview School?
Thirty- four percent of the residents reported household members had used the indoor swimming
pool at Oakview School during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 66%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . 10%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 18%
USED/ONLY FAIR.................................. 3%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED .. . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. 2%
Eighty-eight percent of the indoor swimming pool users rated it as either "excellent" or "good."
"Not used" was mentioned at a higher rate by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and owners
of under $150,000 homes. Favorable ratings were encountered more often among city residents
for six to ten years, thirty-five to forty-four year olds and owners of over $250,000 homes.
Unfavorable ratings were given more often by owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes.
Boat launches?
Twenty-seven percent of the residents reported household members had used the city's boat
launches during the past year:
NOT USED ....................................... 73%
USEDIEXCELLENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
USED/GOOD ..................................... 13%
USED/ONLY FAIR . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. 7%
USED/POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
DON'TKNOW/REFUSED ............................ 2%
Sixty-four percent of the boat launch users posted favorable evaluations of these facilities.
"Not used" was selected more often by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds, residents living
in the Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts Seven, Eight and Nine residents.
Ratings peaked among city residents for more than ten years, members of households containing
children, residents living outside the Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts One,
Two and Three residents.
Residents rating any of these facilities as either "only fair" or "poor" were asked a follow-up
query:
26
Why did you rate
as (only fair/poor)?
Thirty-five percent of the critics cited "poor upkeep," while twenty-four percent thought there
were "not enough" of the particular facilities:
POORPARKING ............................ .'......6%
NEEDS UPDATING... .. ....... ... .. . .... .. . . ...... 17%
NOT ENOUGH .................................... 24%
POOR UPKEEP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
NEED MORE EQUIPMENT ......................... 12%
NEED MORE RESTROOMS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
SCATTERED......................................4%
Another seventeen percent felt the facilities "need updating."
"Poor upkeep" troubled men, while "not enough" was indicated at a higher rate by members of
households containing children. "Needs updating" was offered at a higher rate by women and
Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. "Need more equipment" was a concern among members
of households containing seniors and women.
The top four utilized facilities were found to be smaller neighborhood parks, open space and
nature areas, playground equipment, and larger community parks. The top four rated facilities
were larger community parks, open space and nature areas, softball ballfields, and the indoor
swimming pool at Oakview School. Only two of the four most used facilities, then, drew top
ratings from their clientele.
Sufficiency of Recreational
Facilities
Residents were asked:
Do you feel that the current mix of recreational facili-
ties sufficiently meets the needs ofmembers of your
household?
While seventy-eight percent thought the current mix was sufficient, nineteen percent did not:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
"Yes" was indicated most often by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and owners of under
$150,000 homes. "No" was mentioned more often by members of households containing
children, thirty-five to forty-four year olds and owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes.
Those deeming current facilities insufficient for the needs of their household were asked a
27
follow-up query:
What additional recreational facilities would you like
to see the City of Andover offer residents?
"A Community Center," "more parks," "more trails," and "additional athletic fields" were the
chief suggestions:
UNSURE ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
COMMUNITY CENTER ............................ 23%
TRAILS .......................................... 19%
GYMNASIUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
MORE PARKS .................................... 200/0
POOL ............................................ 7%
ATHLETIC FIELDS................................ 16%
INDOOR ICE ARENA ............................... 5%
SCATTERED ......................,................ 4%
"Community Center" was stated most frequently by those who live on a rural lot of less than 2.5
acres, residents living in the Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts Four, Five and
Six residents. "Trails" was posted more often by members of households containing seniors,
while "atWetic fields" was indicated more frequently by residents living in the Andover High
School attendance zone and Precincts Seven, Eight and Nine residents.
Recreational Facilities
Leakage
Andover citizens were asked:
Do you regularly leave the City of Andover to use park
and recreation facilities in other cities? Whatfacilities
do you leave the city for?
Fifty-four percent of the households reported members regularly leaving to recreate elsewhere:
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%
GOLF ............................................ 10/0
LAKES/BOATING .................................. 9%
BUNKER HILLS PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
SWIMMING POOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
BLAINE ATHLETIC COMPLEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
NATURE PRESERVES .............................. 2%
OTHER PARKS .................................... 70/0
CAMPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
COMMUNITY CENTER ............................. 4%
TRAILS ........................................... 20/0
SCATTERED ...................................... 6%
28
Key activities included "lakes and boating," "Blaine AtWetic Complex activities," "swimming
pools," and "pursuits in other parks."
"No" was reported more often by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and owners of under
$150,000 homes. "Lakes/boating" was stated most frequently by city residents for more than ten
years. "Swimming pool" was offered most often by members of households containing children
and thirty-five to forty-four year olds. "Blaine AtWetic Coinplex" was cited more often by men
and owners of over $250,000 homes. "Other parks" was cited more frequently by members of
households containing seniors, members of households containing children, women and owners
of$150,000 to $200,000 homes.
Participation in Organized
Sports Offerings
Respondents were instructed:
I would like to read you a list of organized sports offer-
ed in the City of Andover for children. For each one,
please tell me if any child in your household partici-
pated in it during the past year.
A list of six organized sports offerings was then read:
Baseball?
Fifteen percent of the household in the community reported children participating in organized
baseball programs:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Among households containing children, twenty-three percent participated in these programs.
Participation was higher among owners of over $250,000 homes.
Softball?
Ten percent of the households in the community participated in softball programs:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............................ 0%
Among households containing children, fifteen percent reported youth participated in softball
programs. Participation peaked among Precincts One, Two and Three residents.
29
Soccer?
Eighteen percent of the households in the city participated in youth soccer programs:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 180/0
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Among households containing children, the effective participation rate was twenty-seven
percent. Participation was higher among men and owners of over $250,000 homes. It was lower
among women and those who live on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres.
Basketball?
Eleven percent of the community's households reported members participating in youth
basketball programs:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110/0
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88%
DON'TKNOW/REFUSED ............................ 1%
Among households containing children, seventeen percent contained participants. "Yes" was
cited more frequently by owners of over $250,000 homes.
Football?
Eight percent of the households in Andover reported participants in youth football programs:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80/0
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%
Twelve percent of the households containing children reported participants. Participation
increased among owners of over $250,000 homes, while it decreased among owners of under
$150,000 homes.
Hockey?
Seven percent ofthe community's households contained youth hockey program players:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930/0
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............................ 0%
Among households containing children, eleven percent reported participants. Participation was
higher among owners of over $250,000 homes, while it was lower among Precincts Four, Five
30
and Six residents.
Households containing participants in any of the six types of programs were asked a follow-up
query:
Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the
program(s)?
Eighty-seven percent reported satisfaction with the program(s):
SATISFIED ....................................... 87%
DISSATISFIED. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. 12%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Twelve percent indicated some level of dissatisfaction. There were no statistically significant
sub-group differences noted.
The small number of residents indicating dissatisfaction were asked:
Why were you dissatisfied?
"Poor coaches" and "poor organization" were the two primary reasons for dissatisfaction:
POOR COACHES ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
POORLY RUN .................................... 39%
SCATTERED..................................... 11%
"Poor coaches" was posted more often by city residents for five years or less and owners of over
$250,000 homes. "Poorly run" was offered at a higher rate by city residents for six to ten years
and owners of$150,000 to $200,000 homes.
In general, usership levels of organized athletic programs were at or above the suburban norm,
while satisfaction levels were consistent with results in other communities.
Participation in School
District Recreational
Programs
Residents were asked:
In the past year, have you or any members of this house-
hold used any recreational programs offered by the
School District's Community Education program in the
"Balloon Book?"
Twenty-three percent reported household members had participated in recreational offerings
provided by their School District's Community Education program:
31
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
DON'TKNOW/REFUSED ............................4%
"Yes" was cited most often by city residents for five years or less, members of households
containing children, thirty-five to forty-four year olds and owners of over $250,000 homes.
"No" was mentioned more often by city residents for more than ten years, members of
households containing seniors, empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and those who live on a
rural lot of less than 2.5 acres.
Community Education program users were then asked:
Which ones?
"Swimming," "ECFE," "basketball," and "baseball" led the list of most utilized sports programs:
UNSURE .................................. . . . . . . . . 5%
DANCE ........................................... 8%
VOLLEYBALL ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
FOOTBALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
BASKETBALL .................................... 11 %
BASEBALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10%
SWIMMING ...................................... 14%
SOCCER .......................................... 6%
CRAFTS .......................................... 6%
SAFETY CAMP .................................... 40/0
, GYMNASTICS ..................................... 2%
ECFE ........................................... 12%
KARATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
AEROBICS/FITNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
ADULT EDUCATION ...............................4%
SCATTERED ...................................... 40/0
"Dance," "soccer," and "crafts formed a second tier of popular programs.
"Swimming" was stated more frequently by owners of over $250,000 homes. "ECFE" was
reported more often by eighteen to thirty-four year oIds, women and owners of $150,000 to
$200,000 homes. "Basketball" was indicated at a higher rate by Precincts One, Two and Three
residents.
Program users were then asked a follow-up query:
Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the
program(s)?
A nearly unanimous ninety-four percent reported they were "generally satisfied:"
SATISFIED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94%
DISSATISFIED .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
32
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Only two percent were "dissatisfied" with their experience. "Dissatisfied" was mentioned at a
higher rate by over fifty-four year olds.
The very small number reporting dissatisfaction were asked a follow-up query:
Why were you dissatisfied?
"Poor organization" and "inconvenient schedule" were the key reasons for negative responses.
POORLY ORGANIZED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%
POOR TIMES ..................................... 50%
There were no statistically significant sub-group differences noted.
Sufficiency of Recreational
Programs
Andover residents were asked:
Does the current mix of recreational programs in the
city meet the needs of your household?
Seventy-nine percent reported the current mix of recreational programs met their household
needs:
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790/0
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11%
Only ten percent reported the current mix was inadequate. "No" was posted most often by
thirty-five to forty-four year olds.
Respondents reporting their household needs were unmet were then asked a follow-up query:
What recreational programs are missing?
"Adult sports," "hockey association," "programs for young children," and "youth sports" were
the most often mentioned omissions:
UNSURE ............................... . . . . . . . . . . 23%
ADULT SPORTS .................................. 15%
HOCKEY ASSOCIATION.... . .... . .... . . . .. ... . . ... 15%
PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN ............... 10%
YOUTH SPORTS .................................. 15%
SWIMMING PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
33
SCATTERED ..................................... 18%
"Adult sports" was selected more often by members of households containing seniors, empty
nesters, men and those who live on a city lot. "Hockey association" was posted more often by
women and owners of over $250,000 homes.
Expansion of City
Recreational Offerings
Respondents were asked:
If the City of Andover were to offer recreational pro-
grams, such as neighborhood park and playground
programs, arts and crafts, skiing or sports camps, how
likely would members of your household be to parti-
cipate - very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely or
not at all likely?
Fifty-five percent were either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to participate in newly offered
City-sponsored recreational programs:
VERY LIKELY .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY.. . . . . . .. . .. . ... .... .. ... . . . . . 35%
NOT TOO LIKELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY .... . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . 21 %
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
Using general market projection techniques, nineteen percent of the households would be
expected to use well-publicized newly offered recreational programs of this type.
Likelihood increased among city residents for five years or less, members of households
containing children, eighteen to forty-four year aids and those who live on a city lot. It
decreased among city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters, over forty-four year olds,
those who live on a rural lot of less than 2.5 acres and owners of under $ I 50,000 homes.
Tax Increase for
Improvements and
Expansions
Andover residents were asked:
How much would you be willing to see your property
taxes increase per year to pay for improvements and
expansions of existing park facilities, trails and pro-
34
grams? Let's say, would you be willing to pay an addi-
tional $_per year? How about $_per year?
T e typical Andover resident would be willing to pay an additional $25.93 per year in property
es to fund improvements and expansions of existing park facilities, trails, and programs:
NOTHING ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
$10.00 .............. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
$20.00 ........................................... 13%
$30.00 ........................................... 16%
$40.00 ............................................ 9%
$50.00 ........................................... 15%
$60.00 ............................................ 2%
$70.00 ........................................... 11%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
H wever, twenty-two percent were unwilling to pay any additional taxes for this purpose, while
enty-eight percent were willing to pay twice the average amount.
" othing" was indicated more often by city residents for more than ten years, members of
h useholds containing seniors, empty nesters and over forty-four year olds. "$10.00" was cited
m re often by city residents for more than ten years. "$20.00" was stated most often by empty
n sters and owners of under $150,000 homes. "$40.00" was offered at a higher rate by city
re idents for five years or less, members of households containing children and Precincts One,
T 0 and Three residents. "$50.00" was selected most frequently by city residents for six to ten
y s, residents living in the Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts Four, Five and
Si residents. "$70.00" was cited at a higher rate by city residents for five years or less,
m mbers of households containing children and thirty-five to forty-four year bIds.
Summary and
Conclusions
A moderate seventy percent rated the park and recreational facilities in Andover as "excellent"
o "good," while twenty-five percent rated them lower. But, a somewhat higher eighty-one
p rcent rated the maintenance and upkeep of Andover's parks, trails and facilities positively,
wile fifteen percent were more critical. Key complaints about maintenance focused on the
p rceived ignoring of certain city parks, as well as messy facilities with unrnowed grass.
e current usage rates of many of the facilities was on a par with other areas possessing similar
h usehold demographics. Sixty-seven percent indicated household members had visited smaller
n ighborhood parks, while sixty-three percent had used the trail system and sixty-two percent
h d visited open spaces and natural areas in the city. Fifty-nine percent had used playground
e uipment, while fifty-eight percent had visited the larger community parks. Thirty-seven
p rcent reported household members used baseball fields during the past year. Between thirty
d thirty-four percent each stated household members used the indoor swimming pool at
o iew School, soccer fields, outdoor ice skating rinks, and softball fields. Twenty-seven
p rcent visited the city's boat launches, while twenty-six percent had used gymnasium space. At
35
the lower end of the usage scale, twenty percent used the city's tennis courts, while eighteen
percent used the outdoor basketball courts.
Facilities ratings varied dramatically. Four facilities received very high positive evaluations of
over ninety percent: trail system, larger community parks, softball fields, and open space and
natural areas. Three facilities received high positive evaluations of between eighty and ninety
percent: baseball fields, soccer fields, and the indoor swimming pool at Oakview School.
Seventy-six percent each were favorable in their judgments about gymnasium space and
playground equipment. However, less than seventy percent, comparatively low ratings, were
found on five facilities: smaller neighborhood parks, outdoor ice skating rinks, tennis courts,
outdoor basketball courts, and boat launches. Critics generally focused on "poor upkeep," "need
for updating," and "inadequate numbers offacilities or equipment."
Users of the city's trail system tended to undertake a combination of activities. Nineteen percent
walked, while twenty percent biked on the trails. A large fifty-six percent engaged in a number
of activities there, including walking, running, biking, and/or in-line skating. When asked of all
residents, an unusually high eighty-one percent would support the future expansion of the current
trail system, while only nine percent were opposed; in fact, forty-nine percent of the sample
"strongly" supported an expansion.
A significant seventy-eight percent felt the current mix of recreational opportunities in the city
sufficiently met the needs of their household members. Among the numbers who regarded them
as insufficient, most saw the need for a community center, more parks, more trails, and more
athletic fields.
A relatively large fifty-four percent of the residents left the City of Andover to recreate
elsewhere because certain programs or facilities were unavailable locally. Swimming pool
activities, parks, activities at the Blaine AtWetic Complex, and saiIing/fishing/boating were the
major draws cited for leaving the community.
Eighteen percent reported children in their household had participated in a soccer program
during the past year. Fifteen percent had children in baseball, while eleven percent emolled
children in basketball offerings and ten percent, in softball activities. Eight percent had children
last year in football programs, and seven percent had them in hockey programs. Eighty-seven
percent reported they were generally satisfied with the programs; respondents expressing
dissatisfaction pointed to "poor coaches" or "poor organization."
During the past year, twenty-three percent of the sample reported household members had used
recreational programs offered by the School District's Community Education Department. The
most popular offerings proved to be "swimming," "Early Childhood and Family Education,"
"basketball," and "baseball." A nearly unanimous ninety-four percent reported they were
generally satisfied with their experience.
Overall, seventy-nine percent reported the current mix of recreational programs in the city met
the needs of their household; only ten percent thought they were inadequate. The small
percentage of residents who felt programs were missing pointed to "adult sports," "youth
sports," "hockey association activities," and "programs for young children." If the City of
Andover were to offer recreational programs, fifty-five percent reported members of their
household would be likely to participate in them; in fact, twenty percent reported household
36
+'" were "very likely" to do '0.
e typical Andover resident would support a property tax increase of $25.93 per year to pay for
i rovements of existing park facilities, trails, and programs. Twenty-two percent, though,
re orted they would support no increase in taxes for this purpose; however, twenty-eight percent
re orted they were willing to support increases of twice the average amount, or $50.00 per year.
37
38
An over residents were asked a number of questions about a potential community
fac lity/athletic complex in the community. Components for inclusion in the facility were
dis ussed and preferences were established. Support in concept was also measured. Finally,
fin cial constraints on any proposed project were determined.
mponents to Include in
Community Facilityl
Athletic Complex
Re idents were asked:
If Andover were to build a Community Facility/Athle-
tic Complex, what types offacilities do you think are
most important to include?
A ' swimming pool," at twenty-seven percent, led the list of facilities for inclusion:
UNSURE ......................................... 27%
NONE ........................................... 100/0
POOL ........................................... 270/0
ICE ARENA ....................................... 80/0
GYMNASIUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
WATERPARK ..... ....... .........................2%
MEETING ROOMS ................................. 2%
BASEBALL FIELDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
EXERCISE/WEIGHT ROOMS ........................ 3%
SCATTERED ...................................... 7%
Ni e percent urged a "gymnasium," while eight percent wanted to see an "ice arena." However,
te percent opposed anything to be included in the facility - they adamantly opposed the
pr posaI.
"P 01" was key to members of households containing children. "None" was offered at a higher
rat by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds and owners of under $150,000 homes.
asium" was posted more frequently by thirty-five to forty-four year olds. "Ice Arena"
cited at a higher rate by members of households containing children, eighteen to thirty-four
olds and owners of over $250,000 homes.
39
Specific Components for
Inclusion
Residents were instructed:
I would like to read you a list of offerings which could
be included in a community facility/athletic complex.
For each one, please tell me if you would strongly favor,
somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose
its inclusion in a community facility and athletic
complex.
A list offourteen components was then read:
Gymnasium?
Bya seventy-seven percent to twenty-two percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of a
gymnasium in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 42%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 35%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 12%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 10%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 3%
This component ranked second on the list of potential inclusions.
Supporters tended to be city residents for five years or less, members of households containing
children and eighteen to forty-four year olds. Opponents were more likely to be city residents
for more than ten years, empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds, owners of under $150,000
homes and Precincts Seven, Eight and Nine residents.
Meeting and gathering rooms?
By a sixty-eight percent to twenty-eight percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of
meeting and gathering rooms:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 26%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR ..............................42%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 16%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 12%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Meeting and gathering rooms ranked fourth on the list of potential inclusions.
Support was higher among members of households containing children, while it was lower
40
a ong city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters and over fifty-four year olds.
Indoor swimming pool?
B a seventy-eight percent to twenty percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of an
in oar swimming pool in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . 53%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 25%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ..............................9%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 11 %
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ..... .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . 3%
indoor swimming pool ranked first on the list of potential inclusions.
Su porters were more apt to be city residents for five years or less, members of households
co taining children and eighteen to thirty-four year olds. Opponents were typically city
res dents for more than ten years, empty nesters, forty-five to fifty-four year olds and men.
Indoor water park?
Bya sixty-five percent to thirty-two percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of an
in oorwater park in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ...............................40%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 25%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 14%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 18%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ........................... . 3%
Th s component ranked ninth on the list of fourteen offerings for potential inclusion.
Su port increased among city residents for five years or less, members of households containing
ch' dren, eighteen to forty-four year olds, women, owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes and
Pr cincts Four, Five and Six residents. It decreased among city residents for more than ten
ye rs, empty nesters, forty-five to fifty-four year olds, over fifty-four year aids, men and owners
of der $150,000 homes.
Outdoor swimming pool?
By a sixty-five percent to thirty-two percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of an
ou door swimming pool in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 31 %
SOMEWHAT FAVOR ..............................34%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 15%
41
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 17%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ............................ 4%
An outdoor swimming pool also ranked ninth on the list of potential offerings.
Supporters were more likely to be members of households containing children, thirty-five to
forty-four year olds, women and Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. Opponents tended to be
city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters, forty-five to fifty-four year olds, over fifty-
four year olds and men.
Racquetball and Squash courts?
By a fifty-five percent to thirty-seven percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of
racquetball and squash courts in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR............................... 19%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 36%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 21%
STRONGLY OPPOSE.............................. 16%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............................ 8%
Racquetball and Squash courts ranked thirteenth on the list of fourteen facilities for potential
inclusion in the new facility.
"Support" was cited more often by members of households containing children, eighteen to
thirty-four year olds and owners of$200,000 to $250,000 homes. "Oppose" was mentioned at a
higher rate by city residents for more than ten years, over fifty-four year olds and Precincts
Seven, Eight and Nine residents.
Fieldhouse with a walking and running track and
space for soccer, baseball and football during the
winter months?
By a seventy percent to twenty-eight percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of a
fieldhouse in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ...............................37%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR..... ........ ............ ..... 33%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 11%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 17%
DON'TKNOW/REFUSED ............................3%
A fieldhouse ranked third on the list of potential components for inclusion in the facility.
Support increased among city residents for five years or less, members of households containing
children, eighteen to thirty-four year aids and women. It decreased among city residents for
more than ten years, members of households containing seniors, empty nesters, over fifty-four
42
ye olds, men and owners of $150,000 to $200,000 homes.
Exercise and weight room?
Bya sixty-seven percent to thirty-one percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of an
ex rcise and weight room in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 39%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 28%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 16%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 15%
DON'TKNOWIREFUSED ............................3%
An exercise and weight room ranked seventh on the list of fourteen components for possible
inc usion in a new community center.
Su port was higher among members of households containing children, eighteen to thirty-four
ye olds and women. It was lower among city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters,
ov r fifty-four year olds and men.
Indoor ice arena?
By sixty- four percent to thirty-three percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of an
ind or ice arena in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 30%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR............. ................. 34%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 18%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 15%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
door ice arena ranked eleventh on the list of possible components for inclusion.
Su porters tended to be city residents for five years or less, members of households containing
chi dren, eighteen to thirty-four year olds, residents living in the Andover High School
atte dance zone and Precincts Four, Five and Six residents. Opponents were typically city
resi ents for more than ten years, forty-five to fifty-four year aids and men.
Daycare center for Community Facility users?
By sixty-eight percent to twenty-seven percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of a
day are center in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 37%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 31%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 12%
43
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 15%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ............................ 5%
A daycare center tied for fourth place on the list of potential inclusions.
Supporters were more apt to be members of households containing children and eighteen to
thirty- four year olds. Opponents were more likely to be empty nesters and forty-five to fifty-four
year olds.
Food service and snack bar?
By a sixty-eight percent to thirty percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of a food
service and snack bar in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 25%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 43%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ....................,........ 15%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 15%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
A food service and snack bar also ranked fourth on the list.
Support was higher among members of households containing children, eighteen to thirty-four
year olds and women. It was lower among empty nesters, over fifty-four year aIds and men.
Indoor playground?
By a sixty-seven percent to twenty-eight percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of an
indoor playground in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 29%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR ..............................38%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 13%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 15%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
An indoor playground ranked seventh on the list of potential inclusions in the new facility.
"Support" was offered more frequently by members of households containing children, eighteen
to thirty-four year olds and owners of$150,000 to $200,000 homes. "Oppose" was indicated at a
higher rate by city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters and forty-five to fifty-four
year olds.
Climbing wall?
Bya fifty-three percent to forty-two percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of a
climbing wall in the complex:
44
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 17%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 36%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 19%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 23%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
A limbing wall ranked last on the list of potential facilities for inclusion in the community
ce ter.
Su porters were more likely to be members of households containing children, eighteen to
. -four year olds and women. Opponents tended to be city residents for more than ten years,
e pty nesters, over forty-four year olds and men.
Tennis courts?
B a sixty-four percent to thirty-one percent margin, residents supported the inclusion of tennis
co s in the complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 22%
SOMEWHAT FAVOR .............................. 42%
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE ............................. 15%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 16%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............................ 6%
T nnis courts ranked twelfth on the list of components for possible inclusion.
S pport increased among eighteen to thirty-four year olds and Precincts One, Two and Three
re idents. It decreased among men and owners of over $250,000 homes.
N xt, residents were asked a pair of follow-up queries. Strongly favored components were
as ertained through the question:
Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for
inclusion?
S vente en percent most strongly favored an "indoor pool," while ten percent wanted a "water
p k," and eight percent each felt similarly about "ice arena," "gymnasium," and "fieldhouse:"
UNSURE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
NONE ........................................... 31 %
ALL ...... .................................:.... 1%
INDOOR POOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17%
ICE ARENA ....................................... 8%
EXERCISE/WEIGHT ROOM. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . 5%
GYMNASIUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
OUTDOOR POOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
WATER PARK .................................... 10%
TRACK ........................................... 2%
45
FIELDHOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
SCATTERED ...................................... 80/0
Thirty-one percent reported there was no one facility they most strongly favored all others.
"None" was reported more often by empty nesters. "Indoor pool" was cited at a higher rate by
those who live on a rural lot of less than 2.5 acres. "Water park" was stated more often by
members of households containing children, thirty-five to forty-four year olds, women, those
who live on a city lot, residents living in the Andover High School attendance zone and Precincts
Four, Five and Six residents. "Ice arena" was cited more often by city residents for six to ten
years, members of households containing children and owners of over $250,000 homes.
"Gymnasium" was posted most frequently by residents living outside the Andover High School
attendance zone and Precincts One, Two and Three residents. "Fieldhouse" was offered at a
higher rate by city residents for six to ten years and owners of under $150,000 homes.
Next, they were asked about opposition to any components:
Is there any component that you would particularly
oppose?
Fifty-three percent reported they opposed "none" of the listed components:
UNSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 2%
NONE ........................................... 530/0
ALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60/0
ICE ARENA ....................................... 60/0
OUTDOOR POOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
SNACK BAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20/0
INDOOR POOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%
CLIMBING WALL .................................. 5%
WATER PARK . .. . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . 2%
GYMNASIUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20/0
DA YCARE ........................................ 30/0
RACQUETBALL/SQUASH COURTS .................. 3%
EXERCISE/WEIGHT ROOMS ........................ 2%
TENNIS COURTS................................... 2%
INDOOR PLAYGROUND ............................ 2%
FIELDHOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
SCATTERED ...................................... 2%
No one component was opposed by more than six percent of the sample - very minimal
opposition, indeed.
"None" was indicated at a higher rate by city residents for five years or less and those who live
on a city lot. "Ice arena" was cited most often by thirty-five to forty-four year olds, owners of
$200,000 to $250,000 homes and Precincts One, Two and Three residents. "All" was reported
more frequently by city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters, forty-five to fifty-four
year olds and owners of under $150,000 homes. "Climbing wall" was mentioned more often by
city residents for five years or less and owners of$150,000 to $200,000 homes.
46
Fi ally, respondents were asked:
Are there any other facilities you would like to see in a
Community Facility/Athletic Complex? What are they?
Ei ty-five percent were unable to suggest any additional facilities for inclusion:
NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85%
ATHLETIC FIELDS ................................. 1 %
SKATE PARK..................................... . 2%
YOUTH ROOMS ................................... 2%
SENIOR ROOMS ................................... 2%
SCATTERED ...................................... 9%
ere were no statistically significant sub-group differences noted.
Fo planning purposes, six facilities should be considered as the cornerstones of any community
fa ility/athletic complex: indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, fieldhouse, meeting and gathering
ro ms, daycare center, and food service and snack bar.
osition on Construction
of an Andover Community
Facility and Athletic
Complex
R sidents were asked for a benchmark judgment:
Would you favor or oppose the construction of an An-
dover Community Facility and Athletic Complex? Do
you feel strongly that way?
BX a seventy-three percent to twenty-one percent margin, residents overwhelmingly favored in
cdnce t the construction of an Andover Community Facility and Athletic Complex:
STRONGLY FAVOR ............................... 43%
FAVOR .......................................... 30%
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
STRONGLY OPPOSE .............................. 16%
DON'T KNOWIREFUSED ............... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7%
S pport increased among city residents for six to ten years, members of households containing
c ildren, eighteen to forty-four year olds and owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes. It
d creased among city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters, forty-five to fifty-four
y ar olds and men.
R sidents stating a position were next asked:
47
Why do you feel that way?
Supporters thought the project was "needed," "good for the community," "good for children,"
and "good for families:"
UNSURE ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
NO NEED ........................................ 14%
GOOD FOR COMMUNITY ..... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . 20%
GOOD IDEA ................. . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
GOOD FOR FAMILIES .............................. 9%
NEED MORE INFORMATION ON COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
GOOD FOR CHILDREN ............................ 10%
NEEDED.........................................21%
COSTS TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
OTHER PRIORITIES ................................3%
CLOSE LOCATION TO HOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
SCATTERED ...................................... 1 %
Opponents saw "no need" for the facility and thought it would "cost too much."
"Needed" was key to members of households containing children. "Good for the community"
was reported more often by city residents for five years or less and eighteen to thirty-four year
olds. "No need" was indicated most often by city residents for more than ten years, empty
nesters, those who live on a rural lot ofIess than 2.5 acres, owners of $150,000 to $200,000
homes and Precincts Seven, Eight and Nine residents. "Costs too much" was cited more often
by members of households containing seniors, empty nesters, forty-five to fifty-four year olds
and over fifty-four year olds.
These support levels suggest the City should begin in eamest to consider the construction of a
facility.
Park Development
Priorities
Residents were instructed:
Please tell me which of the following statements you
agree with:
A) The City should prioritize the building of a com-
munity facility and athletic complex;
B) The City should prioritize improvements and ex-
pansions of existing facilities and programs, such
as the trail system, neighborhood parks and ball-
fields;
C) The City should proceed on both projects; OR
D) The City should not proceed on either project.
48
W~ile thirty-nine percent thought the City "should proceed on both projects," thirty-one percent
fel the City "should prioritize improvements and expansions of existing facilities and
pro s:" ,
STATEMENT A ................................... 17%
STATEMENT B ................................... 3 1%
STATEMENT C ................................... '39%
STATEMENT D ................................... 11%
DON'TKNOW/REFUSED ............................2%
"s tement A" was reported at a higher rate by city residents for five years or less, members of
ho seho1ds containing children and residents living in the Andover High School attendance
zo e. "Statement B" was mentioned most often by empty nesters, over fifty-four year olds, men
an residents living outside the Andover High School attendance zone. "Statement C" was key
to embers of households containing children, eighteen to thirty-four year olds and women.
"s atement D" was indicated more frequently by city residents for more than ten years, members
of ouseholds containing seniors, empty nesters and over forty-four year olds.
Wile support for improvements and expansions of the current system held significantly more
su port, a majority stilI wanted to proceed on a community facility and athletic complex.
Tax Increase for
Construction of a
Community
I enter/Athletic Complex
Re idents were asked:
How much would you be willing to see your property
taxes increase per year to fund the construction of a
Community Center/Athletic Complex? Let's say, would
you be willing to pay an additional $_per year? How
about $_per year?
e typical resident would support an additional $41.25 per year in property taxes to fund the
co struction of a Community Center/Athletic Complex:
NOTHING .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250/0
$25.00 ........................................... 18%
$50.00 ........................................... 23%
$75.00 ............................................ 9%
$100.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12%
$125.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
$150.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%
$175.00. .... .. . .. ... . . . .. . . . ..... . . . . . .. ... .. . .. .. . 3%
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED ............................ 8%
49
While twenty-five percent would oppose any property tax increase for this purpose, twenty-six
percent would support a $75.00 per year increase to fund construction of this facility.
"Nothing" was stated more often by city residents for more than ten years, members of
households containing seniors, empty nesters and over forty-four year olds. "$50.00" was cited
more often by city residents for five years or less and those who live on a city lot. "$75.00" was
offered more often by city residents for six to ten years and eighteen to thirty-four year olds.
"$ I 00.00" was selected more frequently by members of households containing children, while
"$175.00" was reported more often by owners of $200,000 to $250,000 homes.
Community Facility
Operating Costs
Residents were initially asked:
If a Community Facility were built, the City would face
three choices on charging user fees. First, the City
could completely subsidize the operation of the facility
through a property tax increase. Second, the City could
require the facility to be self-sufficient and operate on
user fees alone. Or, third, the City could use a combi-
nation of tax revenue and user fees.
Which course of action would you MOST support -
complete subsidization of operations through property
tax revenues, total self sufficiency based on user fees,
or some combination of both approaches?
Fifty-seven percent supported a "combination" of both user fees and city subsidization to fund
the operation of a community facility:
COMPLETE SUBSIDIZATION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
SELF-SUFFICIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%
COMBINATION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%
NONE ............................................ 1%
DON'TKNOW/REFUSED ............................2%
Thirty-seven percent, though, opted for complete "self-sufficiency" through user fees.
"Complete subsidization" was desired at a higher rate by empty nesters, while "self-sufficiency"
was indicated more frequently by city residents for more than ten years, members of households
containing seniors, empty nesters and over forty-four year olds. "Combination" was stated more
often by city residents for five years or less, members of households containing children, thirty-
five to forty-four year olds and those who live on a city lot.
Respondents were next asked:
50
Keeping in mind operating costs could be paid through
user fees, general tax revenues or some combination of
the two....
lfyou could choose, what percentage of a Community
Facility/Athletic Complex's operations should come
from general tax revenue - none, 10%, '25%,33%,50%,
67%, 75%, 90% or all of it?
Thj typical resident would support a subsidization of26.6% of the Community Facility/Athletic
Cdmplex's operations from general tax revenue:
NOTHING .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
10% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 170/0
33% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14%
50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190/0
670/0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30/0
75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
90% . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 %
ALL OF IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . 20/0
DON'T KNOW /REFUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 %
enty-three percent, though, opposed any subsidy through general property tax revenue.
" fthing" was reported at a higher rate by city residents for more than ten years, empty nesters,
fow-five to fifty-four year olds, those who live on a rural lot of less than 2.5 acres and owners
of 150,000 to $200,000 homes. "50%" was selected most often by members of households
co taining children, while "67%" was cited more frequently by those who live on a rural lot of
les than 2.5 acres. "75%" was pointed to more often by city residents for five years or less.
"9 %" was indicated at a higher rate by city residents for six to ten years, men and owners of
$2 0,000 to $250,000 homes. "All of it" was mentioned most often by empty nesters, over fifty-
fo year olds and those who live on a rural lot of less than 2.5 acres.
Re idents, then, would not oppose a contribution of about 25%-30% of the operating costs of the
fa ility from general tax revenues.
Summary and
Conclusions
If "I' dover were to build a Community Center/ AtWetic Complex, twenty-seven percent thought
it was most important the facility included a "swimming pooL" Nine percent urged a
" asium," while eight percent wanted an "ice arena" and seven percent, "baseball fields."
aller numbers favored the inclusion of a "water park," "meeting rooms," and "exercise/weight
ms." When asked about specific facilities for inclusion, by a 78%-20% margin, residents
ted an "indoor swimming pooL" Just behind, at 77%-22%, they also supported the inclusion
"gymnasium." Bya 70%-28% majority, respondents favored a "fieldhouse with a walking
51
and running track and space for soccer, baseball and football during the winter months." With
68%-27%, 68%-28%, and 68%-30% support, residents also favored the inclusion of a "daycare
center for Community Center users," "meeting and gathering rooms," as well as a "food service
and snack bar." Just a little lower in support, 67%-28% and 67%-31 % majorities favored an
"indoor playground" and an "exercise and weight room." Two facilities were supported by
65%-32% margins: an "indoor water park" and an "outdoor water park." A 64%-33% majority
wanted to include an "indoor ice arena," while a 64%-31 % majority supported "tennis courts."
Somewhat narrower, by a 55%-37% margin, residents favored the inclusion of "racquetball and
squash courts," and by a 53%-42% margin, they opted for the inclusions of a "climbing wall."
High intense support was found for the inclusion of an "indoor swimming pool." But, in
addition, significantly sized groups also favored a "water park," "ice arena," "fieldhouse," and
"gymnasium. No tested feature, in and of itself, raised a substantial amount of strong opposition
In concept, residents of Andover favored the construction of an Andover Community Facility
and Athletic Complex by over three-to-one: 73%-21 %. Supporters based their position on
several factors: "good for the community," "good for families," and "need." Opponents pointed
to "no need," "high cost," and "other priorities." The typical resident was also willing to see
hislher property taxes increase by $41.25 per year to fund the construction of the Community
Center/ Athletic Complex. While twenty-five percent were unwilling to support any tax increase
for this purpose, eighteen percent indicated support for an increase of $100.00 annually.
In viewing the funding of operations, fifty-seven percent of the residents favored a combination
of public funds and user-fees, while thirty-seven percent hoped the facility would be totally self-
sufficient from user fees. If they could set the percent of operating budget covered by general
tax revenue, the typical resident would support approximately 26% coming from public funds.
While twenty-three percent urged no public funding whatsoever, twenty-three percent supported
50% of the operating cost subsidized by residents through tax revenues.
In choosing between prioritizing the construction of a community facility and athletic complex
or prioritizing the improvement and expansion of existing facilities and programs, thirty-nine
percent thought the City of Andover should proceed on both projects. Thirty-nine percent
prioritized improvement and expansion of existing facilities and programs over the community
facility and athletic complex, while seventeen percent would reverse that order. Only eleven
percent thought the City should not proceed on either project. Overall, then, there was more
widespread support for proceeding with improvement and expansions of existing facilities, such
as the trail system, neighborhood parks, and ballfields. Still, many residents also felt the City
should proceed with an examination of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of constructing a
large-scale center and complex.
52
53
I FfiJcal:tHoUg?:l1tS:~f;;c\1
,L; ,." ," ,","h ',-, ,...., ...4....,~,,.!
Three major currents in opinions and preferences regarding the park and recreational system in
Andover were clearly established in this study:
1. In examining the current array of recreational programs available in the City of Andover,
most residents were satisfied with the current mix. Participation levels in existing
offerings were found to be comparatively high and most users reported a positive
experience. However, there was also some interest in the City expanding recreational
programs, with a majority of households reporting members who would be at least
"somewhat likely" to participate.
2. Residents were generally enthusiastic about the prospect of a Community Center Facility
and Athletic Complex. Support levels, in concept, were very high. And, solid majorities
supported a full-service facility, including a swimming pool, water park, gymnasium,
fieldhouse, indoor ice arena, exercise and weight room, and playground. However, this
support needed to be balanced against the willingness to increase property taxes to fund
the construction and operation of a facility. The typical respondent was willing to
support a $41.25 yearly increase for this purpose; however, twenty-five percent were
adamantly opposed to the use of tax funds for construction. And, willing to use tax
revenue peaked at about a 27% subsidization for operating expenses. As a result, there
may be a significant gap between the envisioned facility and the actual tax costs.
3. Residents saw the need for improvements and additions to current Park System
components. While usership of the various parts of the system was relatively high,
quality ratings were marginal on several facilities - smaller neighborhood parks,
outdoor ice skating rinks, tennis courts, playground equipment, outdoor basketball courts,
and boat launches. In addition, a significant core of residents saw the need for more
parks, athletic fields, and trails in the community. To expand and improve the existing
park system and programs, the typical resident would support a property tax increase of
$25.93 per year; similar to the pattern of support for the community center/athletic
complex, though, twenty-two percent were unwilling to support any tax increase for this
purpose. In light of these results, the City of Andover may wish to pursue the feasibility
of a park bond proposal generating sufficient revenue to make improvements and
expansions with a tax cost in line with residential opinions.
54
.. Decision
.. Resources Ltd.
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
CITY OF ANDOVER
Park and Rec Survey
FINAL AUGUST 2001
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide
polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the
City of Andover to speak with a random sample of residents about
Park and Recreation facilities and needs. The survey is being
taken because the City of Andover is interested in your opinions
and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual re-
sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the
entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1.
Approximately how many years have
you lived in Andover?
LESS THAN ONE YEAR.....4%
ONE TO TWO YEARS. .....12%
THREE TO FIVE YEARS.. .20%
SIX TO TEN yEARS..... .28%
11 TO 20 yEARS....... .25%
OVER 20 YEARS. .... ... .11%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..0%
2. Thinking back to when you moved to Andover, what factors
were most important to you in selecting the city?
UNSURE, 2%; LOCATION, 23%; OPEN SPACE/RURAL, 17%; AFFORD-
ABLE HOUSING/LAND, 25%; SCHOOLS, 14%; QUIET/PEACEFUL, 4%;
GOOD COMMUNITY, 3%; FAMILY, 4%; NEIGHBORHOOD, 3%;
PARKS/NATURE, 2%; NEW GROWING AREA, 3%; SCATTERED, 1%.
3. What do you like most about living in Andover?
UNSURE, 4%; NOTHING, 5%; LOCATION, 22%; SAFE, 2%;
QUIET/PEACEFUL, 13%; HOUSE/LAND, 6%; SMALL TOWN FEEL, 5%;
OPEN SPACE/RURAL, 18%; PEOPLE, 6%; SCHOOLS, 7%; GOOD
SHOPPING, 3%; NEIGHBORHOOD, 6%; PARKS/NATURE, 3%; SCAT-
TERED, 2%.
4. What is the most serious issue facing the community today?
UNSURE, 13%; NONE, 3%; GROWTH, 24%; TRAFFIC, 9%; CRIME,
4%; SCHOOL FUNDING, 15%; NEED POLICE DEPARTMENT, 4%; LOW
INCOME HOUSING, 2%; SCHOOL BOUNDARIES, 2%; TAXES, 5%;
NEED WATER ,TREATMENT PLANT, 4%; ROADS, 7%; MORE FOR PARKS,
2%; NEED MORE BUSINESSES, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%.
5.
In comparison to neighboring com-
munities, do you consider your
property taxes to be very high,
somewhat high, about average,
somewhat low or very low?
VERY HIGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
SOMEWHAT HIGH.... .....20%
ABOUT AVERAGE.... .... .60%
SOMEWHAT LOW..... ......7%
VERY LOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8%
.Turning to park and, recreation facilities. ...
1
How would you rate park and rec-
reational facilities in Andover
excellent, good, only fair or
poor?
And, how would you rate the main-
tenance and upkeep of Andover's
parks, trails and facilities --
excellent, good, only fair or
poor?
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=60)
EXCELLENT......... ....12%
GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 %
ONLY FAIR..... . . . . . . . .19%
POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5%
EXCELLENT....... ......17%
GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64%
ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .13%
POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 %
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..5%
8. Why did you rate the upkeep and maintenance as (only
fair/poor)?
UNSURE, 5%; COULD IMPROVE, 18%; OUTDATED EQUIPMENT,
13%; CERTAIN PARKS IGNORED, 27%; GRAFFITI/VANDALISM,
7%; MESSY/HIGH GRASS, 25%; SCATTERED, 5%.
e Andover Park System is primarily composed of a trail system;
all neighborhood parks; and larger community parks, such as
nshine and Kelsey/Round Lake. For each of the following,
rst, tell me if you or members of your household have used it
ring the past year. Then, for those you have used, please rate
em as excellent, good, only fair or poor. If you have no
inion, just say so....
NOT
USE
Trail system?
37%
USE
EXC
USE
POO
DK/
REF
IF USE TRAIL SYSTEM, ASK: (N=232)
10.
How do you or members of your
household primarily use the
trail system -- walking, run-
ning, biking, in-line skat-
ing, or a combination of act-
ivities?
USE
GOO
USE
FAI
16%
36%
4%
1%
6%
1 .
Would you support or oppose the
future expansion of the current
trail system? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
And do you feel strongly that way?
WALKING. ........ ......19%
RUNNING. ........ .......2%
BIKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20%
IN-LINE SKATING. ..... ..3%
COMBINATION....... ....56%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..1%
STRONGLY SUPPORT......49%
SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 %
STRONGLY OPPOSE. .......6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10%
A ain, for each of the following, tell me if you or members of
y ur household have used it during the past year. Then, for
t ose you have used, please rate them as excellent, good, only
f ir or poor. If you have no opinion, just say so....
2
NOT
USE
12. Smaller neighborhood
parks? 33%
13. Larger community parks? 42%
14. Baseball ballfields? 63%
15. Softball ballfields? 69%
16. Outdoor ice skating rinks? 68%
17. Tennis courts? 80%
18. Playground equipment? 41%
19. Soccer fields? 67%
20. Gymnasium space? 76%
21. Outdoor basketball courts? 82%
22. Open space and natural
areas? 38%
23. Indoor swimming pool at
Oakview School? 66%
24. Boat launches? 73%
USE
EXC
5%
13%
8%
10%
2%
2%
8%
6%
3%
1%
13%
10%
3%
USE
GOO
40%
39%
24%
18%
17%
11%
36%
20%
13%
9%
42%
18%
13%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=189)
25. Why did you rate
USE
FAI
15%
3%
3%
2%
10%
4%
11%
5%
2%
4%
3%
3%
7%
USE
POO
6%
0%
3%
1%
3%
2%
4%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
2%
DK/
REF
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
as (only fair/poor)?
POOR PARKING, 6%; NEEDS UPDATING, 17%; NOT ENOUGH,
24%; POOR UPKEEP, 35%; NEED MORE EQUIPMENT, 12%;
NEED MORE RESTROOMS, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%.
26.
Do you feel that the current mix
of recreational facilities suffi-
ciently meets the needs of members
of your household?
IF "NO," ASK: (N=74)
YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .3%
27. What additional recreational facilities would you like
to see the City of Andover offer residents?
UNSURE, 3%; COMMUNITY CENTER, 23%; TRAILS, 19%;
GYMNASIUM, 3%; MORE PARKS, 20%; POOL, 7%; ATHLETIC
FIELDS, 16%; INDOOR ICE ARENA, 5%; SCATTERED, 4%
28. Do you regularly leave the City of Andover to use park and
recreation facilities in other cities? (IF "YES," ASK:)
What facilities do you leave the city for?
NO, 46%; GOLF, 1%; LAKES/BOATING, 9%; BUNKER HILLS PARK,
6%; SWIMMING POOL, 8%; BLAINE ATHLETIC COMPLEX, 7%;
NATURE PRESERVES, 2%; OTHER PARKS, 7%; CAMPING, 4%;
COMMUNITY CENTER, 4%; TRAILS, 2%; SCATTERED, 6%.
Moving on... .
I would like to read you a list of organized sports offered in
the City of Andover for children. For each one, please tell me
3
i any child in your household participated in it during the past
y ar.
YES NO DKR
2 Baseball? 15% 85% 0%
3 Softball? 10% 90% 0%
3 Soccer? 18% 82% 0%
3 Basketball? 11% 88% 1%
3 Football? 8% 92% 0%
3 Hockey? 7% 93% 0%
35.
IF ANY SPORT IS PARTICIPATED IN, ASK: (N=134)
Were you generally satisfied
or dissatisfied with the
program(s)?
IF "DISSATISFIED, n ASK: (N=16)
36. Why were you dissatisfied?
SATISFIED. . . . . . . . . . . . .87%
DISSATISFIED.... ..... .12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
POOR COACHES, 50%: POORLY RUN, 39%: SCATTERED,
11%.
3 .
In the past year, have you or any
members of this household used any
recreational programs offered by
the School District's Community
Education program in the "Balloon
Book? "
IF "YES," ASK: (N=92)
38. Which ones?
YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 %
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..4%
UNSURE, 5%; DANCE, 8%; VOLLEYBALL, 3%; FOOTBALL, 3%;
BASKETBALL, 11%: BASEBALL, 10%; SWIMMING, 14%:
SOCCER, 6%: CRAFTS, 6%: SAFETY CAMP, 4%: GYMNASTICS,
2%: ECFE, 12%: KARATE, 2%: AEROBICS/FITNESS, 5%:
ADULT EDUCATION, 4%: SCATTERED, 4%.
39.
Were you generally satisfied
or dissatisfied with the
program(s)?
IF "DISSATISFIED," ASK: (N=2)
40. Why were you dissatisfied?
SATISFIED............ .94%
DISSATISFIED.... ..... ..2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4%
POORLY ORGANIZED, 50%: POOR TIMES, 50%.
41. Does the current mix of recrea-
tional programs in the city meet
the needs of your household?
4
yES..... .. .. . . .. ... .. .79%
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .11%
43.
44.
IF "NO," ASK: (N=400
42. What recreational programs are missing?
UNSURE, 23%; ADULT SPORTS, 15%; HOCKEY ASSOCIATION,
15%; PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN, 10%; YOUTH SPORTS,
15%; SWIMMING PROGRAM, 5%; SCATTERED, 18%.
If the City of Andover were to
offer recreational programs, such
as neighborhood park and play-
ground programs, arts and crafts,
skiing or sports camps, how likely
would members of your household be
to participate -- very likely,
somewhat likely, not too likely or
not at all likely?
How much would you be willing to
see your property taxes increase
per year to pay for improvements
and expansions of existing park
facilities, trails and programs?
(CHOOSE A RANDOM STARTING POINT)
Let's say, would you be willing to
pay an additional $___ per year?
(DEPENDING ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE
NEXT HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY)
How about $____ per year? (REPEAT
PROCESS)
Changing topics....
VERY LIKELy.... .......20%
SOMEWHAT LIKELy...... .35%
NOT TOO LIKELy....... .23%
NOT AT ALL LIKELy.... .21%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .1%
NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
$10.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%
$20.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13%
$30.00............... .16%
$40.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
$50.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%
$60.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
$70.00............... .11%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... ..8%
45. If Andover were to build a Community Facility/Athletic
Complex, what types of facilities do you think are most
important to include?
UNSURE, 27%;
NASIUM, 9%;
FIELDS, 6%;
NONE, 10%; POOL, 27%; ICE ARENA, 8%; GYM-
WATER PARK, 2%; MEETING ROOMS, 2%; BASEBALL
EXERCISE/WEIGHT ROOMS, 3%; SCATTERED, 7%.
I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be
included in a community facility/athletic complex. For each one,
please tell me if you would strongly favor, somewhat favor,
somewhat oppose or strongly oppose its inclusion in a community
facility and athletic complex.
STF SMF SMO STO DKR
46. Gymnasium? 42% 35% 12% 10% 3%
47. Meeting and gathering rooms? 26% 42% 16% 12% 5%
48. Indoor swimming pool? 53% 25% 9% 11% 3%
49. Indoor water park? 40% 25% 14% 18% 3%
50. Outdoor swimming pool? 31% 34% 15% 17% 4%
51. Racquetball and Squash courts? 19% 36% 21% 16% 8%
5
52.
53.
54.
55.
516 .
57.
58.
59.
STF SMF SMO STO DKR
Fieldhouse with a walking and
running track and space for soccer,
baseball and football during the
winter months? 37% 33%
Exercise and weight room? 39% 28%
Indoor ice arena? 30% 34%
Daycare center for Community
Facility users? 37% 31%
Food service and snack bar? 25% 43%
Indoor playground? 29% 38%
Climbing wall? 17% 36%
Tennis courts? 22% 42%
11% 17%
16% 15%
18% 15%
12% 15%
15% 15%
13% 15%
19% 23%
15% 16%
3%
3%
4%
5%
3%
5%
5%
6%
60. Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu-
sion?
UNSURE, 1%; NONE, 31%; ALL, 1%; INDOOR POOL, 17%; ICE
ARENA, 8%; EXERCISE/WEIGHT ROOM, 5%; GYMNASIUM. 8%;
OUTDOOR POOL, 3%; WATER PARK, 10%; TRACK, 2%; FIELDHOUSE,
8%; SCATTERED, 8%.
6. Is there any component that you would particularly oppose?
UNSURE, 2%; NONE, 53%; ALL, 6%; ICE ARENA, 6%; OUTDOOR
POOL, 3%; SNACK BAR, 2%; INDOOR POOL, 3%; CLIMBING WALL,
5%; WATER PARK, 2%; GYMNASIUM, 2%; DAYCARE, 3%; RACQUET-
BALL/SQUASH COURTS, 3%; EXERCISE/WEIGHT ROOMS, 2%; TENNIS
COURTS, 2%; INDOOR PLAYGROUND, 2%; FIELDHOUSE, 4%; SCAT-
TERED, 2%.
6. Are there any other facilities you would like to see in a
Community Facility/Athletic Complex? (IF "YES," ASK:)
What are they?
6 .
NO, 85%; ATHLETIC FIELDS, 1%; SKATE PARK, 2%; YOUTH
ROOMS, 2%; SENIOR ROOMS, 2%; SCATTERED, 9%.
Would you favor or oppose the con-
struction of an Andover Community
Facility and Athletic Complex?
(WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel
strongly that way?
STRONGLY FAVOR... ... ..43%
FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%
OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%
STRONGLY OPPOSE.......16%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .7%
IF AN OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=374)
64. Why do you feel that way?
UNSURE, 1%; NO NEED, 14%; GOOD FOR COMMUNITY, 20%;
GOOD IDEA, 5%; GOOD FOR FAMILIES, 9%; NEED MORE
INFORMATION ON COST, 4%; GOOD FOR CHILDREN, 10%;
NEEDED, 21%; COST TOO MUCH, 8%; OTHER PRIORITIES, 3%;
CLOSE LOCATION TO HOME, 5%; SCATTERED, 1%.
6
65.
Please tell me which of the fol-
lowing statements you agree with:
A) The City should prioritize the
building of a community facil-
ity and athletic complex;
B) The City should prioritize im-
provements and expansions of
existing facilities and pro-
grams, such as the trail sys-
tem, neighborhood parks and
ballfields;
C) The City should proceed on both
projects; OR
D) The City should not proceed on
either project.
66.
How much would you be willing to
see your property taxes increase
per year to fund the construction
of a Community Center/Athletic
Complex? (CHOOSE A RANDOM START-
ING POINT) Let's say, would you
be willing to pay an additional
$___ per year? (DEPENDING ON RE-
SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR
LOWER CATEGORY) How about $____
per year? (REPEAT PROCESS)
STATEMENT A... ...... ..17%
STATEMENT B....... ....31%
STATEMENT C... .... ....39%
STATEMENT D... ...... ..11%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .2%
NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
$25.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18%
$50.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23%
$75.00................ .9%
$100.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
$125.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
$150.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
$175.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... .8%
If a Community Facility were built, the City would face three
choices on charging user fees. First, the City could completely
subsidize the operation of the facility through a property tax
increase. Second, the City could require the facility to be
self-sufficient and operate on user fees alone. Or, third, the
City could use a combination of tax revenue and user fees.
67. Which course of action would you COMPLETE SUBSIDIZATION.2%
MOST support -- complete subsidi- SELF-SUFFICIENCy..... .37%
zation of operations through pro- COMBINATION..... .... ..57%
perty tax revenues, total self- NONE (VOL.) ...... ..... .1%
sufficiency based on user fees, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
some combination of both approaches?
Keeping in mind operating costs could be paid through user fees,
general tax revenues or some combination of the two....
68.
If you could choose, what percent-
age of a Community Facility/Ath-
letic Complex'S operations should
come from general tax revenue --
none, 10%, 25%, 33%, 50%, 67%,
75%, 90% or all of it?
7
NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%
10%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
25%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17%
33%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14%
50%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%
67%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3%
75%................... .2%
90%................... .1%
ALL OF IT.............. 2 %
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED... .11%
w, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
uld you tell me how many people in each of the following age
in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest,
to include yourself....
First, persons 65 years old and
over?
NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94%
ONE................... .4%
TWO OR MORE. .......... .2%
7. Adults under 65 years old?
74.
75.
76.
77
NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 %
ONE... .. .. . . .. .........7%
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79%
THREE OR MORE... ......13%
Children aged 16 to 18 years old? NONE..................83%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
TWO OR MORE....... .....5%
Children aged 11 to 15 years old? NONE..................71%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%
TWO OR MORE............9%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%
Children aged 6 to 10 years old? NONE..................67%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
TWO OR MORE.... .......11%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
Children under 6 years old?
NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 %
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 %
TWO OR MORE..... ... ...11%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 %
What is your age, please?
18-24. . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . .3%
25-34. . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . .17%
35-44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42%
45-54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24%
55-64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
65 AND OVER....... .....3%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0%
Do you live on a city lot, a rural
lot of less than 2.5 acres, or a
rural lot of more than 2.5 acres?
CITY LOT............. .57%
RURAL/2.5 OR LESS.... .25%
RURAL/2.5 OR MORE.....19%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0%
What is the property value of your
residence? (READ CATEGORIES)
LESS THAN $100,000.....1%
$100,000-$149,999.. ...15%
$150,000-$199,999... ..36%
$200,000-$249,999.....21%
$250,000-$299,999.... .10%
OVER $300,000........ ..9%
DON'T KNOW.............8%
REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 %
8
78. Gender (BY OBSERVATION)
79. School District
80. Area of City
81. Precinct
9
MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%
ANOKA-HENNEPIN........91%
SAINT FRANCIS.. ........9%
ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL. ..63%
REST OF CITy..... .....37%
ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 %
TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 %
THREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12%
FOUR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 %
FIVE.................. .9%
SIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 %
SEVEN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
EIGHT................. .9%
NINE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
.. Decision
.. Resources Ltd.
City of Andover
2001 Survey of Residents
Decision Resources, Ltd.
Like Most about City
2001 City of Andover
location 22
.
Decision Resources. Ud..
City Taxes
2001 City of Andover
_H</>
20
VeryH~
6
Decision Resources. lid.
Selecting the City
2001 City of Andover
Decision Resources, ltd.
Most Serious Issue
2001 City of Andover
None 3
........ 2.
Decision Resources. ltd.
Parks and Recreational Facilities
2001 City of Andover
...."e='"",.,':,.., -:>"""'Me;c, -::'
_~~__ ~8 ,~
"., OnIyhir13
0nIyF.ir11i1
0vcnI Rating
RaIll'1JofM8lirtelW'lC8
.....Upkeep
DeciSion Resources, ltd.
1
Andover Park System
2001 City of Andover
Trd Sysl..
Nei~Parks
c""""""'_
BaHbd A..
...-. ..-
Ieo__
T.... Couts
P18)VOlM E.pprnent
SoccorFl_
GyrmnMn .sp.c.
_eo..ts
Open Spaclll'Nnnl
,-""""'"""-
.... '--"-
.
Oecision Resourc:as, LId.
6D
_Po5illw
.NegallWl
"''''''"
62
50 eo 70 80
Recreational Facilities
2001 City of Andover
'".a ,
~
e"
~,
,- ,.C;, -':',
. .....F..lI
lIlInp.-:l'II PDal7
a.nwt r..tx: Meets
Household Needs
Addll<nlll Fadllles Uke
to See Oft'ered
Deci~on Resources, Ud.
Participation in Youth Sports
2001 City of Andover
20
15
,.
ea_
Soccor F_
Sof'lbaI Basketbal
I_Percertage of Households I
-
Decision Resources, Ltd
Expansion of Trail System
2001 City of Andover
--
..
Decision Resources, Ud
Recreational Leakage
2001 City of Andover
",
A~"
f'I'
Decision Resoaces, Ud
Community Education Programs
2001 City of Andover
."_~. -8=.
Ps1Idpelia1 cUing
Past Yew
SaIIsfactlon'llllh
--
Decision ResOlSces. Ud.
2
Adequacy of Recreational Programs
2001 City of Andover
Decision Resources, Ltd
25
Acceptable Tax Increase
for Park Facilities Development
2001 City:')t Anaover
20
lS
10
Nolting -s2O.00" "$40.00- "$60.00" lhIln
"$10.00" -s3O.00'" "$50.00" "$70.00"
IIIY__I
Decision ResolrCes, Ud.
Offerings in Community Facility/Athletic Complex
2001 City of Andover
Gyrmnium
MHl:I~ROOfM"
IndoorSWlmrringPOCJI
lnOOarWMerPartl:
Ot.tdoar SWiIming Pool
Ra~shCouts
A_
Exen::lseIWlligt Room
Indoor Ice ......
Oaygre Cent.
Food SeMcelSnack Bar
IndoorPfayliJtlU'd
Qmting WaI
Terns Couts
o 20 40 eo
100
1=-1
GlhIln
Decision ResOIXces, Ltd
Participation in Expanded Programs
2001 City of Andover
.-
.
Decision Resources, lid
Components in Community
Facility/Athletic Complex
2001 City of A.ndover
Gyrrnsiun 9
Decision Resources, lid.
Most Strongly Favored Component
2001 City of Andover
Scattered 10
" "".
r-...........
""""'" .
Decision Resources, lid
3
Most Opposed Component
2001 City of Andover
Decision Resources, LId
Development Priority
2001 Citf of Andover
_an.rt.31 ConrnFedVAltlCn<'x 17
:'",",",;,"'_'C,'c-.o;-,
,,-,..:~...-_.._,---~~
_:: :-":,:\'W"',.-..c,>-",....c.~,,',..~,.- 2
~'--;n~~:':.,';-_..c
"'':..f_~:~':__'''_:'c Neller 11
Bolh""" 39
Decision Resourees, lid
referred Action for Operating Costs
2001 City of Andover
.-."
"'""""""'"
Decision Resources, Ltd.
Community Facility/Athletic Complex
2001 City of Andover
Decision Resources, Ud.
Acceptable Tax Increase for Community
Center/Athletic Complex
2001 City of Andover
30
25
Medan=$41.25
-------zr-------------------------------
2ll
15
10
Noltir'9 -ssG.ocr "$100.00" '150.00" l.k15I..n
"$25.00" -s75JJO" "$125.00" "$175.00"
I-y_....... 1
Decision ResOlJ"Ces, ltd.
Preferred Operating Cost Subsidization
2001 City of Andover
30
Med$"l'" 26.G%
25 ~-----------------------------------------
2ll
15
10
o
"""*" 25%
10%
50-4 75%
,,% m6
l-pen:eriage S4Jport I
1l,O%
"'" ........
Decision Res.ources, Ltd.
4
/
,
(i)
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Council Members ~
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator ~
David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer
Railroad Quiet Zones/06-10 - Engineering
February 28, 2006
INTRODUCTION
This item is an update to the City Council on railroad quiet zones.
DISCUSSION
Staff has continued to pursue the railroad quiet zones and the possibility of implementing these
zones within the City of Andover. On May of 2005, after 10 years of preparation, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) released the final rules regulating train horns or in other words,
allowing railroad quiet zones ifthe rules are met.
The required steps are as follows:
. Determine which crossings would be in the quiet zone
. Determine if there are any private crossings within the quiet zone
. Determine if it is a 24 hour or night time only quiet zone
. Determine if the crossing meets minimum level of warning (signals and gates)
. Determine if other government agencies have jurisdiction over the crossings
. Update the crossing database
. Review the crash history at each crossing
. Run a risk assessment ofthe crossings (Quiet Zone Calculator)
. Field review crossings with Railroad & MnDOT
Staff met with SEH and requested a proposal to go through Phase I of the process. Phase I
requirements are as follows:
. Perform a field review for six crossings and update the inventory data
. Meet with the Railroad, Anoka County and MnDOT to determine any necessary improvements
. Evaluate any improvements that will be required. The evaluation will review long range plans
and visions for each roadway to determine the appropriate roadway project.
. Meet with the City and County to discuss options at each crossing.
. Prepare preliminary plans for improvement at each crossing. City will furnish aerial photography
and GIS information for each crossing.
. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for each improvement
. Make presentation of findings to the City Council.
. Write report.
Mayor and Council Members
February 28.2006
Page 2 of2
Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) is currently working with seven communities to either extend or
establish new railroad quiet zones. The cities are Bayport, Vadnais Heights, Plymouth, Brooklyn
Center, Dellwood and Coon Rapids. SEH has been involved with quiet zone issues since 1998.
They conducted a pilot research project for the City of Coon Rapids that showed the effectiveness of
center medians. Preliminary review of Andover's rail crossings shows that center medians would
provide the most cost effective method to meet the rules set by the FRA.
SEH's proposal to conduct Phase I is a not to exceed amount of $10,900. If the City Council is
interested in pursing this, staff will present the proposal to the City Council for formal action at a
City Council meeting in the near future.
ACTION REOUIRED
Direct staff on how to proceed with the railroad quiet zones.
Respectfully submitted,
rJ . r; 0 J::> ()~iI:~
t~ .y~
David D. Berkowitz '
Q
TO:
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW,CI.ANDOVER,MN,US
Mayor and Council Members '-~
Jhn m,Jcinwn, C;ly A"""""-, G"
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director t~
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Discuss Metropolitan Council Housing Needs Letter - Planning
DATE:
February 28, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Attached is the letter from Metropolitan Council dated February 17,2006 that indicates the City of Andover's fair
share of affordable housing (between 2011 and 2020) is designated as 660 new affordable housing units The
number was derived from a formula that was used by Metropolitan Council to determine where the needed 51,000
units of affordable housing will need to be constructed (see pg. 9 of attached report).
DISCUSSION
The Council has asked for a discussion to take place on this letter and general information on what the Metropolitan
Council will require of the City when a Comprehensive Plan update is performed. Mr. Peterson has indicated that the
number will need to appear in the next Comprehensive Plan update text and land use maps. The way the
Metropolitan Council asks this requirement be fulfilled is by showing areas of medium and high density residential
on our Comprehensive Plan that equate to the required number of units. For example, the need could be met by
showing 60 acres of medium density residential on the Future Land Use Map (assuming density of6 units per acre =
360 units) along with 30 acres of high density (assuming density of 10 units per acre = 300 units). Together these
designations would meet the required 660 units of affordable housing that they are requiring as Andover's fair share.
In the event that the currently guided medium and high density land has not all been built on then those acres of
vacant land could count towards fulfilling the new number of units. However, if those areas are all "built out" by the
time the next Comprehensive Plan update is submitted, then the newest affordable houing number will need to be
accounted for in land to be guided for medium and high density residential in the next plan update.
As explained in the letter, the Metropolitan Council will not approve any update to the Comprehensive Plan unless
this requirement is met. The City will need to carefully determine where these types of units will best be "guided" on
the vacant developable land in our community. Once that determination is made the City will need to show the
required number of acres of medium/high density in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update.
ACTION REOUESTED
Council is provided the Metropolitan Council letter. Also provided is a "Summary Report" from the Metropolitan
Council regarding their authority for determining the fair share number and their methodology in determining the
number. Council is asked to review the information and provide staff direction.
Respectfully Submitted,
c:d---
Will Neumeister
Attachments-MetCouncil Letter & Summary Report-Affordable Housing, Pages from Local Planning Handbook
~ Me~!:~:~i~~~:~~
February 17,2006
Ms. Victoria V olk
Clerk
City Of Andover
1685Crosstown Blvd Nw
Andover, MN 55304-2699
Dear Ms. V oIk,
In collaboration with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and its affordable housing
expertise and with representatives for local government, the Metropolitan Council developed a
methodology which was used to determine affordable housing needs for the region and for each
of the region's sewered communities.
Your community's share of the regional affordable housing need for the decade 2011 to 2020 is
forecasted to be 660 new affordable units.
For a more detailed explanation of how affordable housing was determined, please see the
January 2006 report of an advisory panel, "Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin
Cities 2011 - 2020" at htttl://metrocouncil.org/olanning/housing/AffHousingNeedJan06.odf.
The Metropolitan Council developed this housing needs data in response to State law (g473.859)
to provide you with the information your community should use in the comprehensive plan
update process.
See Section 3 of the Local Planning Handbook for more housing details and information about
Comprehensive Plan requirements at htto://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/LPH/handbook.htm.
A paper copy will be sent upon request. Questions about housing planning should be directed to
Linda Milashius at 651-602-1541 or your Sector Representative.
Sincerely,
~~
Guy Peterson, Director
Housing and Livable Communities
V:\REVIEWS\Planners\Caufman\Analysis\housing'JlOusing needs tetter .doc
www.mctrocouncil.org
Metro Info Line 602.1888
230 East Fifth Street . St. Paul. Minnesota 55101.1626 . (651) 602.1000 . Fax 602-1550 . TrY 291.0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Attachment 2
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by City/Township,
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
~ Anoka County
Andover 660 2,700 1.3% 1.6% 3% 8%
Anoka 124 600 0.2% 0.4% 43% 41%
Blaine* 1,267 5,300 2.5% 3.2% 27% 26%
Centerville 80 260 0.2% 0.2% 10% 13%
Circle Pines 13 50 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29%
Columbia Heights 231 600 0.5% 0.4% 42% 42%
Columbus Twp. 54 350 0.1% 0.2% 3% 15%
Coon Rapids 200 940 0.4% 0.6% 27% 27%
Fridley 116 300 0.2% 0.2% 36% 36%
Lexington 8 40 0.0% 0.0% 58% 56%
Lino Lakes 1,051 3,000 2.1% 1.8% 7% 18%
Ramsey 1 ,402 6,500 2.7% 3.9% 4% 12%
St. Francis 73 1,200 0.1% 0.7% 35% 26%
Sprinq Lake Park* 19 50 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29%
~
Metro Area Total
51,030 166.547
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
*Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
**Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
---Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need
in the Twin Cities
2011 - 2020
A Report by an Advisory Panel to
Metropolitan Council Staff
January 2006
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities
2011 - 2020
Introduction
This report presents a new forecast of the affordable housing need in the Metropolitan Area
during the decade 2011 - 2020, and describes the process used in determining each community's
share of this regional need. Communicating forecasted affordable housing need numbers is the
first step in helping communities determine the housing goals and objectives to be included in
the housing element of their comprehensive land use plans. Conveying need numbers to
communities also helps them envision and plan their role in addressing their share of the
forecasted regional affordable housing need.
This report outlines a methodology established by an advisory panel to Metropolitan Council
stafffor: a) determining a forecasted regional affordable housing need; and b) allocating that
need to individual communities. This report begins with background information about the
necessity of determining regional affordable housing need, and the Metropolitan Council's role
in this process. This report concludes with a series of tables showing how many newly-
constructed affordable units will be required in each community to meet the forecasted demand
for affordable housing between 2011 and 2020.
Back2round: The Necessity for Determinin2 Re2ional Affordable Housin2 Need
Enacted in 1976, the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA), Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.859,
subdivision 2, paragraph [c], requires communities in the region to include in their
comprehensive land-use plans a housing element that acknowledges the city's share ofthe
forecasted regional need for low- and moderate-income housing.
A [local] land use plan shall... include a housing element containing standards, plans and
programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected
local and regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls
and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of low and
moderate income housing.
The Metropolitan Council must also prepare and adopt guidelines and procedures to help local
govemmental units accomplish the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act,
including this affordable housing planning responsibility.
This guidance is provided through the Council's Local Planning Handbook, online at
www.metrocounciI.org/planninglLPHlhandbook.htm. It references the housing element and
housing implementation provisions of the Land Planning Act, providing information about each
community's share of the forecasted regional low- and moderate-income housing need, as
well as tools and methods cities can use to create and promote affordable housing opportunities.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 - 2020
Page 2
In 1977, the Council responded to the affordable housing planning charge in the MLUPA with
guidelines for comprehensive plans due by 1980. The Council used a five-factor formula that
compared communities in the region with regard to: 1) total number of households; 2)
anticipated household growth to 1990; 3) number of jobs; 4) anticipated growth injobs to 1990;
and 5) the number of low- and moderate-income households minus the number of existing low-
income housing units.
For this first round of local comprehensive plans completed in the early 1980s, cities prepared
housing elements that included the housing numbers identified by the Council, and guided
sufficient land in their land use plan to accommodate these low- and moderate-income housing
numbers through high-density residential development.
Following the 1995 legislation that required local comprehensive plan updates prepared for the
period of 1998 to 2008, the Council asked communities to plan for new affordable and life-cycle
housing in numbers consistent with the housing goals negotiated as a condition of participation
in the Livable Communities Act (LCA). For non-participant communities, the Council asked
communities to set goals consistent with the LCA goals framework employed by the 100 plus
LCA cities and townships.
That goals framework was not based upon analysis of households with a housing need, limited
household income or housing condition. It was based solely upon keeping the production of new
affordable units at a level similar or better than the existing situation in the community between
1996 and 2010.
In creating this goal-setting framework, the Council established benchmark ranges for each
community in six categories: percent affordable rental and ownership housing, percent non-
single-family detached units, owner-renter split, single-family and multifamily density of
housing stock. A community's benchmark was a range in each of the six categories that
represented the average for all communities at a similar stage of development. The Council and
local govemments negotiated goals to increase or maintain percentages or numbers in each
category. Only two communities failed to submit comprehensive plan updates with affordable
housing goals as reflected in the LCA goals-setting framework.
The MLUPA also requires that comprehensive plans include an implementation section
identifying the housing programs-local, state and federal fiscal devices such as bonding, TIF,
tax abatement, and official controls including the guiding and zoning of land-that communities
will employ in addressing their share of regional need for affordable housing. Foremost among
these implementation efforts is the guiding of sufficient land for the development of new housing
that may provide the opportunity for the production of affordable units. Comprehensive plans
must identify sufficient land to accommodate the communities' share of the region's need for
low- and moderate-income housing. Typically, the development of new affordable units requires
the use of housing programs or tools and the availability of land to accommodate the
development of affordable units. This is why the Land Planning Act requires both the
recognition of regional share of need, and the guiding of land to accommodate this need.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 20 11 - 2020
Page 3
Overview of the Methodolol!V in This Report
Staff of the Metropolitan Council, through work with an advisory panel, 1 initiated a two-part
study to determine the 2011 - 2020 regional need for new affordable housing in the Twin Cities,
and the allocation of this regional need to communities. The two steps to the study are broadly
summarized in the following way:
· Part 1: Forecast the Regional Affordable Housing Need and Determine the Amount of
Need That Will Consume Land (new construction only) in Sewer-Serviced Communities.
· Part 2: Allocate the New Construction Affordable Housing Need to Communities,
Adjusting for Criteria That Are Important to Locating Affordable Housing.
In determining the overall affordable housing need for the Twin Cities, the Metropolitan Council
tied forecasted affordable housing need to forecasted household growth in sewer-serviced areas.
To be precise, this methodology guides affordable housing need to those communities that are
experiencing growth in households serviced by Metro Sewerage District or by municipal
treatment facilities in "rural center" communities.
By following this approach, the Metropolitan Council is allocating the region's forecasted
affordable housing need in a manner that is consistent with overall goals to guide growth within
the urbanized portion of the Twin Cities.
A Land Plan nine: Exercise
This methodology has been designed to assist cities with land olanning for the next round of
comprehensive plan updates (in 2008). It is only concerned with newlv-constructed affordable
housing, a develooment action that consumes land. Forecasted affordable housing need between
2011 and 2020 that can be accommodated by units that exist in the current housing stock is not
relevant to this exercise.
To further explain this point, some of the new affordable housing need that arises between 2011
and 2020 will be satisfied bv units that exist in the private market todav. As academic research
has shown,2 the amount ofIow-income housing in the private market expands from decade-to-
decade as older units depreciate in price to maintain occupancy, a process known as "filtering."
This movement between market-rate and affordable pricing does not generally occur among
subsidized units, which generally are never "priced up" into the market-rate category. New, low-
income households that find housing in older, market-rate units that have "filtered down" in
price have their housing needs satisfied without directly consuming land.
It is critically important to acknowledge the private market's role in providing affordable
housing in this study, both through filtering and through new, unsubsidized construction.
Historically, the private sector has provided the bulk of all low-income housing in the region; in
2000, the private sector provided affordable housing to approximately 40% of low-income
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 - 2020
Page 4
households in the Twin Cities. Comparatively, the public and philanthropic sectors, using
subsidies, provided affordable housing to only 15% of all low-income households. (Less than
2% of low-income households were homeless in 2000. The remaining 44% oflow-income
households were housed in private-market units, but with rental or owner costs exceeding 30%
of gross income).
Definitions and Concepts Underlvine: the Methodolol!:V
The following definitions and concepts are important for understanding the methodology behind
the advisory panel's determination and allocation of affordable housing need in the Twin Cities
between 2011 and 2020. The application of each concept is explained in a following section
titled "Specific Steps in the Methodology."
· Affordable Housing: In this report, a unit is affordable if it is priced at or below 30% of
gross income of a household earning 60% of the Twin Cities median family income (or
$46,200 in 2005). The 60% income threshold is determined by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is the cutoff for tax-credit housing
development, the main program for new affordable rental housing construction
nationwide. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all first-time homebuyers in the Twin Cities area
assisted by MHF A in FFY 2005 had incomes at or below 60% of median income.
. Household Growth: The methodology in this report relies on Metropolitan Council
forecasts of growth in sewer-serviced households between 2010 and 2020. These
forecasts were included in System Statements issued to cities in September 2005.
Forecasts for 18 communities have been recently revised by mutual agreement of the
Metropolitan Council and local officials; these forecast revisions are scheduled for
Metropolitan Council action in February 2006.
. "Healthy-market" Vacancv (5%): Vacant units are vital to a healthy housing market
because they help maintain stable prices. An insufficient number of vacant units creates
upward pressure on prices as housing consumers compete for too few units. In the
affordable housing sector, upward price movements reduce the supply of units, working
against housing policy and public investment in affordable housing.
· Low-Wage Job Proximity Ratio: This report's methodology makes adjustments in
affordable housing need for communities that are net importers of low-wage workers
(employment centers) or net exporters oflow-wage workers (bedroom communities).
The ratio is a comparison oflocal low-wage jobs (within 10 miles of the community's
geographic center-point) divided by local working residents (living within 10 miles of the
center-point).3 A ratio higher than 1: 1 indicates an imbalance (communities that are net
importers of workers) that may be mitigated to a certain extent by the creation of more
local affordable housing.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 - 2020
Page 5
. Affordable Housing Stock: This report's need allocation methodology also considers a
community's existing supply of affordable housing, giving credit to those communities
that supply higher levels. This measure estimates the existing share of a community's
housing stock that is affordable using Minnesota Department of Revenue data on 2004
market values, Census 2000 rent levels, and Metropolitan Council data on 2004
manufactured housing units.4
. Transit Service Level: A final factor considered in allocating affordable housing need is
the level of transit service (destinations and frequency) in a given community. Low-
income households are more sensitive to transit services than middle- and upper-income
households, and locating affordable housing near transit opportunities is a public policy
goal. The methodology in this report makes adjustments based on a classification of
transit service available in communities, as expressed by one offour levels:
1 = regular, frequent transit service to many points all through the day (only
Minneapolis and St. Paul fall in this category)
2 = a frequent amount of service, but limited destinations (mostly inner-ring
suburbs in this category)
3 = some transit service, but very limited in frequency and destinations (many
second- and third-tier suburbs in this category)
4 = no regular transit service
Streneths of This Methodo1oeical Approach
The methodology employed by the advisory panel for this report has the following strengths:
. The approach is consistent with the work completed for The Next Decade of Housinf! in
Minnesota, a key planning document used to forecast affordable housing need across
Minnesota. The Next Decade report has been widely accepted by policymakers, and
many housing stakeholders are basing affordable housing planning on its results. This
report follows key methodological approaches and employs specific production
assumptions from The Next Decade study. The Next Decade study was sponsored by the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), Family
Housing Fund (FHF) and Greater Minnesota Housing Fund (GMHF).
. Metropolitan Council household growth forecasts provide the basis for need allocation in
this studv. These forecasts are determined through a collaborative effort between local
government and Metropolitan Council staff to identify growth areas and to quantify
reasonable market expectations, land capacity, and systems capacity. They, therefore, are
the strongest forecasts of future household growth by community.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 201 1- 2020
Page 6
· The process of allocating affordable housing need in this report takes into consideration
communitv characteristics that are critical in locating new affordable housing: proximity
to low-wage jobs, transit service and current affordable housing stock. These factors are
widely recognized by national housing policymakers as vital considerations to successful
affordable housing placement/development. Regarding job proximity, this methodology
is particularIv strong in that it considers the location of low-wage iobs. Most other
allocation methodologies consider total employment (or perhaps retail employment)
without segmenting by wage level.
· The methodologv was developed with input from city officials. MHFA staff, Association
of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) staff and private-market housing experts. The
advisory panel advising the study was comprised often individuals with deep experience
in housing policy and development. This group considered numerous allocation factors
and tested several approaches to calculating housing need. The advisory panel also
solicited important feedback from six city officials in a focus session in January 2006.
Limitations of This Methodological Approach/Caveats
The methodology employed by the advisory panel for this study also has limitations. They
include the following:
· The forecast period covered in this analysis is relatively long-term. Any methodological
approach would suffer from this limitation, but it is important to say that many factors are
difficult to forecast 15 years in advance. Factors in 2020 such as the economic conditions
in the Twin Cities, migration patterns, demographic changes, housing interest rates,
construction costs, and more, are simply unpredictable, but will have an impact on
affordable housing need. Significant variances from the assumption made on any of
these factors could prompt a re-examination of the needs numbers.
· The methodologv likely errs on the conservative side in estimating affordable housing
need. This methodology assumes that the stock of affordable housing in the private
sector (unsubsidized) will expand significantly between 201 I and 2020 through the
mechanism of downward price filtering. For planning purposes, this is a conservative
approach. However, if the private market supplies fewer affordable units than assumed,
the new affordable housing construction need for the decade will be larger than is
documented here.
· The forecasted overall housing need calculations do not consider units that mav be
needed to replace substandard units or units lost to gentrification or demolition. This
adds another layer of conservativeness to the forecasts. There is no reliable data to
project occupied, affordable units that are substandard in condition and in need of
replacement. As well, housing units that may be lost to gentrification or demolition are
not estimated in this report, due to the lack of reliable data on the value/price of
demolished units and the difficulty in predicting areas that will be gentrified.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 - 2020
Page 7
Specific Steps in the Methodolol!V
Part 1: Forecast the Regional Affordable Housing Need and Determine the Amount of
Need That Will Consume Land (new construction only) in Sewer-Serviced Communities.
The following bullet points describe the specific steps that the advisory panel employed to
estimate affordable housing need across the Twin Cities, and to determine the amount of need
represented by new construction. This methodology is also graphically illustrated in Exhibit 1.
. Step 1: Determine forecasted household f!l'owth in sewer-serviced parts of the region.
Metropolitan Council regularly prepares city- and town-level forecasts of sewer-serviced
households (serviced by the Metro Sewerage District or by municipal treatment
facilities), as well as un-sewered households (with septic systems), for decennial
milestones (years 2010, 2020, 2030). Net growth expected in the sewer-serviced part of
the Twin Cities is forecast at 166,547 households, or about 98% of total household
growth expected in the period 2010-2020.
. Step 2: Determine the proportion of growth made UP bv low-income households.
Of all new households added to the Twin Cities between 2010 and 2020,38% (64,100
households) will earn at or below 60% of Twin Cities median family income, according
to the advisory panel projection for this study. This projection was based on historical
income distribution patterns, applied to the 2010 and 2020 household forecasts.
. Step 3: Estimate the number of affordable housinf! units that the private market will
provide to new low-income households.
As eXplained previously, the advisory panel expects that 20,300 low-income households
added to the Twin Cities after 2010 will find housing in privately-owned, market-rate
units that exist now, but will depreciate down to an affordable level during the next
decade. This assumption is consistent with work from BBC Consulting in The Next
Decade of Housing in Minnesota.
An additional 5,600 new low-income households between 2011 and 2020 are likely to
find housing in newly-constructed units produced at affordable prices without public aid.
The BBC Consulting methodology includes this category of affordable housing in its
tally of "private market provision," but the methodology for this report must add them
into the land-consumptive component (Step 4, below).
. Step 4: Calculate the net need for new lv-constructed affordable housinf! units.
Subtracting those new low-income households that are expected to find housing in
existing private- sector units that become newly affordable (20,300) from total low-
income household growth for the next decade (64,100) yields gross demand for new
affordable construction in 2011 - 2020: 43,800 units. (This figure includes 5,600 units
that the private-market is expected to produce on its own, without subsidy, at prices
affordable to low-income households.)
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
00
<!)
OIl
o;l
~
s::
'Vi
::l
o
::r:
<!)
:0
o;l
.."0
~~
fr<
~ s::
C'O
0::1'-
E E
EB
=~
00......
'C
c::
CG
o
N
o
~
~
~
o
N'C
c:: c::
CG
Ill.....
~ CLt
uE
:>
c:: III
~ c::
1-8
CII
5~
c::
o
N
o
N
I
..
'C~
'I"'~I-
I-Z'C
- Cl CII
lD.!: ~
J:1Il_
><:>0
wo..
J: c::
CII g
:c E
-l!l<
.. CII
~;
<Cl
ra .=
c:: c::
.!:! 'E
Cl..
CII,S
0::: CII
ClIO
.c
..
-
-
o
N
<J'J
.~
.t::
U
s::
~
<!)
..s::
...
.5
"0
<!)
<!)
Z
Cl
C
:;:;
.!!
:>
.!:!
CG
o
~
- .,
"2
t:SO
Cl.,e
C","
'in '; wi
::lON
~4:~
CD=O
j;;!:.c
~'t=
C; ~ g
::..:<:
<l:::E..
'O.sE
~ ~ 8
'c 'C -9
::> a.. ~
~~.3
CD
o
o
N
~
CG
:>
c::
CG
..,
g-~
'C C
~ 5 ';
~o~~
z.c_u
= CD CJ CD
<CI)CDC
_5~Q)
"'::t:LIJ;
c>> C Q)
" 0_
'i: G; ~ ~
Q, > ::::I 'C
=~ b,Q.
'j.! tn CD
...0 sS
~ -3 u .5
.. ..... CD
-no 'j;
~'21i~"
.. ::::I c'2 "E
.: en co ::::I 0
~:s.sg:;
-g.as~~
uUJiE~z
c'"'
c
""i ...
f:.....
.~ GI ~
CI);CD
.,-~
.:. 0 en
;~~
G) co .-
.,a..o
.;
~
'2
:;~
"e
g",
o~
i.s
., "
... .,
:: en
r!
o
.~
b
tll 'l:
:5 ~
a~~
.. c:: c:: e-
U) 0 :;, ClI
~O~=s
~~4i~
fl)1ll~~
~
J:
...
~
0'
o
~
'i)
c::
.. ::.
., 0
~o
::.-
0"
fI)~
oj
,2:
a
E~
::l ..
~'E
o 0
0::
-aor.tg
;-a~
-:~:n
.2.5~
~ :g c
., 0::>
20 Cl
4: b'~
2 ~ ::l
;-~~
.. 'C
- c
'2 .!!!
::l 'C
~ .,
.,
., c
c
0 .~
0
0 -
Iii ..
:;
c
o
:;::;
"
::l
:a~
.s g
.: u
-g~
'" ..
.2'"
" (;
.E It:
l!! ..
B ~
"2
~....:
..
., - ..
10 ~"":".!ot:
.~ :;.Jje.2
Q. Eso!
CD . c. .c CI)
:5iQ)gG)~
.5'cJJ~~~
:;~,S-;tn~
~~~j5.s~
ou;;.;~o
0-(.) c.c
';OClllCft:JCD
_..>c>>~w
~ ~ ';f!.'~ Q) g
:: Wit) c.Z.c
N M
.,
E
o
"
.5
3: ..
0'"
-"0
~.c
., :x
2 ::l
_0
.;:<:
.,
.c c
;'j
cl-
'C CD 0
~=~
c '
s'; :
CJ"D U;
8.~-!
>C CD ._
lJJCO
.,
'"
..
"
.,
'"
..
::l
o
';
l!!
Q,
.5 ~
"D '2
., ::l
<:e
"e
..e
s~
tll .c:
:S ~
"5::::::3
.." ..
~a5~
CD 00...
so~~
~m~~
'"
"
c::
'. ::.
., 0
~O
::.-
0"
fI)~
~
~
i:5
:::::
'"
:::
:::
a
:::
~
::::
<:>
~
.::
~
~
~
:::
~
C>
<:>
.~
-6
~
:::
~
oS>
~
~
~
&
~
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 201 1- 2020
Page 9
However, to arrive at a net total that reflects the full picture of new construction need, the
advisory panel added in a 5% vacancy provision (2,200 units) and 5,000 units for
homeless households that will lack housing at the start of the next decade.s The vacancy
adjustment is vital to maintaining price stability in the housing market. The addition of
units for homeless households is based on Wilder Foundation forecasts of homeless
housing production and its timing.
The total need for newlv-constructed affordable housing units in the Twin Cities between
2011 and 2020 is estimated at 51.000 (or 30.6% of forecasted growth in sewer-serviced
households). This number represents the regional new construction need. This number
of affordable housing units is allocated to Twin Cities communities in Part 2 below.
Part 2: Allocate the New Construction Affordable Housing Need to Communities,
Adjusting for Criteria That Are Important to Locating Affordable Housing.
Many local and regional governments across the country, including the Metropolitan Council,
have developed formulas for allocating affordable housing need across a number of
communities. While these formulas vary greatly in their complexity and differ in the set of
variables under consideration, most attempt to allocate need along some measurement of
household or job growth, making adjustments for location-criteria that are important to
affordable housing policy (e.g., transit service, location of social services, proximity to jobs).
The advisory panel strove to limit the number of critical assumptions, recognizing that the
addition of more assumptions can increase the potential for error without necessarily increasing
accuracy. The advisory panel believes that an allocation formula based on a series of complex
assumptions and intricate mathematical steps would reduce the transparency of the formula,
making it more difficult for affordable housing stakeholders to understand.
For this report, the advisory panel used the following factors in its formula to allocate affordable
housing need across the Twin Cities for the period 2011 - 2020:
· Household growth potential
· Ratio of local low-wage jobs to low-wage workers
. Current provision of affordable housing
. Transit service
These four criteria are addressed in the formula through the following questions:
1. How much household growth is a community planning to absorb from 2010 to 2020?
2. What is the relative balance of low-wage jobs based in the area vs. low-wage working
residents?
3. To what extent does a community offer affordable housing now?
4. What level of transit service is available in a community?
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011- 2020
Page 10
The answers to these questions determine the amount of affordable housing allocated to a given
community per the formula in this study.
As detailed in the previous section, the advisory panel projects the number of low-income
households in the region to grow by 64,100. Also 5,000 households in the region will be
homeless at the start ofthe decade. Some of these low-income households will find housing that
exists in 20 I 0; the balance will require an estimated 51,000 new housing units (equivalent to
30.6% of sewer-serviced household growth).
The following steps provide more detail on the method for allocating need amounts by
community. Exhibits 1 and 2 following this report indicate the results of these calculations for
each community's share of the regional need.
· Step 1: Apportion new low-income housing need in each community accordine its
household growth.
In this step, the advisory panel relied on its 2010-2020 sewer-serviced household
forecasts and assumed that 30.6% of all new housing units in each community would be
affordable to low-income renters or buyers, the same share as for the Twin Cities overall.
This is a uniform allocation of affordable housing need, following the pattern of where
overall residential growth can be accommodated.6
. Step 2: Make adiustments (additions or subtractions) to the housine need in each
community according to the local low-wage iobs/workers ratio. existinr: affordable
housine stock percentaee. and transit service.
After establishing the baseline allocation of affordable housing need according to
household growth in sewer-serviced communities (Step 1), the advisory panel made the
following adjustments to each community:
o Low-wage iob oroximitv: Communities with more local low-wage jobs than local
low-wage working residents in the area (net importers of workers, or above a 1: 1
ratio) increase their share of need by the proportional amount they were above 1: 1
parity. Cities below 1:1 parity have their need share proportionally diminished.7
o Affordable housing stock: For communities in which more than 30% of all
existing housing units are affordable, the formula reduces the need number by the
proportional amount they were above this threshold. For communities in which
the percentage of affordable housing is currently below 30%, the need share
number is proportionally increased.
o Transit service: For communities with regular, frequent transit service (transit
service levels 1 or 2; see page 5 for definitions), the formula increases the
community's share by 20%. For communities with little current transit service
(category 3), the formula makes no adjustment. For communities with no regular
transit service (category 4), the formula decreases the community's share by 20%.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 - 2020
Page 11
The allocation formula can be expressed mathematically: Affordable housing needc =
(HH growthc * K1) *
{ 1 + (JobslWorkersc - 1) + (0.30 - Existing aff housingc) + (Transit Adjustmentc)} * K2
where Kl is 30.6%, the forecast for regionwide affordable housing need as a share offorecast growth,
and K2 is an adjustment to ensure the regional total of 51,030 needed affordable units.
Formula Results
The allocation formula described above results in need allocations that range from a few units, at
the low end, to thousands of units in those communities that expect the most growth and/or that
are proximate to employment centers. The map on the following page shows the allocation of
new-construction affordable housing need by community between 2011 and 2020, according to
the methodology described in this report.
Exhibits 2 and 3 presents tables summarizing the amount of new construction affordable housing
need in each community, and for each county in the Twin Cities. The tables also show the
adjustment amounts related to each of the three factors.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 2011 - 2020
Page 12
Twin Cities Region
Affordable Housing Units Needed, 2011 to 2020
None
1 to 99
100 to 499
500 to 999
:--]1.000to 1,999
D 2,000 to 2,999
_ 4,088 (Minneapolis)
Li'-OdTwp.
Coh..Ciu.T......
H.....L..
-~.
~
HoIIrwoodT_
,
N..IdllIIotIT"",
...~-
Codw Lolle flOp.
~
"
Mi'"
"
conley1293
1/10106
~MetroPolltan Council
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
Summary Report:
Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities 201 1 - 2020
Page 13
Endnotes:
1 Advisory Panel Members: Tom O'Neil-Committee Chair (OSU), Guy Peterson (Met Council), Todd Graham (Met
Council), Kathy Johnson (Met Council), Tim Marx (MHFA), Tonja Orr (MHFA), Anne Hurlburt (City of Plymouth),
Patricia Nauman (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities), Linda Barthel (City of Blaine), Angie Skildum (Family
Housing Fund).
2 This issue is very complex and no article or study reviewed for this report yielded a methodology that was suitable to
measure the number of units moving across price categories in the Twin Cities.
However, the advisory panel assumed that the supply oflow-income housing in the private market would expand
between 2011 and 2020, a conservative approach to need estimation. This approach is consistent with the findings of
The Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota study (November 2003) in which BBC Consulting stated that 40.3% of new low-
income households added to the Twin Cities between 2000 and 2010 (about 24,000 out of 60,000) will find housing in
private market units that have f1ltered downward in price or that have been developed as affordable without public aid.
The advisory panel applied this same percentage for the decade 2011 - 2020. In the decade 2011 - 2020, the 40.3%
figure translates to 25,830 new low-income households that will find affordable housing in the private market: about
20,260 of them will find housing in existing units that have f1ltered down in price (no land consumption), and 5,570 in
newly-constructed units (consuming land) developed as affordable without public aid. The latter figure was based on
extrapolations of: 1) GV A Marquette counts of new, affordably-priced, private market apartments constructed in the
Twin Cities so far this decade; and 2) Metropolitan Council counts of new owner units constructed in the Twin Cities so
far this decade.
3 The ratio was calculated for each community by the Metropolitan Council using the U.S. Census Bureau's Local
Employment Dynamics data set for 2003. This data set identifies the specific location of jobs by wage level and the
specific residence of workers by wage level. This data set counts jobs by location for the following wage categories
(annual wages): less than $15,000, $15,000 to $40,800, above $40,800. "Low-wage" jobs for use in this report were those
paying $40,800 and below. This level is reasonably close to the 60% median family income figure for the Twin Cities in
2005 ($46,200).
4 To estimate the number of affordable owner units by community, Metropolitan Council staff tallied all homestead
housing units with a 2005 estimated market value of $145,200 or less, per l\finnesota Department of Revenue. The
research staff estimated affordable rental units by reviewing Census 2000 counts at the following price thresholds: $639
for efficiencies, $684 for one-bedroom units, $820 for two-bedroom units and $948 for all three-bedroom+ units. The
research staff assumed an even distribution of values across the Census unit size/price categories, which did not match
directly with those thresholds cited above.
5 Any growth in homeless households after 2010 is already accounted in the growth forecasts oflow-income households.
Therefore, housing production to serve them is implicitly factored into the need calculations.
6 Some current affordable housing exists in un-sewered communities. Also, it is possible that some new affordable
housing may be built in un-sewered communities, but that is not planned or assumed in this study.
7 Local low-wage jobs "in the area" are defined as joba within 10 miles of the community's geographic center-point.
Local working residents are defined as workers residing within 10 miles of the center-point. Ten-mile radi necessarily
extend into neighboring communities, but in this way the local labor market is normalized, setting aside municipal
boundaries hat are artificial from a labor market perspective.
Prepared by an Advisory Panel to Metropolitan Council Staff
N
..
:c
.c
><
w
ra
Q)
...
<(
C
~
'0
CL
o
...
..
Q)
:!!:
III
Q)
E
(.)
c
'i
I-
Q)
.c
..
c
c
00
:;::iN
rao
UN
o
<(
'C
Q)
Q)
Z
C)
C
III
::J
o
:I:
~
.c
ra
'C
...
~
<(
Qj
:c
ra
I-
~
ra
E
E
::J
U)
Gl 0
:c CI 'lJ N
~",c~~~
ca-ecnCQ) ,
Z05::)Gl::
~:z: Z~
..
Gl
a.
"C
Gl
-
o
'"
..
- ..
.c 0
~-
1/)0
- '"
-gu.
"C
"C
e:(
J!l
'2
::)
....
....
o
N
l!!
o
-
o
'"
u.
-
C
Gl
E
-
III
~
'6"
e:(
"C
Gl
Gl
Z
CI
.S
III
~
o
:z:
:!:: C")cu
III 0
C .-
l.'!! i:::
I- Gl
I/)
CI...
.S -"
III 0
~ 0
o -
:z:1/)
~~
.c E
o .-
.., )(
o
C.
III
""C
i:::''O
"'..c
E Gl
E g:
~ 0
I/):Z:
..c"C
~ l!!
o Gl
.. ~
C)Gl
I/)
-
"en . CO)
c Cii B
l.'!! I/) 'S;:
I-
CI...
.S -"
III 0
~ 0
o -
:z:1/)
.
)(
0-
'-.?;-
a. ._
.c E
o .-
..,
'Q;'q-
:t:::~.c=
"'- '"
c:: <D '"
m (.) e
~ .~ :S
lJl....
Gl)1ii~~
~~~q:
'::-<>:;:0
o-jg.Q:::J
, " <D J::
13~.Q.......
o..co50
~.2 &
~ GI) co ~
'" -<> :;: <D
Q.S; ,I ~
'. Q) _ C
,g '" ~ ~
l':~.Q
..c
Qj~
Z e
C)
III
Gl
;l
"C '2
Gl ~
.. E
~ E
Gl 0
1/)0
OV
CON
CO ~
I'OM~VOCO
<OCOT'""('l")lt)C)T'""
l"t N N..-I
~
Q)T"'"C\lC"l0>
lOO.........-
O.V.
~~
Ol'OOOOl'~OooOOOOVM
C") MC}I T""" r-;-
~~, a~~o~~m<9oC?::~~o
C\I I N LO I
M.......O('t')CX)NCOCOOlVOT"""O.......T"""LO
~'? "i O>"i'?V g:12~
, , ,
MNVMMMNVMNNMMMVN
cfl.cfl.'#.?ft.cf!.cfl.cfl.cfl.';fl.?ft."cfl.'#.cfl.,*,*,?f!.
MMI'I'OO>NMI'COl'ool'vLOO>
V'VNT"""NV NM(J)LO MN
COOLOI'O
~~~~::
..-M.......<.oCOT"""O) v v,.... v
~LOLOoo'l:'l:O"!COLOM
T"""...... '..- T""",....,..... T"""
00
00
I'CO
N
00
OCO
'MN
'"
00000 0
LOOLOVO V
(0(")0)('1')1
0000
OOOLO
OLON
ricD~
o
N
o
N
MONOOOOOOOOOOOOO
momOOOOLOOOT"""lt)OOOO
COLO MCO~NMLOO>VO>OOOOO
.-: cO ai .-: N- Ol cO .-: cO .j' .j' N
...... N NT'"" T"""
o
~
o
N
MONOOOO
O>OO>OVLOO
0>0> OMOCO
a;j ........- ~ ~ N- CO-
N
0000
OOOLO
o LOoo I'
","':NN
0000
<OaT""" ......
'LOCOvO>
Ll'i~
N~
.?;-
c
~
o
o
'"
-"
o
c
e:(
III .
- -"
.<: . '-
CIa. '"
'Qi 5: <II a.
gjII-~ <II <II~
I... ~ .5 .~ ~ g. 5 ~ >. 'co ~
Gl . ~a..c.cc::: _ '" Gl
1) .Jl1 Qj :g 2 Gl E E c ~ g- ,~...J <II ~ go
"U 0 -5 Om c: 13 ..:! ..:! 0 "0 == X 0 E u. 'C:
~~~~~G888itI~:5~u5~
c: cfl.
'" 0
(ij:!: <0
o 0 5:
.2g- 0
~~ ~E
"C ::2: '- Gl
~Gl oE
'5:5 ",g-
u >. g>>"ii
......... ..c ._ >
0>- cGl
o~ roO
ac: wc
..--::::J _ co
v E <II..a
wE "C....
co (5:l
'" 0 .<: oil
-5 .c Q) C)
cnU ~c
en ro 0 "u;
GlGl '<::J
.... Gl 0
g>.9 E I
'~2 8'0
a. JQ .~ c:
~ 'Gl
c1?u ~E
o '" ro - 1::
:.;::::; 0 0 ro
J!! "E- cn - a.
g. '[ ~ ~ ~
a. tfig ~uj
(1) c ~ O'
:5GlGl ll:::l
oU..c (00)
Gl -<III-M l!!:5
ro~"-:"o~~
~ 58~ (0-0
_Eo....-5(],)
(/) E ~S (/).5
GlClo...:t_~E
'- otl} Q) c: '-
~ c:(/):JQ)
Q) co CO rn 1D
Q)"C..c-c:"C
"C :: _ co .-
- 0 (/)"0 (/) (/)
:€ (/)(/)(/) 5co
5: Gl ~ .~ .<: 6
~ 'E g> ~ ro::2:
3 o'E ~ :s ~
o~",o<llGl
U .S Gl _ };. E
~ :€ c- m .c 8
- ,".- E :J c
c~O>-E-
.- (/) 9- 0 E ~
O~.gQjo.RE
.~c E ~ '"
.<: Gl GlW ",u.
(/) g> 0 (ij '5 ffi
l!? 5: Gl U Gl'-
CO ~::;o rn--g
(/) :>.........J CO III:::::
.!!! .2 0 <II C ""
-c - (/) -~ Q) CO
"'Gl", UGl
5gE~Qi<
0- ~a.
0'0000 Gle:(
:;,. O~<II'<:cn
..:; ., ,S ~ I- ::2:
m~B~ ~
Q)Q):::Q)--C:
~ ..c ClO :0 ~
Gll-c."'o
..c ..'5 en "'0 I
.Q.- . 0 M
:!::! 10 -=-=> ; ~
0. a:: <IIGl e:(<II
(/) c-5~,,~_
~ ~Clgo
.~ 'w ,!: :;.
10 x Q) C/'J V~ c
-5e'-:Jc:~
C/'J a.. ~7i r-
"- - .00 Q)
~-g:gS6::;
p"" ~8",I'O
i')'
c
Gl
~
C'
.~ .~~
~€c
.!: ~
'0 Gl
g~~
~al~
.rgD.:~
~U5"5
a. "0 .c
e c: _
-"'Gl
Gl U
::2: ~.~
Gl 0 Gl
::; 5t U)
>. Q) .~
.c2~
al~jg
.!: >- Gl
E c E
.... 0 0
2-(1)
~ ~M .
(I) "0 .;..:::. ~
'" Gl ~'-
(1):502:
Gl CI Gl
E-6,CJ.)~
c ::::J 10.-
::::J e 0 ~
E.<: <II '"
E~:c'::;
8{ij~ro
c: ~ .- 3
.- c (/) rn
~.o -e l!!
..a a.:J 0
~ >..g c:
~ ffi '" II
'" E g>v
Gl ,_..
.~ .s ~ ~
~ ~ :g 0
Q).- c: C)
<II ~.- 2
~~~~
ffi ~ ~.~
'::;~E-:5
'0 ~ ~ .S:
C_C(I)
.Q ~ g -e
1O:Jco~
~:6:s-g
'00 .t= ~ ~
UJ ,--"0 Q)
~~"C~
CO 5,.~~
.~ ~ .~ -5
QjIl:::"C
.c~~ffi
5.i1iai1?
c ~.~ 0
<II Gl ~ U
:C-GlGl
I-'-(/)UJ
:J_>-
-~c:c:
~.....Q)co
Q) 0 s..s
...J:gl!?<II
~ 0..... c:
'S <II II ,Q
L.ctJNro
~"'C.-c:
- ~~~
'00 (/) 0 Q)
c: CJ.) C)"C
~c..2"C
j- ~ ~ ffi
III
QI
...
<C
c
III
~
'0
c..
o
...
....
QI
==
1/1
QI
E
o
c
.~
I-
QI
.c
....
c
c
00
N:;:lN
III 0
~UN
.c 0
~<C
W't:l
QI
QI
Z
Cl
C
1/1
~
o
::I:
QI
:a
III
't:l
...
~
<C
QI
:a
III
I-
~
III
E
E
~
en
Gl 0
:eCl 't:lN
==CO.:~~~
Gl't:lUlCGl'
Z....::J .....
,20:JGl...
<:I: Z~
..
Gl
C.
't:l
Gl
-
(,)
e!
- ..
.co
j-
1/)(,)
- CO
-gu..
't:l
't:l
<(
UI
~
C
:J
....
....
o
N
l!! ~ "'Gl
o ~ .~
ti CO C:
CO .. Gl
11..1-1/)
-
C
Gl
E
-
UI
j
:c
<(
't:l
Gl
Gl
Z
Cl
C
'iij
j
o
:I:
Cl..
.: '"
UI (,)
j 0
o -
:I: I/)
~~
.c E
o .-
-, )(
o
is.
UI
..'t:l
C:-'O
CO.c
E Gl
E ~
j 0
I/):I:
.c't:l
~ 2!
o Gl
.. ==
C)Gl
I/)
-
"in ~ ""Q)
C Gl (,)
e! I/) .:;
I-
Cl
.: 1.:
UI (,)
j 0
o -
:I: I/)
,
)(
0-
.. ~
c. ._
.c E
o .-
-,
'0;....
=-~.s:::
u;-OJ
c: '" :J
ro (.) e
~.~ ~
~....
Cl)cn~~
~.9.2g<(
~.Q'5:Cl
o-E.Q::>
~o<DJ::
olf:..Q......
Q.co(so
t!. .E ~
~ '" '" ~
0'2'5:'"
"':"":'~lo!.. ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~Q
.c
Qj~
z e
C)
UI
Gl
E
-g 5
.. E
Gl E
~ 0
1/)0
o~m.....LOCO
.....ooo..-co
M.f'o-NO>
..--
Ovf'o-.oOO
N .....,.......(0(0
I,.... .....0).....
,?OO~tb"OU?"~O~~
~
Nf'o-OMf'o-.oO.oo>f'o-COf'o-CO
ex) I,....... I I I co N T'"" ('\I
"C""'" N I N I
';"m~~~~O~"~~l9~
vMMVVVVVVVMVV
'#.';fl.'#.cf!.';fl.'#.'#.'Cft.'#.?f!.'$.';f!.'#.
com O.....Q)LO LONON""" ('f')C'\I
..-- MM .0 Mf'o-.o Nv
Nf'o-NCO.oCOCONV"--.oCOCO
O><C!~C!O>COO>COCOO>O~<C!
...... T"""..... .....
000000
LOOON,....c.o
o>.oOM
NN~~-
00
vf'o-
, co
OONO
000>0
ONf'o-f'o-
.....- Ct')-
o
N
o
N
000000
.oOOOCOO
COCO.oN.oM
":N"N"N".f
..-- ..--
000000>0
N,....LOOO,.....O
NCONCONN.o
..: N"r-:.oN"
o
...
o
N
000000000
OOOCO.ovNf'o-CO
CX>(J)O.....NNN.............
~a)O~
..--
OOf'o-O
OOCOO
COOvCO
~-.:i..q7'~
. ri. ci.
lB ~ ~
(/)
(/) QllBe>~
,-~mC,-:30
.... Q) .:!I:: C) 0)..0__
Glc:15gj.2:2E~
C: <<I.c.c 0<<1 <<I <<I
coUUUUO:I:...J
U
...;
Gl
E
<(
Cl
~5
<<I 0
E>- C
Q; '8 ,~~
"C)O'~c-e
~;;:~B82
<<I QI 0 ,2 ~ ~
~ZZ>::>::>
~
C
j
o
o
C
<<I
--
<<1=
(,) 0
o c.
-0
~~
-o~
~QI
"> :5
'6>>
~.c
g~
o C
- '"
~ E
lI)E
C 0
<<I (,)
-5.c
(/) (,)
(/) <<I
QI QI
..
g'.E
':;;' -g
<<1_
c..Jl!
-0 '"
C C (,)
,Q <<I m
~ ~ 0
:] .5 fI)
[ ~ ~
Q) Q)~
~ c ~
,-~Q)
o .c
~-U)t-M
<<I ~--:.o
..c cOo
U) ::l 0 N
en E ~ L-
Q) E"I""'".E
c>o"'d"-
'- u EA- Q)
.!:Q c en
QI <<I <<I
Q)..c..c_
:5.::......cu
o (/)-0
E cn(/)U)
;;: QI ~.2
~E ~~
5 o'E ~
0"--<<10 (/)QI
(,).!::::QI_~E
Q) :5 ~ C '2 8
..c .- c Q) ..... C
- ;;:'0 E ~-
c-c..>,.E>.
cfl).!..oE:=
;;:.gQlQ.8E
o .~ c E <<I
.c QI QlW <<Ill..
(/JC>>U '+-c:
<<I QI <<I 0 <<I
l!!;;: (,) QI--
cu~:5oO)~
(/J :> ,-...J C'O
Q).Qo_fI)c~
:g(ij~~ ~m
5 gE ~ Ci>~
U - ::l a.
o'QOOOQl<(
:i!: o"C""'"cn..cw
... .- C '" I- ~
~~~~..Z'
QI QI'~ QI ~ 3
~.cClU.oO
Qll-c'<<Iu
.0 ""S; (f) "U I
__ "Q -- . 0 ('t)
(iro::::::":Jtt::T"""
(/)C:::!!QI<((/)
c:..c:~Q)
~ Q)-uE
<<I 'E :g ~ .9 U
ro 'x ~ 'w W c:
~e""':]c:~
UJ a. ~ 13 'w
~-g:g5 5~
U-,OO:I:_
. ;;: UNO
*'
o
co
~
o;~
.oc
.. QI
o E
<<Ig.
~Q)
'c ijj
roO
QI C
~<<I
(/).0
-0 ..
o~
.co/l
QI Cl
~ C
o -(jj
.c '"
QI 0
E:I:
80
_~ c:
, QI
~ E
--e
o <<I
- c.
QI QI
:00
~uj
~=i
<<I QI
~-5
<<I>.
_.0
<<1-0
-5 QI
UJ _~
:g E
'" QI
~1D
._ -0
(/) (/)
6 <<I
.c ~
"1ii~
:s~
>>
(,)
C
QI
'"
C"
UJen~
~:..c
- -.~
C-o
"g;; ~
"'~
o ~
uiile:-
15 a. QI
.~ -.i >
OW:;
C. -0 .0
e c: ~
liico~
~~.~
QI 0 QI
5 g- en
~~-;;;
.oCC
-g~g
.!:::: >> QI
E c E
QI 0 0
-~(/)
~ iU'M .
UJ-o;....::,~
<<I QI e:-'-
(/) -5 0 C:
QI .c Cl QI
EC)Q)~
5 510"00
E .. (,) c:
.c(/)<<I
E~:..cJ:;
8 co ~ (ij
,~ ~';;;~
QI '0 .g l!!
:c a.ii 0
lQ~:]c:
.~ 15 (/) II
<<I E ~v
Q) 0 -L: ...:-::.
u - t!.. ~
-~ QI QI 0
Q)"~ 2 C)
(/) C: .- 2
-Q)~CU
-(j) en:;:; 0
c:.~~UJ
~~E:S
- <<I~
o .b UJ .~
C:_CUJ
olB2-e
iij",<<I'"
orrC..c
~~ti~
UJ-O).....
~ ...:-0 ~
O~-Cl
co s,~ "E
_!!! ~,~ ~
Qiu::-o
..cT"""~ffi
E in .-0
"'o;2lc
~ ijj'~ 8
:C-QlQI
l-:;enU)
-~c ~
~oQ)co
.3 QI 5-.s
C ~ UJ
~ 0 -- C
'5 (/) II ,Q
LoCUNro
QI -0 . - C
~ ~ ~ti
'(j) UJ 0 0)
C QI Cl-o
~ Ci2-c
I- X <<I C
M Q)OCU
ev
CI)
...
<(
s:::
~
o
c.
o
...
-
CI)
:5
111
CI)
E
o
s:::
'!i
I-
CI)
.c
-
s:::
s:::
00
N;lN
evo
~(JN
.c 0
.c-....
)(<(....
W't:lO
Cl)N
CI)
Z
Cl
s:::
111
::l
o
J:
CI)
:c
ev
't:l
...
~
<(
CI)
:c
ev
I-
~
ev
E
E
::l
en
Gl
:c
~ co
Gl'E
z~
<(
..
Gl
C.
"C
Gl
..
U
E
.. ..
.c 0
~..
~ U
"C co
Glll.
"C
"C
<(
~
e
::I
~
o
..
U
co
11.
..
e
Gl
E
..
III
~
.-
"C
<(
"C
Gl
Gl
Z
CI
e
'Ui
~
o
J:
:!:::! "'0)
III U
e .-
co ~
.. Gl
I-l/)
C1N
.: .II:
III U
~ 0
o ..
J:l/)
~~
.c E
o .-
.., )(
o
~
III
""C
~o
COs:::.
E Gl
E gj
~ 0
l/)J:
s:::."C
'i l!!
o Gl
.. ~
C) Gl
l/)
CI
.: J!l
III .-
~ e
0::1
J:
o
'ON
GlO
'ON
Gl '
Gl.....
Za
N
..
"iii .!.. "'0)
eGlU
E l/) .;;:
I-
C1",
.: .II:
III U
~ 0
o ..
J:l/)
,
)(
0-
.. ~
c. ._
.c E
o
..,
0"t
~~..t::
OJ - Ol
c:: <D "
~ .~ e
~~:S
gj-
_ '-0
OJ <1l 0'- ~
~~g<(
';:-<>3:0
O~.e:::::>
- ~ <D :t:
ti:goO<+-
0..(0(:)0
To!....EQ)
<bCl)O)~
3:-<>~"
Q .S; ~ ~
'. en - -
:20l~~
~~Q
s:::.
"'i
Gl 0
Z ..
C)
,
vr--OONV
N "'''' 00>
rq,t'--Ii)~V
.....
.....va)
v.....a)
Nt'--N_ I
N
"'CO"'VCON
a) I/) 0 N
a)..... .....
OOO"'VNI/)OOOOOOa)N.....
"'t~I~ ~'N
, ,
~('t)(t)NO.....
T'""C'\I("") I
, '<t
~to<9N~
..... '
a)a)r--r--r--
"'N"'vv
..... .....
I/)Ol/)OO"'CONI/)ONCOOO"'O>
:;~~O;>~IN;:!'? C'1"fMI(V)
, ,
"'''''''VVVV''''''''''''''''''NVN
'#.?ft"#.?f!.?ft?ft?ft'#.'*'?ft?ft'#'#.cf!.cf!.'#.
a)I/)Na)VNNr--"'a)o>o>vr--VO
"'-NN ...-('\fMC\lT"'"T"'"<O T"""('l')........,.
COVOa)'" a)O>o>COO>O>CONNCO
('f')~~I.Ot--:t::~T"""(J)U1<ql.C!m~,......~
T"'" T'"" T'"" T'"""" T'"" 'If""" . T"'" . T'""
a)COOOOO
vNOOO'"
r--a)1/)r--0
ri~~ ri
o
N
o
N
1/)a)0000
Nr--OOOO>
............OVLON
c6c6aS"':e
NNN ......
Or--O
01/)0
N-.;;t('f')'
N'N'aS
0000
T"""OOO
NN'"
ri
00
vI/)
'"
o
.....
o
N
r--NOOOO
r--I/)OOOCO
"'O>I/)r--I/)N
N'<ico" ...:
NNN
0000
000a)
01/)01/)
~Ltia:i
..........N
000000
OOOOVO
T"""(X)I.O<OC\lM
..teaS 0)
.....
0"'000
OVOa)O>
a)or--I/)
ex>rioi
..... .....
00000
00001/)
CO "''''N 0>
<i"':ex> ex>
(/)
:E
CI (/)
"(jj E
~>- J: Ol:::J:;
eGl ~c Gl ~c~ co
~=Gl ~.8c' i) :::J .co.
om- ~rn 0~_:-Gl_ mrno-o'
O>~ Glc.8OlC) ~aaEl/)-~
mm0~'~'E-~.~~>m~UID5~_
~~Ern~~E~ID~UCC~~~0
~c.:::JcoEcococo>co~GlGlOOGl~
co<(CllWWll.::C::C":-l:::i:2:2O:::l/)>>
C
III
Gl
:;::;
"C 'c
Gl ~
.. E
; E
Gl 0
l/)O
c: '#.
co 0
m ~ co
U 0 ~
..Q g. 0
..c>'~ CB-
..... .cc
-0:2 ....Gl
~Gl oE
"> 5 10 8-
u >- g> Qi
~ ..c 'c- iii
0>.
o.~ roO
Oc GlC
~~ -cu
v E (/)..c
lI}E -0....
co (5:J
cou s:::.~
~-5 ~g>
(/J co 0 'en
GlGl s:::.:::J
.... Gl 0
g>.E E::C
'~2 8'0
a. ~ .!: C
"t)::J ~Q)
C C U ::> E
,2 co ro ..Q 1::
_ro u oeo
ccn -a.
:::J '0 co Gl Gl
g.c.~ :00
Co cB2 -Eu)
~"E~ ~::i
.:::~~ COG)
~ _(/J.-~~:5
.....?;- .'. co >-
cu 'c S g ro.c
~:JON5-g
wEOL.. c
Q) E ~ S ~.-
Ol.. 0 ~ -- "c: E
U Gl:::J"'
~ c:rJ) \U
Q) co co C) as
Q)..c..c+4C:"O
= ~ .... co .w tn
Otn"O:l
E tntntn oCO
~ Gl ~.5,2 .J:: ~
'?;-Eg>~ro:2
5 0 .E ~ B $
o.....coo (/)Ql
u .5 Gl _ ~ E
al = ~ c: .c Ou
..c .- c: al ... c
- ~ '0 E ~-
C:-c.>.E>.
ctn..!,.oE==
0~.gGla.8E
.~c E co
s:::. Gl GlW COli.
w ~o(ij15ffi
~ ~ Gl U Gl--
co ~=o rn-g
w :;;.........J co
Gl..QO(/)c:2
~ (ij~-ffi B m
g ~ -E ~ Qj ~
U :::J c.<(
o 15~cn alU)
~ .2 c ~ ~ :2
m~~~ ~
~.J::OlU:cg
1l I- ,5 uj -o....co U
o.~. M
iii-=-=>~--
O:::(/)Gl......(/)
c-5~Q)
al 0 ~
-0 Ol 0(3
.w .~ U5 c
~ ~ c ~
Ol= r-
C 0 .w
:g 5 :::J ~
000+4
~ U N::C 'l5
-
a.
(/)
~ -
co 'E
10 .x
= e
(/) a.
Gl ..c
~ 0
(3--,
. -
>-
U
c
Gl
:::J
cr
.~ .~~
=:::5c:
e .-
.0 ,- "0
C = Gl
:lco~
o ~ E
U:::J=
cCOC:'
.!!l~al
.-.... >
000"5
c. -0 ..c
e c
..... co al-
Ql (/) U
:2 = '2:
Gl 0 Gl
:5f6-w
>.al~
.o2c:
-g~~
,5 >- Gl
E c E
.... 0 0
2-w
~ iU'tYj .
w"O..:-::.B
co Ql C:"-
(/):5 0 ~
.!!!s:::. ~(/)
.-g g>> 10 ~
:leo~
E.J:: (/) co
E~:c~
8(ij~ Co
c: ~ .- "S
.- c w rn
Gl '0 -g ~
:0 c..i5 0
~>':lC:
-~ ffi (/) II
co E g>v
(]) a.i::;....:;.
,~ ; ~ C:'
I:.. 0 C 0
Q).- I:: C)
(/) c:.- 2
~~~~
~ ~ ~.~
-=~E:5
a jg -;- .5
c:.....c:w
.2 16,g -e
10 :l co :l
~g:z.g
.w J:: ~ ~
U'J .....- "0 Q)
-tl~"O+t
ro 6,~ ~
.~ ~ .s :5
(0"::"0
.o__:ll::
E ..c co
u; -"0
~<iiBc
III 1; '2: 8
:c GlGl
I--.....ww
:::J _ >-
(i).Ecc
>.....al(O
~ ~ ~~
~ 0..... c
os; (/) II _2
~coC'\l1O
~"O.-c
.... ~~~
'w w a Q)
c: Q) C)"O
~ 0..2 "C
I-><COC
M Q)orn
III
Q)
...
<(
c
~
'0
c.
0
...
-
Q)
:E
1Il
Q)
:2
0
c
.~
I-
Q)
.c
-
c
c
0 0
N ;:; N
III 0
- U N
:c 0
.c <( ....
>< ....
W 'C 0
Q) N
Q)
Z
Cl
C
1Il
:J
0
:I:
Q)
:c
III
'C
...
~
<(
Q)
:c
III
I-
~
III
E
E
:J
U)
Gl
::c
:= '"
Gl'E
Z 0
:t:
<(
....
Gl
C.
'C
Gl
-
u
f!
- ....
..c 0
::::1-
l/) U
- '"
-gu..
'C
'C
<(
Ul
-
';:
:l
~
o
-
U
'"
u..
-
C
Gl
E
-
Ul
::::I
'C
<(
'C
Gl
Gl
Z
Cl
C
'iij
::::I
o
J:
~ MQ)
Ul U
C .-
f! ~
.....~
Cl...
.= ..lo:
Ul U
::::I 0
o ...
J:l/)
~~
..c E
o .-
.., )(
o
a
Ul
"'C
~O
"'.c
E Gl
E gj
::::I 0
l/)J:
.c'C
~ lI!
o Gl
.... :=
C) Gl
l/)
o
Cl 'CN
.~ ~ ~ ~
0::::)(1);:
J: Zo
N
-
"en .!."'(1)
C Gl U
f! l/) 'S:
.....
Cl...
.= ..lo:
Ul U
::::I 0
o -
J:l/)
,
)(
[~~
..c .5
o
..,
'0;,..
:-ij;..c:
(ij - tn
c: Q) =>
~ ,~ e
--c::S
2l....
~q;~~
~~g~
~.Q;:Cl
O~Q::::J
. '" Q) :t:
t5~.Q.......
Q.co(so
~.a &
~ CI) (lJ ~
,. .Q ;: Q)
.g .9. ~ ~
2 ~ ~ ~
~~Q
~gg~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~M~W
~~~~oo~m ~N ~ ~~ 00
....
"l;tv(X)~
roroN
MO'<l'
-.i'
..--(OCX)('t')..--
0(,0..--..--
M NM
N~ ~o ~~roo 0 ~ONro 0 '<I' roNO .... 0 N 0 0> NOO 1'0 ....0
O>N M W NW N ....' ~ .... , , , W ~~ W M
N .... M , ~ ,
, ,
.... O~ 0> .... ~ I' '<I' 0 N ~I'I'.... I' N NNO ro .... 0 W 0> ~ 0 '<I' N C}I ~
'<I' M M '<I' '<I' ro .... ~ .... 0> , ro W '<I' 0> ~
.... .... , M ~
M M 0 MI' 0 W'<I'N'<I' I' M to;- M 0 ~ C}I ro .... M ....N ~~~ 0 0> 0 N M
.... W 0 N'<I' I' 0,....0,.- .... ~ .... ro .... '<I' N.... 0> M
N W 'N ~ '<1'.... , N T'"" ~_ ..-- ....
N
NNNM'<I'N'<I'MMNMN'<I'M'<I'N'<I'M'<I'M'<I'M'<I'....NM'<l'MNM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T'""O~N('t')CONNOOCX)CX)N~v('t')N('t')m~CO~~~N('t')NCX)..--v
NMNT'""T'""NN T'""NvT'""T'"" V NN ('t')..-- V"-- ('\1M
COT'""T'""mO~roNT'""MCX)~('t')N~M~m..--VVNCX)CX)avmMaN
~~~CX)('t')~~mom~~CX)~mm~~M~~~MCX)(X)~aT'""~CO
T'""T'""T'"" T'""T'"" ~~T'""T'""T'"""....... T'"" "T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""T'""
.c 00 NOOOOOOO 00 NO ro 0 roo 0 VCOOC\lO...... NOO 0 '<I'
00 ('f')OOOOLC)OO roo M.... ....0 NO .... V N...... C\I 0...... O~ 0 0>
- ~ ~_'<I' rol'-I''<I'O M.'<I' N .... I'M .... W .... 0 ro .....N ~ W
Gl ri N' cD .0 ~ai
Z 2 .... .... ....
C)
Ul
Gl
~
'C ';:
Gl ::::I
.... E
Gl E
~ 0
l/)O
o
N
o
N
oooooooooooo~ororoo
oooaaOOOOOMOCX)('t')............CO
NNONLOT'""aLOLOOMNNM~(X)N
al N' N' al -.i' ci r-: .-: .0 N- .-: al as
(W')..--cn ...... NN
ooo..--cooooo
m-.;;to..--('I')OOOI.O
......C\lO..--N.......c.o<.om
N''-:ri N'..talN'
ro N
....
00'<1'0
omvLO
OC\l..--O)
~ ci
M
o
.....
o
N
oorooooOOOOOOMO
oocooaaOLOOOLOOLON
I'ro....~rol'O'<l'NWNO....M
r--: ~ cO ai ~ ai r -r=...,.- r..--- 0)-
M....N NN
oroOOWOOOW
CO......OOC"')DLOOLC)
......,....DMNCDM......N
T"""-NN r.q--a)c,f
I'N
....
roNOOON
......(f')C)COON
'~NO>N~O>
as -.i'
N
.c
~ ~ ~
5c~~ ~ ~ m ~ ~
028: ~c! ~_"Ul ~m ~~j ~llro m
00 Cc ~~'ffi ~>~8~ U~ ~ro~ OccU ~
.~.5~~~~_~~~ .-c~~c~~jo~~croiOBEuO
i~~~~~lii~!I~~~m%i~itt~~~I~~~~~
~~~e~o~ro~uu~~~~mouoomm~ID._._._._o~~
GlmmmooooowWW~C)C)IIE~~~~~~~~~~~zo
J:
ra
Gl
...
c(
c
ra
~
'0
c.
o
...
-
Gl
:!!:
III
Gl
E
u
c
'i
I-
Gl
..c:
-
c
c
00
N..N
rao
~CJN
.c 0
..c:-....
Xc(....
W-CO
GlN
Gl
Z
Cl
C
III
::::I
o
::r:
Gl
:c
ra
-C
...
~
c(
Gl
:c
ra
I-
~
ra
E
E
::::I
en
G)
:c
~ III
G)'E
z~
<C
..
G)
C.
"C
S
U
~
... ..
.c 0
::::I...
I/) U
- III
-g1L
"C
"C
<C
CIl
...
'c
::J
l'!
o
...
U
III
IL
...
C
G)
E
...
CIl
::::I
.-
"C
<C
"C
G)
G)
Z
Cl
C
'(ij
::::I
o
::e
~ C')Q)
CIl U
:; .~
.. G)
1-1/)
C1...
.: ..II:
CIl U
::::I 0
o ...
::el/)
~~
.c E
o .-
-, )(
o
a
CI "C~
.~ ~ ~ ~
0=>>(2)::
::e Zo
N
...
Ow ~ C")CD
C G) U
E I/) 'S:
I-
Cl...
.: ..II:
CIl U
::::I 0
o ...
::el/)
,
)(
~~~
.c .5
o
-,
'0....
~ij;.c::
'" _ 0>
c:: Q) ::.
m (.) e
~.~ :S
lJl...
-~
~coo~
C:~<O'o::(
::''''':;:0
'O-eQ:::J
......o<DJ::
OtE..Qot-
o..<l1(sO
...!,..eCD
~ 2 ~ ~
..Q.~ ~ ~
:2 ~ ~ ~
~~Q
CIl
.."C
?:''O
IlI.c
E G)
E ~
::::I 0
I/)::e
.c"C
~ l!!
o G)
.. ~
Cl G)
I/)
.c
4i~
Z e
Cl
CIl
G)
E
"C C
G) ::::I
.. E
~ E
G) 0
1/)0
COI/)I/)NNf'-
C"\IvCON"r"r
O~r-...N"r"-
..-
..- (l').T""",.........,. "r
Ol/)M '<I'
'I/)
........ONT"""C)COO..-OOOOO
CJ)('l')('I')"r co
,
lr{~LON~"O~~~"rNO
..-
..-1/) f'-OM'<1'0 '<I' Nf'-M'<I'..-
LONO..-v COC'\l..- N
VV"r I N
NMNN'<I'NMNMMMMM
';f?'#.?ft.'#.'$.cft.cft.#."#.cf!.'#.'#.?ft
CO'<l'O>O>I/)'<I'NCOMOCO'<l'..-
'<I'..-NN MNN '<I' N
'<I'O>MI/) co COO..-f'-f'-O
oLOm~~~~ro~t--:~f"":m
..- T""" T""" "r ..- T"""
oeoc>cco
..-000000
...-L{)ll)LO"'I:t('l')
N"r-
OOOCOON
ON<:O"-O
'OT"'" "C""'"
..-
o
N
o
N
OOOO(l')OOOOOOOLO
OOOOf'-OOOf'-COCOON
NI/)OO..-M..-OCOOf'-N
~~a:i"':LC'i""'-rMN~ N-
M..- N
o
....
o
N
00001/)00000'<1'
O>OOOCOOOOI/)O'<l'
OOLOIl><DO..-O.......or---
~air.6cD.."f...,.-T"'""-NN~
N..- N
-
....
C
o
U
-
~
C
::::I
o
o
C ="'0
::::1-
'a 0 0 ~
G)Q)E..c:
~ ~ ~.~
G)Oo.o::
::e
Ill""
~ tI~.:2 Co "0 ~
"" coa..oL..~
~.^.,g~00~~
.~~_c::J3:C)_
..ca>COOIDC.....
..c OJ <( co ...J (; "C -2
OO+oi.......c:a.o
0:: o::rn rnrnrnrn I-
OM
ON
..-
N
"C
.J!! c
Ol.!!l
~"8
~~
c eft.
_.J!! 0
rJ '6 co
00. ~O
- 0
~~ ~:g
"C::iE 5 ~
~Q) "'0.
":; -5 c:a 0
'C >- g> Qj
-..0 '2 ~
g.~ roO
Oc: IDe
~::J -co
'<I' E III .Q
~E "C~
co 0;:)
OlU ..c:<<l
;; ..c:u 5l Cl
en CO :J .5
:GQ) ~~
.. Q)o
g>.E EJ:
'~2 8'0
a. <U .5 c:
"C :; I Q)
C cU ~E
.2 Ol (ij - t:
]j-E~ .9~
::::I ,- Ol Q) Q)
g. &.~ :;:;0
a. ci;.Q ~ cri
~c~ S=>
....IDQ) -
'Qu.c COG)
~~'-M~:5
~ .~ g ~ ~ ~
~ Eo~,-fi~
as E'-S gJ
~ 0 ~ - c:.~
Oluc51::::lQ)
- Q) CO CO 0)-
Q) ..r::: ..r::: - .5 ~
..r:::~_co.^.^
- 0 (/j""C .n v,
-5 ffJ (/j (/j 5 (\1
.3: Q) ~ .~ ..r::: -
>-Eg>~(ij::iE
C 0 .E ~:s ~
g'-coO_(/jQ)
U .5 Q) _ >- E
Q)..r::: ~c:~o
..r:::~c0)5g
~ ~.o E E-
-;9-~E~
~ -g Qj 0. 0 'E
o .~ c E U Ol
..c:Q)Q)WOlIL
(/j O)u-'Oc:
* ~ ~ g ~~
(/j :>,-....J co-==
.~ .Q 0 III C 0<<=
-c -;;; 1IlQ) -~ Q) CO
'"_OlUQ)
~ u.- 0) '- '-
8.QE:;8,<C
oo~al~~
~ 8 .!: ~ I- ::iE
5i~~~..~
Q) Q)~Q) c
~..c:ClC):06
Q)I-c '0lC)
.c .Q :~ ~ "E rh
- ro ;::::":J ~<Co ..-
~O:::!!Q) ~
Q) ~fi-G~
(ij E~ g>.90
10 .x ~ .00 en c:
:5 ~ ~~ c: ~
~ .0 ~ g .~ Q)
-O"C::::Io;;
i:3-,OO::e_
'_~C)NO
1)-
c
Q)
::::I
<T
.~ .!:!!~
~:5c:
.5 ~
.0
c:(ij~
6 ~ E
C)::::I=
c&.~
.~... ~
oU)-g
a. "C .Q
e c _
Q)co~
::iE ~.~
Q) 0 Q)
:5 g. (/j
>,. Q) ."!:::
..a~~
a: :L~
.5 >- Q)
E c E
.. 0 0
.m-ffJ
~ iO',;; .
ffJ""C..:-::. ~
Ol Q) ~.-
CIl;; 0 ~
Q)..r::: [DO)
~O)Q)~
55 m.w
E .. U c
..r:::(/j~
E~:.c-
8(ij~~
(/j.- ~
.5 C (/j 0)
Q).o -e l!!
:Oa.~
.!!l >-.g g
.~ 1\3 III II
Ol E g> '<t
B .s .z ~ .~ Q) Q) 0
Q)ucC)
III .~ .!: 2
-a>>.CO
.00 UJ ;:0 U
c:~~UJ
~~E;S
'0 jg -; .!:
C_C(/j
0:ij8-e
~~ro~
.~ 0'".5 -g
-~u;UJ
.00 'to- a> '-
:g --=-""C ~
O~""CI
CO ~~ ~
.!:!! ~.~ fi
(i)1I=-o
..a'-E~
E Ui - "C
~Q)~c
.!!1 a; .~ 8
-Q)Q)
'=:J(/j(/j
_0->"
O)'-~~
[)'O5-5
...J ~ l!! III
~o'to-c:
'S; CIl II .2
~COC\lro
~ ""C . ~ c:
_ ~ ~ti
.00 ffJ 0 Q)
c: Q) C)""C
~ c..2u
t-XOlC
M Q) U (\1
ns
QI
...
<
c
~
o
Co
o
...
...
QI
:!:
III
QI
E
o
c
"i
I-
QI
..c
...
c
c
00
..N
NnsO
ON
o
<::
"CO
QlN
QI
Z
C)
C
III
j
o
J:
QI
::c
ns
"C
...
~
<
~
.0
..c
><
w
QI
::c
ns
I-
~
ns
E
E
j
en
Gl 0
:eCl 'ON
~cac~~~
ZGl'2~CGl":'
OO:)Gl....
~:I: Z~
..
Gl
C,
'0
Gl
...
U
ca
..
... ..
.00
:::I...
m U
- ca
"5lLL
'0
'0
<(
J!l
'2
:)
l!!
o
...
U
ca
LL
...
C
Gl
E
...
III
:::I
:c
<(
'0
Gl
Gl
Z
Cl
c
'iii
:::I
o
:I:
~ ""0)
III U
C .-
ca [:
.. Gl
I-m
Cl..
.!: .lO:
III U
:::I 0
o ...
:I:m
~~
.a E
o .-
..., ><
o
a
III
." '0
[:-'0
ca..c
E Gl
E gj
:::I 0
m:I:
..c'O
~ l!!
o Gl
.. ~
C) Gl
m
...
"iii .!."'(I)
C Gl U
l!! m 'S;
I-
Cl..
.!: .lO:
III U
:::I 0
o ...
:I:m
.
><
0-
.. l:'
c, ._
.a E
o .-
...,
'0;..,.
~ij;.t:::
'" _ 0,
c:: <I> '"
m (,) e
~.~ :S
lJl...
Cl)16~~
~~~<(
~~~Cl
o--e.Q:::>
.....:o<1>J:
Ol:E-C::l:.....
Q.caao
~.2Q)
en '" 0, '"
~ .0 ~ 0..;
o 0 :s Q)
~ .~ ~ 1:
,go,~~
~~~
..c
...~
Gl 0
Z ..
C)
III
Gl
E
C
"5l :::I
.. E
~ E
Gl 0
mo
CX)~tOL()LO('I),...((),...U),...LOl'-OLOf"...
ooN<"l<"lLO<"looLOLO....ONO.....(Ooo
C'\I ,... ('I") ,... ,... N <O~,... ......
N
OMOCOLOLOOLOom..-moooo
NlO N ..-('l')N
'<t
m'";"f'..<9~
N ,
.....-co.....-vv co LOlOC'\I('l')O
,... I ',... <0,...,... ,...
<"l
,
(OO')O.........(OLO'<t..........O')LOo,)<"lo,)O
0) ...-.............oo('l")LO N<OCO'l""'"(O N
....
<''IN<''lNNN<''lN<''lNN....<''l<''l<''l<''l
,*,"*,cf!.'#.'Cfl."#.'Cfl.cf:.'Cfl.'cfl.'Cfl."#'*-';fl.C;?"$.
oo(OLO....LO(OO....O(O(O.....(OO')O')oo
,...('1") L()"'li;J"N.....M NN-.::t.....-C\I ,...
O')O'<tNoo....(O'<t(OooLO'<too....'<t'<t
('l")~('t')<!:!~M~~-c-:N""':LO,...~~~
,...,...,...,...,.........,...,...,...,...,.........,...,...,...,....
00(000000..........000000')
OLOo>mooLOO"""......OO"","OOCO
CO -..rO>N.......-MLOOMLONN
r-:
o
N
o
N
000000000
OOvLOOC>OOLO
(O'<t....N<"lLO(Ooo'<t
vN ..-"ltlc6ltlai
....
000000'<t
0000000>
'<t00<"l....0')'<t
Itlc6r-:..-"c6v..-"
.....-C\l,...- ......
....
o
....
o
N
00'<t
OLO'<t
OO.<"l_
<''IN
aOOOO(l')MQDOOOLO
(OOOLOOOOOOO(OOON
...-O><OMvMOLOOOlCO.......N
,...- -.:i u:i u:i ai u:i to 0- 0 u:i ~ ~
,... .....-N..-- "I""'"
....
.
I/l . Q)
"'" I/l _ c,-"
..,- .... C:l.c. ;:: m
c..c ca ~o ca gl-~
~ .~ ~uUm_011. Q)....
0~Q)Q)-ca05..c-". ~IcaQ)Q)ca
O~It~~~lIlg0ca_~-~I/l__
__ ,... ....J '-,,, :> "U '- en == :J > 0- ....... .......
~~o Q)~~cal..c..c~ca~~Q)Q)
lIlu~EQ)~~c,:::I~~~I/lll.ou~~
E..ca ca-~~Q)ooo~..cca~~
ca<(LLC)~:::ioe:;oe:;zzza::mm>:$:$
a::
c: 'Cfl.
ca 0
co~ CO
U 0 ,.
.2 g. i5
~~ ~~
'O~ ..Q)
~Q) oE
":; :; (Q 8-
:0 ~ g>Qi
_..0 'c a;
g~ roO
q5 IDC
~E ';'~
El)E u"
CO o=>
cau ..co/l
=-5 me>>
UJcu 5'~
~Q) .c::J
.. Q)o
~.e E I
'~2 8'0
a. co .;: c:
u"S sO)
c: CU i5E
.2 ca (ij - ~
-.U oca
~cen -a.
::J ,- eo 0) 0)
g. &.~ :00
a. L!.. 0 .!2 ,^
0) '+:; l:::: \1,1
~c~ ~=l
.....~~ COO)
~_enI-M~5
ro:~"'-:'o~~
~ 58~ CUu
_ EOL-50)
~ E~~.2 2,5
Cl 0 '<t - .c E
L- 0 tI} 0) ::J Q)"
~ c:en
0) co eo 0) Q:)
Q)..c:..c:-c:u
5 .::: - co 'Ci) en
0111 U :::I
E en en en oeo
~ Q) ~.~ ..c ~
~E~~(ij~
5 0 'E ~ B $
o....cao 1/lQ)
U ,!:; Q) _ ~ E
~ E E 5i '2 8
- ,..- E :::J c:
c~o~ E-
.- I/l 9- 6' E ~
O~ .g Cii a. 8 .~
.- c E '"
..c Q) Q) W ca LL
en 0)0-'05
Q) ca Q) ca '"
L-~5g~:o
ca ~_~ ca Q)
~.Qoenc~
~ ~.9l-fJ ~ ~
o .2 'E ~ Q) <(
U -o~ 0.<(
o o....~ Q)m
~ .2 c ~ ~ ~
c:m:.cen >.
Q)L-:!::::C ~
Q) Q)~Q) ~
~..cCl():C~
Q)I-c' ca()
..c o:~ ~ "E M
- ~ ~=:J g ~
a. '" I/l
1/la::_~<(:G
~ 5i-t5~
ca 'E- U Cl 0 u
ro 'x 'm .~ en c:
5 e "-::J 1-':;:
I/l ll. ~'5 c
'_~ ..c .- C ~ Q)
o~:::Jo:5
U-,ooI_
. - ~().. 0
:0.
U
c:
Q)
:::J
rr
.~ .~ J!!
=: 5.5
'0.5 U
c-2
~ ~:~
():::I
cca~
ca ll. Q)
:!::::-.i>
(5cn"5
c,o '0 .a
.. c: .
Q:)coQ)
~ J1'~
Q) 0 Q)
:5 g. en
>.Q)~
..c2c
U'- ~
Q)~-
.!:; >- Q)
E c E
.. 0 0
2-w
~ ~M .
en U ..:-::. ~
ca Q) ~.-
1/l:50~
,~ ..c: O)Q) I/l
:~ 0) _
c: ::J ro ,-
::J e 0 ~
E..c I/l ca
E-:c'::'
8"iU~ro
c:.!1U)"S
'Q; .!:; -e g>
:o8.::J"-
~ :o.-g g
g! ~ I/l II
ca E ~'<t
Q) ,-..
.~ .8 Z ~
~ l'l ~ 0
Q).- c Cl
I/l ~.- 2
-Q)>'CO
'Ci) en ~ 0
C:~~en
~~E;S
.....~-c
o _ en ._
c:_Cen
oC:On
~Q)~5
~ g-.;: -g
'en J:: (;) en
III ..- ~ Q)
~~'O'9
eo 5,~"E
,~ ~ .s ;S
L-II:::U
Q) :::I C
..c~..cca
E.i!i -u
:::I Q) l'l c
~ ~ .~ 8
:C-Q)Q)
I-::;enen
-.2c~
~'OQ)co
.3 Q) 5-.s
Q) c ~ <II
o 0..... c:
.S; I/l II .2
~eoC\l1ii
O)u,~c
~ ~ ~t5
'Ci) en 0 Q)
c: ~ C)"C
~ 0.2 U
I-xcac
M Q)oeo
ra
Gl
...
<(
c
ra
~
'0
C-
o
...
-
Gl
:!5
III
Gl
:E
u
c
'i
I-
Gl
J:
-
C
C
00
N:;:lN
rao
-UN
:c 0
~<(::
W"CO
GlN
Gl
Z
C)
C
III
:::J
o
::I:
Gl
:is
ra
"C
...
~
<(
Gl
:is
ra
I-
~
ra
E
E
:::J
(J)
.!!!
,g
~ ca
Gl'E
Z~
<
..
Gl
C.
"
Gl
...
o
f!
... ..
,g 0
::I...
l/) 0
- ca
'glL
"
"
<
Ul
...
'2
::l
l!!
o
...
o
ca
lL
...
C
Gl
E
...
Ul
::I
.-
"
<
"
Gl
Gl
Z
01
C
'ijj
::I
o
:J:
...M
'ijj ~
i .~
.. Gl
I-l/)
01",
.: ..ll:
Ul 0
::I 0
o ...
:J:l/)
~~
,g E
o .-
..., )(
o
..
c.
01 ,,~
.: .l!l Gl sa
(I) .- "C ...~
:JCQ)...
o::lGl....
:J: Zo
N
...
"; I C")
c t B
f! l/) 'S;
I-
01",
.: ..ll:
Ul 0
::I 0
o ...
:J:l/)
.
)(
0-
..?;-
c. ._
,g E
o .-
...,
'0;....
~~..c::
'" - Ol
c: Q) =>
fa (.) e
~.~ :S
lJl....
-~
~mo~
t:~co'<(
=>""S:Cl
'Ci-e.Q:::J
......oQ)J::
ol:E:...c::)j.....
Q..<t1(so
~.EQ)
~ CI) 2> ~
o'2S:Q)
~';o..!.. ~
,g0l~~
~~Q
Ul
.."
~o
ca.c
E Gl
E ~
::I 0
l/):J:
.c"
~ e
o Gl
.. ~
C)Gl
l/)
.c
G)~
ze
C)
Ul
Gl
E
" C
Gl ::I
~ E
~ E
Gl 0
l/)O
N 1/)"""....... 0),.... I/)
OMMNMNO
NN N,....~C:O_,...._
N....N
01.0,....(\")000
..--CO ('I") <0
,.... I I I
I
1"-0> LO 1"-0 <0 LO
,....WNCOt'--LOCD
I NC\I..--
tOLO....VVMN
~~"?~~18<o
I I I ,....
....
VVVVMMM
~*'*'*'*''#."#.
1"-0> <0 0> V tOtO
N V ,.... ..--
v I"-tOl"-l"-V
~t:(o<D~~~
. T"'"""''''''
0000000
OCOC>LOOC)C>
OOMLOMLOOOLO
~~ ~LOriv-
o
N
o
N
0000000
OLOOOOOO
I"-MNLOOLOLO
-.f N M N <0- -.f ai
........ ....
o
....
o
N
00
01"-
~O>
N
00000
OLOOOO
............. LO...... 0
N~cicill'i
........ ....
?;-O)
c .5
::I '"
0-
00..
:::~O
OQi~
oalW
l/)
Qj
-'" 0) 0)
~ -'" <l>
"''''0)0.
lij:2...J 010
u;:o~~
L.. Q) 'I:: co .s::
~Zo..l/)U)
c
'"
(ij~
o 0
00.
-0
~li
,,:2
~O)
'S; ~
'0>-
~.o
8~
Oc
- ::I
~ E
lI)E
<: 0
'" 0
:513
l/l '"
:3 <l>
'-
g>.E
'~2
o..!!!
" :::J
<: 0
"'ro
_ 0
"E l/l
.- '"
8.;;:
.!.. 0
cu:,;::.
c e
0) 0)
0..<:
_l/l I- M
~.-:.o
<:00
:::JON
EO '-
E----S
8~Qj
<: l/l
0) '" '"
..<:..<:-
,:::_co
0l/l'O
UJ m fl
0) ---
= 01 E
E <: '"
o'E ~
.... '" 0 l/l 0)
<: 0) _ ->- E
~'E~:g8
,. .- E :::J <:
<:~o~E-
.- l/l 9- 0 E ~
<:0" -g Qj a. 0 'E
:>'~"EEo",
.<: 0) O)W "'lL
en rno-'05
0) "'0)'" '"
R; ?F:5g~:a
l/l ;;: _...J '" 0)
,!!1 .Q 0 l/l "E:2
"E (ij ~ -::J Q) CO
:Jo-(tJ~~
o .Q 'E 2! 0) <
o_o~ 0.<
o 0.... 0) en
~ .Q ,!; gj ~ :2
~ N ~ ~ .. ~
0) 0);;:0) <:
::O"<:ClO,g:::J
1i51-<: .",0
.0 (;:~ ~ ~ ~
:ai ::::;:'::l ~ ,....
O::~~~'_~
ai -- ~
'0 01 g 6
'en c: U5 c
~ .~
01= <: ~
c 0 'en
~ 5 :::J ~
o 0 0...
;;: 0 J= '5
<:
o
~
:::J
0.
o
0.
0)
:5
'5
2!
'"
..<:
l/l
-
l/l
0)
e>
.!!!
0)
:5
:5
'~
~
<:
:::J
o
o
0)
:5
-
0.
(J)
0)
~
'" 'E
10 'x
:5 e
l/l 0..
0) .a
~ 0
6-,
. -
~
o
<0
~
]l"E
'- 0)
o E
rog-
01-
.!; ~
<: 0)
(;;0
0) <:
~'"
l/l.o
" '-
'O::l
'<:c/l
0) 01
gj <:
o '00
..<: ::I
0) 0
EI
80
.5 C
I 0)
;;: E
.Qt
o '"
- 0.
0) 0)
:00
{lcri
g:;j
'" 0)
2!:5
'" >-
_.a
"'"
:5 0)
en.S
'g E
:::J 0)
g>>1D
._ '0
l/l l/l
6 '"
.s::6
ro:2
:s~
>-
o
<:
0)
::I
C"
.~.~ ~
~:5 .5
.5 "'C
'0 = Q)
~~~
(.)~~
~~(1)
.- -- >
oCIJ:;
0. '0 ,g
e c _
Q)m~
:2 gJ .~
0) 0 0)
= at U)
>. Q.) .~
.o2c
U.- ~
0):2_
"~ >. (1)
E c E
~ 0 0
..!-U)
~ lU'C<i .
enu^~
'" 0) ~.-
l/l:50C:
0) 01 0)
:2-&Q)~
5 6 ~ -(jj
E.2 (J) lij
E::::c'::'
8ro:5ro
c:U) "5
.- c en CJ)
0) -- -e 0)
:n 8.. :J I.-
~ >..g g
~ lij l/l 11
'" E g'v
0) .-.-
.~ .s ~ ~
c:fl:go
(1).- c CJ)
(J) C: .- g
~Q)>.m
encn;u
ffi -- ~.~
.::. .~ E:5
o~-;c
c"E5cn
~~ii]
It= g~ :J
'w .t: ~ ~
:Q ...: u Q.)
o~u:tt
m &~~
.!1l 2! ,!;; :5
(fi1l"5-g2.0 ,g'"
E Ui - '0
::IQifl<:
~ ]! -~ 8
:c 0)0)
~~!E~
QJ __ Q) ro
iii 0 :l E
...J Q) 0"_
Q) c: ~ en
uo--c:
-~ l/l 11 ,Q
QJmN(U
~ ~ 'B~
"w (/) 0 QJ
c: ~ CJ)U
~ 0.2 u
j-~rllij
111
QI
...
<(
s::
111
;!::
'0
a.
o
...
..
QI
:!:
III
QI
E
o
s::
"i
I-
QI
..s::
..
s::
s::
00
N;N
1110
;!::ON
.Q 0
~<(::
W'OO
QlN
QI
Z
Cl
s::
III
::;,
o
:I:
QI
:g
111
'0
...
~
<(
QI
:g
111
I-
~
111
E
E
::;,
en
..!!! 0) 0
..cl:",al~
;=OI'_"'ON
G)'E~.2Q)1
ZOo:;)Gl::
:a:J: Zo
<( N
..
Gl
0.
'0
Gl
....
o
~
.... ..
..c 0
~....
f/)O
- 01
alu.
'0
'0
<(
~
I:
:;)
l!!
o
....
o
01
U.
....
I:
Gl
E
....
tIl
~
'i5'
<(
'0
Gl
Gl
Z
0)
I:
tIl
~
o
J:
:!:: COIQ)
tIl 0
I: .-
~ ~
I-~
0)..
.= ..ll:
tIl 0
~ 0
o ....
J:f/)
~~
..c E
o .-
..., )(
o
a
....
"en ~ MQ)
I: Gl 0
~ f/) 'S;
I-
0)
.= '::I.:
tIl 0
~ 0
o ....
J:f/)
,
)(
0-
.. ~
0. ._
..c E
o
...,
0'<1"
~~..c::
'" - Ol
c: '" =>
~ .~ e
....~:S
~~
Cl)16~~
~~gq;:
=>.0'5:0
'O~Q::)
. " '" 1:
o~.Q"t-
Cl(l](sO
t!..EQ)
!!! I/) g> l:2
,..0'5:'"
Q.Q. t!. ~
.0 Q) Q) 0
~ Ol '5: '5:
e~Q
tIl
..'0
~o
0I..c
E Gl
E ~
~ 0
f/)J:
..c'O
~ e
o Gl
.. ;=
ClGl
f/)
tIl
Gl
E
'0 I:
e E
~ E
Gl 0
f/)O
..c
di~
Z e
Cl
o
N
o
N
o
....
o
N
m
N
NNO.....oo
~~................N
1~~(f')~COll)1
..-
,...mo...,."'I:tO>N
'<t .....ooNoo'<t
..- ....
NN
o
N
N
OOOIDID~OOOMOOOOOOO
~ ~,.~ I
, ,
~OM~Nll)o)Oo)""'OO(f')M""OO""N
CX)C"")MVV I.....II,...ICX)
N N '<t
~O~~M~NO~~~~~~~O~
NN '
, ,
'<tMM'<t'<t'<tMMM'<tMMMMMMM
~~~~~*~~~~*~~~~~~
o~mIDIDONOOOIDo'<t.......-mMm
N C'\I"C""'""C""'"Nm..... "l:itN('l')(l').....1l)
.....'<t~.......-N'<tM~OID'<too
lX).....CX)~oCJ)~~CJ)............oQ)
..... ................ ...............
.....cof'-N
.....0)00
..- ..-
o ONO
ID O'<t~
,....vLO.......
'<iN
O~
000
om
...;~
OOIDO~OIDO'<t
Ll>1.O.......ON...,....,......m
...... N.............MLO ...,.
r-:
000
m.....
"!.M
..-
ONoooooomoooooo
OooOOOOO.....'<tOOOO'<tO
Noom~MOMooOM~ooN~
cDo":oiM M ":NNNr-: 0
,........ ..... C"')
<X) 0
M.....
..-M
000
o'<t~
OO_~_N
..-.....
..-
O~OOO
O.....OLl>N
m~MOOM
uj ~ c'\f
MO~O'<tOID
.....O.....ID~MO
LO(")...........NNO
~-=-NN.....: ('I)
..- N
~ x '"
5 -g 'e 1:
o Ollll 0 Cl
o > (j) 'w i:
I: e Ol '0 .- U5 J: 1Il
Btg~~~ ~=~5tOl~~lii
~O==Cl-O W.ll!oOlO(ija.lIllU
.- o...c 1Il l3 >- 0 Ol '0 ~ ,5 g. '0 a. ==
.c >.O~ L.. Q) C)~ c:-- L.. ::>~~ =
o ro .~ 0 0 L.. ~ ro ro ro ro Q) ro rn ~ ~
::aJaJOLL.ClJ:-1-1::!!i::!!iZOOf/)f/)
Ol ~
'c ..c
~'O
Ol 0
~~
I:
~
~o
.2g.
~~
'O::!!i
{lOl
:~ S
'0>-
~..c
g~
o c
..- ::;]
'<t E
WE
I: 0
1Il 0
;i-5
1Il
Ol
'"
l/l
Ol
~
g'.E
'~2
o..!J!
'0 ::;]
I: C 0
.2 ro 1Il
_1U 0
::::J ~ UJ
0- .0 1Il
o 0.==
a. ~ 0
Q)~1ii
:5 -
,-~Q)
o ..c
p,l-U)I-ri
(ij ~-,a
.c. coo
UJ :JON
_ E 0 ~
~ E.....- ~
plo:!-
_ 0 v, Ol
JQ c: en
Ol !!! 1Il 1Il
~..c-
S::-ca
0"''0
~ wU)UJ
== Ol..!!!.!'!
~E g'~
5 o'E ~
0"-1Il0
o .~ Q) __
~E~~
- ==.- E
c:_o__
.- U) 'to 0
==01: .g lii a.
.~c E
..cOlOlW
f/) 0> u_
Ol 1Il Ol 1Il
ro~=g
'" ==....-1
Ol 0 0 '"
~ = (/)-~
I: 1Il Ol 1Il
::;] 0 = Ol
8..QE::;
oo~m
~ .2 I: ~
c: ro:C U)
Q)'-~C:
Ol Ol == Ol
~ ..c ClO
Oll-I: .
..a 0:2: ~
-- ~ ::::=-=>
o.C:::"'Ol
f/) c;i
Ol Ol
ro .E- '0 Cl
Ow c:
~ .x ~.~
.... e 0>== c:
l3~cO.iii
0~~g~
. _ ==0",
'eft.
o
ID
==
o~
Q)"E
..c Ol
o E
0.
ro.Q
ClOl
,5 ~
Eo
ro C
~1Il
",-e
~:;)
,gc1l
Ol Cl
~ .5
o tIl
..c ::;]
Ol 0
E=
o 0
0_
I: I:
OJ''' Q)
== E
Ot
o ro
_0-
0> Ol
:nO
1Il .
'O(J)
~
g=i
1Il Ol
~:5
1Il>-
_..c
1Il'O
:5 Ol
'" I:
~ .~
~ Ol
g>>05
._ '0
<Il '"
i5 1Il
..c~
(ij::!!i
B~
'" Ol
:?;-E
'2 8
::;] I:
E-
E~
o E
o 1Il
1IlLL.
oai
~'O
1Il Ol
c::!!i
Ol 1Il
~ ~
Ol<X:
0.<(
Olf/)
~::!!i
~
I:
::;]
o
o
,
M
..-
ca
Q)
...
<
s::
ca
~
"0
c.
o
...
-
Q)
:IE
Ul
Q)
E
u
s::
";:
I-
Q)
.c:
-
s::
s::
o
;;
ca
u
M..2~
~<o
..c-oN
.c:Q)....
>< Q) ....
WZO
ClN
s::
Ul
:l
o
::I:
..!!!
..c
ca
-0
...
~
<
..!!!
..c
ca
I-
~
ca
E
E
:l
f/J
Z.
s::
:l
o
U
CD
:ael
~ca.!:gj
Q)'E~c
z~o:;)
<(:I:
..
CD
0.
"C
CD
....
o
~
.... ..
.co
~....
rno
- ca
-gu.
"C
"C
<(
en
:!::
c
:;)
...
...
o
NO
"CN
CDO
"CN
CD
CD
Z
.s~
CD c
~ ca
C~
el ,
.s.!:'ECD
CDUjO:a
~ .- lI: ca
c~<(
.s en
CD.c
~ 0
C'
l;-
c
~
o
o
en
"C
'0
..c::
CD
en
~
o
:I:
"C
CD
..
CD
~
CD
rn
l;-
c
~
o
o
lOlO'<t'<t<OO>..--
m(",)O~NL()m
"!. 1'-_ <0_ <q lO_ lO_ 1'-_
lO'<tI'-<O'<t<OlO
..--
ON<O<ONlOO
VNT"""O>OCO
,?",'lOlO",''f
N'<tN'<tlOO>O>
lOO>O>lOlOlOlO
ml,()mmNCX)~
, ..--
lOlO'<tMI'-NM
r--.m.......LOlO,...C'O
<X?<OlOg~N'f
.
"iii
5 ~
III '8. >. g ~
~~~~~15i 8
cllllllGllllo> ,
<(uc::cc:::w> I'-
.c~~(O~ffig~
...1:CX)VOO.......NCOLO
CD 0.. ........r-:-r-:-..tN"roM
Z N,....Nv""''''''C\1
Cl
lOO>MN'<tOO>
CJ)ID.....-U)('l")LOO
OMOI'-MNI'-N
S ~v-~T"""-aiN-ri
N~lO~;1;~<O~
LOt--NLOLOO......
ONlONI'-NlO
OlO<OlO<OO>O><O
T"" - - - - - - -
OO><OM<OlOMO>
NOMlOO>..--'<t1'-
,... "C""'"vN
c
o
c 1'1
cu '- co "g. ~ c:
.:::J::,Q)(5cCl)_:.E
oC:.>ccEo~
cllllllGllllo>
<(uc::cc:::w>
o
M
0_
..--
lO
'0
~
~
o
o
c:::
"C
C
III
"0
Qj
<;::
..c::
t
o
Z
Gl
~
el
5 ~
:.;:;0..
.!!! ;;=
~ CD
8-z
c..:
Gl (l)
..c:: >
- 0
'Oa
Gl::C
~~
lll_
-5i "g
cna
~u
~ c
.!!! III
(1)~
..c:: 0
-0.
Ee
;;=0;
>.:2
C Gl
:::J..c::
0-
0-
Gl 0
:5 g
L.:';:;
o U
~u
_ 1Il
co "i::
c.a
- Gl
Gl..c::
..c:: _
- ~
.5 -8
"0 c
(l) :::J
-go
U c
.5 '"
Q)~
Co '0
1Il ~
.Q! 6
c~
5:5
u ~
0,2
~ III
-
C III
(l)"C
(l) Gl
~"C
Gl2
.c u
:'!::: .5
g-o
(l) c
~ 0
III "0
ro~
..c:: III
~B
(l) (l)
:E.r:.
UI-
. .
lO
N
lO
,
..--
lO
N
..0
0>
'<t
lO
0)
I'-
'<t
lO
<0
<0
..--
N
M
I'-
N
o
M
..--
lO
lO
..--
<0
M
.....
.....
.
"iii
~
.2:
c
:::J
o
U
,
I'-
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by CitylTownship
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Anoka County
Andover 660 2,700 1.3% 1.6% 3% 8%
Anoka 124 600 0.2% 0.4% 43% 41%
Blaine* 1,267 5,300 2.5% 3.2% 27% 26%
Centerville 80 260 0.2% 0.2% 10% 13%
Circle Pines 13 50 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29%
Columbia Heights 231 600 0.5% 0.4% 42% 42%
Columbus Twp. 54 350 0.1% 0.2% 3% 15%
Coon Rapids 200 940 0.4% 0.6% 27% 27%
Fridley 116 300 0.2% 0.2% 36% 36%
Lexington 8 40 0.0% 0.0% 58% 56%
Lino Lakes 1,051 3,000 2.1% 1.8% 7% 18%
Ramsey 1,402 6,500 2.7% 3.9% 4% 12%
SI. Francis 73 1,200 0.1% 0.7% 35% 26%
Spring Lake Park. 19 50 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29%
Metro Area Total
51,030 166,547
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
.Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
..Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
...Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by City/Township
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Carver County
Carver 10 50 0.0% 0.0% 16% 16%
Chanhassen' 1,301 2,900 2.5% 1.7% 9% 17%
Chaska 789 2,500 1.5% 1.5% 30% 30%
Cologne 211 1,020 0.4% 0.6% 31% 26%
Dahlgren Twp. 985 4,310 1.9% 2.6% 9% 22%
Hamburg 6 60 0.0% 0.0% 55% 46%
Mayer 120 840 0.2% 0.5% 32% 23%
New Germany 4 70 0.0% 0.0% 70% 52%
Norwood Young America 117 1,000 0.2% 0.6% 52% 38%
Victoria 975 3,200 1.9% 1.9% 7% 17%
Waconia 160 792 0.3% 0.5% 23% 23%
Watertown 60 700 0.1% 0.4% 42% 33%
Metro Area Total
51,030 166,547
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
'Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
"Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
"'Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by City/Township
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Dakota County
Apple Valley 1,324 3,748 2.6% 2.3% 18% 20%
Bumsville 737 1,826 1.4% 1.1% 25% 26%
Eagan 530 1,500 1.0% 0.9% 22% 23%
Empire Twp. 100 700 0.2% 0.4% 8% 11%
Farmington 492 3,000 1.0% 1.8% 14% 15%
Hampton 4 30 0.0% 0.0% 22% 21%
Hastings" 241 2,200 0.5% 1.3% 32% 28%
Inver Grove Heights 714 2,457 1.4% 1.5% 27% 27%
Lakeville 2,288 8,300 4.5% 5.0% 13% 17%
Mendota 3 10 0.0% 0.0% 69% 65%
Mendota Heights 86 200 0.2% 0.1% 9% 10%
Rosemount 853 3,200 1.7% 1.9% 14% 18%
South St. Paul 104 300 0.2% 0.2% 37% 37%
Vermillion 6 40 0.0% 0.0% 14% 14%
West St. Paul 122 350 0.2% 0.2% 40% 40%
Metro Area Total
51,030
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
"Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
""Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
"""Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by City/Township
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Hennepin County
Bloomington 627 1,500 1.2% 0.9% 21% 22%
Brooklyn Center 163 400 0.3% 0.2% 30% 30%
Brooklyn Park 1,590 3,832 3.1% 2.3% 27% 29%
Champlin 179 700 0.4% 0.4% 12% 13%
Corcoran 816 2,700 1.6% 1.6% 13% 23%
Crystal 173 400 0.3% 0.2% 26% 27%
Dayton (pt.) 942 6,000 1.8% 3.6% 22% 17%
Deephaven 26 50 0.1% 0.0% 2% 4%
Eden Prairie 685 1,300 1.3% 0.8% 10% 12%
Edina 212 400 0.4% 0.2% 20% 21%
Excelsior 29 80 0.1% 0.0% 48% 47%
Golden Valley 104 200 0.2% 0.1% 18% 19%
Greenfield 25 132 0.0% 0.1% 12% 15%
Greenwood 5 10 0.0% 0.0% 5% 6%
Hassan Twp. 174 718 0.3% 0.4% 4% 24%
Hopkins 143 300 0.3% 0.2% 43% 43%
Independence 6 28 0.0% 0.0% 2% 4%
Long Lake 40 100 0.1% 0.1% 23% 25%
Lorello 3 10 0.0% 0.0% 29% 29%
Maple Grove 1,844 5,644 3.6% 3.4% 7% 12%
Maple Plain 6 28 0.0% 0.0% 36% 36%
Medicine Lake 4 10 0.0% 0.0% 15% 16%
Medina 384 1,122 0.8% 0.7% 5% 20%
Minneapolis 4,088 9,000 8.0% 5.4% 47% 47%
Minnetonka 421 811 0.8% 0.5% 12% 13%
Minnetonka Beach 1 2 0.0% 0.0% 3% 3%
Minnetrista 306 1,100 0.6% 0.7% 2% 13%
Mound 68 250 0.1% 0.2% 28% 28%
New Hope 213 500 0.4% 0.3% 31% 32%
Orono 311 694 0.6% 0.4% 4% 14%
Osseo 28 110 0.1% 0.1% 46% 44%
Plymouth 1,045 2,500 2.0% 1.5% 14% 16%
Richfield 765 1,500 1.5% 0.9% 29% 31%
Robbinsdale 222 500 0.4% 0.3% 29% 30%
Rogers 112 488 0.2% 0.3% 5% 7%
St. Anthony. 117 300 0.2% 0.2% 34% 34%
St. Louis Park 501 1,000 1.0% 0.6% 26% 27%
Shorewood 53 120 0.1% 0.1% 3% 5%
Spring Park 31 80 0.1% 0.0% 40% 40%
Tonka Bay 7 16 0.0% 0.0% 8% 9%
Wayzata 44 100 0.1% 0.1% 24% 25%
Woodland 1 2 0.0% 0.0% 1% 5%
Metro Area Total 51,030 166,547 100.0% 100.0% 28% 28%
.Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
..Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
...Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by CityfTownship
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Ramsey County
Arden Hills 288 800 0.6% 0.5% 18% 21%
Falcon Heights 21 50 0.0% 0.0% 36% 36%
Gem Lake 36 96 0.1% 0.1% 5% 27%
Lauderdale 35 90 0.1% 0.1% 51% 50%
Little Canada 155 400 0.3% 0.2% 45% 45%
Maplewood 333 900 0.7% 0.5% 26% 27%
Mounds View 81 250 0.2% 0.2% 40% 40%
New Brighton 156 400 0.3% 0.2% 31% 31%
North Oaks 51 147 0.1% 0.1% 0% 11%
North 51. Paul 115 317 0.2% 0.2% 26% 27%
Roseville 201 500 0.4% 0.3% 26% 26%
51. Paul 2,625 7,000 5.1% 4.2% 47% 46%
5horeview 107 340 0.2% 0.2% 16% 16%
Vadnais Heights 170 500 0.3% 0.3% 29% 29%
White Bear Twp. 65 200 0.1% 0.1% 9% 10%
White Bear Lake- 87 269 0.2% 0.2% 18% 18%
Metro Area Total
51,030 166,547
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
-Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
--Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
---Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by CityfTownship
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Scott County
Belle Plaine 202 1,800 0.4% 1.1% 27% 21%
Elko 235 1,380 0.5% 0.8% 9% 14%
Jordan 37 500 0.1% 0.3% 46% 40%
New Market 221 1,350 0.4% 0.8% 9% 13%
Prior Lake 2,138 5,500 4.2% 3.3% 14% 23%
Savage 1,621 3,800 3.2% 2.3% 8% 17%
Shakopee 2,105 4,500 4.1% 2.7% 18% 25%
Metro Area Total
51,030 166,547
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
'Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
"Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
'''Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
2011-2020 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need by CityfT ownship
Household Growth Share of Region's Percentage of
2011 - 2020 Growth Housing Stock
2011 - 2020** that is Affordable
Community New All New All
Affordable House- Affordable House- 2005 2020***
Unit Need holds Unit Need holds
Washington County
Bayport 29 160 0.1% 0.1% 20% 20%
Cottage Grove 1,112 4,400 2.2% 2.6% 9% 13%
Forest Lake 312 2,542 0.6% 1.5% 26% 23%
Grey Cloud Island 170 750 0.3% 0.5% 16% 21%
Hugo 877 4,000 1.7% 2.4% 10% 15%
Lake Elmo 528 1,985 1.0% 1.2% 22% 25%
Mahtomedi 41 150 0.1% 0.1% 10% 11%
Marine on SI. Croix 9 50 0.0% 0.0% 6% 8%
Newport 70 276 0.1% 0.2% 40% 38%
Oakdale 184 700 0.4% 0.4% 24% 24%
Oak Park Heights 24 125 0.0% 0.1% 37% 36%
SI. Paul Park 89 340 0.2% 0.2% 31% 30%
Stillwater 142 546 0.3% 0.3% 19% 19%
Willemie 2 10 0.0% 0.0% 53% 52%
Woodbury 2,202 7,494 4.3% 4.5% 9% 14%
Metro Area Total
51,030 166,547
100.0% 100.0%
28%
28%
"Data for cities that are split between two counties are combined.
"Cities outside the Metropolitan Council jurisdiction are not included.
"""Assumes a new affordable housing unit is added for each affordable unit needed between 2011 and 2020.
C
III
ii:
GI
III
:)
"CI
C
III
..I
l"i
c
o
:;:
U
GI
en
.lI:
o
o
.a
"CI
c
III
:c
lD
.E
c
C
III
ii:
iii
u
o
..I
'0
C
ltJ
.....'0
C CU
CU.....
E U
CU.!!!,
-0
CU L..
0)0.
C .
._ '0
lIJ C
:J ltJ
00)
.cc
to:.:;
CU.!!!
'OX
:J CU
UlIJ
C lIJ
.- CU
.....L..
lIJ'O
:J'O
E ltJ C
cm ltJ
III .c 0.
-.....
0. 0)
cu E.!:
> ltJ lIJ
lIJ ~:J
coo
CUL...c
.c 0. cu
cuc.c
a,ol-
E:i:l .
019 lIJ
Uc'O
cucucu
.cE~
.....CU
,- 0)
;> 0. C
;> E .-
ltJ lIJ
:J
>-co
IDltJ.c
=
o
~
o
10
=
oW
=
o
e
oW
4U
:l!!
~
en
I-
Z
w
o:E
z~
en::J
::Ja
Ow
J:~
III
..... .c
III .....
'0 ~
.!:! e
.c 0)
0.'0
~ cu
0) .....
o lIJ
E B
cu ~
'0 .E
C
o
'0
cu
lIJ
ltJ
.0
lIJ
'0
cu
cu
C
0)
ltJ C
0. lIJ
'u :J
C 0
:J .c
E 0)
C
cu :i:l
.c .!!!
..... X
:G cu
1: ID
.8 -=
C :i:i
cu C
> cu
C '0
.:>(.
U
o
.....
lIJ
0)
C
lIJ
:J
o
.c
0)
C
:i:l
lIJ
X
cu
.lIJ
>-
.....
. . .
C
o
'0
cu
lIJ
ltJ
.0
lIJ
'0
cu
cu
C
0)
C
lIJ
:J
o
.c
cu
L..
:J
.....
:J
......
lIJ
cu
.....
III
:J
ltJ
>
cu
.....
ltJ
.c
c.....
lIJ
>-cu
..... .-
.- .....
Iii 'Vi
o.c
'u cu
.- '0
C lIJ
:J :J
Eo
ltJ';:
III
lIJ>
.....
lIJ.....
'Vi ltJ
lIJ lIJ
ltJ cu
lIJ lIJ lIJ
'O:J'O
cu '0 cu
CUccu
CltJC
0)_ '0
C ltJ cu
0_._ ..&-I
lIJ.....lIJ
:J C ltJ
o cu U
.c:!:!cu
cullJCi
L...~~
.3......'0
:J 0 C
......xltJ
........ 0_..&-1
o E C
C ltJ ~
o L..
:i:jL.:J
1ll.E U
:J .....
- 0) cu
ltJccu
>.- E
cuc
cuC_
.cltJ=
I-o.~
a;
-
t1l
a.
E
(I)
-
01
C
'iij
:J
o
::c
L..' lIJ
CUIii C
.0.- 0
E c.~~
:JCUltJ.....
c:s! o.c
cu lIJ E 'n; .
.c~o-
..... uo.
......L..x
.gocucu
:JC'OL..
u.Q ltJ 2l
c: ~ e..&-lcu
.- '0
'Oc.o.o
:i8Ci.8
o _
.c'OltJ'O
VlCCCU
.:>(. ltJ 0 '0
U (I) 'en2
o 0) cu U
~ It1 T.~
0'1 ..;-..c Q)
cc:J.o
'Vi~~'O
:J >-cu:i
0_..... 0
.c -S .~ .c
cca,lIJc
cu 0 0 lIJ.Q.
t E a,.!!! ~
:J ...a.~"O
u(I)ltJlii5
cu2 cu.9- U
-S~li;.!:!0)
...... .c C c.
o ~'$: :JE 'Vi
..... :J :J .
ccuiL..o.
cucucucu.c
E.....L...cO)
VI ,:J..... C'
tI) In ..... 00_
CU(l)u.ct;'
U) Co 2 .., .-
~l;t;'~ ~
-
r::::.:c
e U
10;;,2
::s III
uo,
:!.5
Q) III
III ::s
III 0
o::(.r::::
'OE~
C 0 C
ltJ U ,
UCVI
.r:. ...5
0. C.-
ltJo.....
L..~19
0)._ U
o VI cu
EOo..
cu 0.. X
'OEcu
cOcu
UO)
O'OltJ
'Oc~
5:ltJ'O
ltJCUC
.0 0) ltJ
cu ltJ VI'
.o'OC
-0
'0 0._
-.c .....
:JcultJ
OllJ.....
.c:JU
VlO~
VI.cX
'OVlCU
:BltJ.o
c.cO
u.......
O):J
.!: VI 19
lIJ VI III
:JL..'O
o.8.....cu
.cltJCL..
......ucu:J
O=OE~
.&...I c >-~
~:~ ~~t
lIJEE~
lIJ 0 cu._
cu C .
VI 0'0'0
lIJuCC
<(CUltJltJ
0,
.:.:
III
::s
o
.r::::
III
:g~
III Q)
III Q)
o::(r::::
(I)
...
:J
-
.2
01
C
'iij
Ul
(I)
Ul
Ul ..
t1lUl
...'0
.em
(l)C
-01
..!!!c
0...-
E~
(1)0
I-.c
cu
.c
I-
0_ 2
NltJ
'00 :i:l.Q
CN c.....
ltJ '0 cu ~
I '0 i...
~ c'Vi cu
oltJCUVl
_.,....L..~
'O.....cuo..
'00'0
ltJN:JaJ'
ocuu
.....cucc
CU'- ltJ
'O;>oc
cu;>.....cu
w1iJU)..&-I
C .0 '0 .!:
cuO)CUltJ
-SccuE
._ C
ffl ~ 0.....' .
cu a.!!! C 0)
L...c ltJ cu C
'0 E'-
'Ocuc VI
ltJ.o.Q~5
'OltJfflcu.c
:i'E:Jiii'O
00~'O
.c::::.-cu>-
U)ftJ"'CL..:!::!
:GCUVl'O~
.- E cu C cu
U .- >
.- a.!:! ltJ._
ouo.....'O
o...!: 0.. ~ '0
'OcW'OE~
.....c
ltJlll ltJ 0..>-
L.. 0.....
.!!! cu .!!! cu 'Vi
~-gltJ>C
In E 0 CU CU
....., 0)'0 '0
~
1lI'tJ
or:::: III
o,llIe
.g.! e
::SUo,
....:::::0
Uo,-
.:.:a.a.
01(1)
c;.c
.--
.5 C
E~..o
CD (1)0.
-(I)N
(l)ZO
Cl N
.. OJ I
~.S
OUl......
O":J......
(1)00
n::::cN
""'(I)Ul
L.:_ (I)
ca.o:;::;
Et1lU
E'Ec;
:J 0.-
cnlt:~
<(I-
CD
M
~~
'0 .
CU.....
CU.....
cO
N
ltJO)
U C
o .-
- c-
'OC
C'en'
ltJ CU
Iii.o
C CU
0'0
.- ltJ
O)u
CU CU
L..'O
CU CU
.c.c
..........
'Oc
CU._
.~ 0'1'"
E.!: .
L.. VI
2l:J
CU O.
'0 .c .
VI CU
ltJ E
.co
U
'u C
C .-
:J CU
0.....
u~
C CU.
ltJ'O
..... o.
=E
o
0..'0
o C.
bltJ
CU ~
La
cu-;:
.co
1-......
,VI
'u
C
:J
o
U
cu
.c
.....
C
o
CU
.0
III
ltJ
>
ltJ
.!!!
r::::_
III III
~r::::~
O~Q)
Q"o,Q)1Il
eer::::r::::
a;:::: ~~
""" u_ U
-==r::::IIlQ)
Q) ::s ::S'O'
~8.g a
CD
Q
Q
N
~
III
::I
I:
III
.,
-
-
o
~
o
10
=
oW
=
o
e
oW
4U
:s
~
C
III
ii:
GI
III
:)
"CI
C
III
..I
l"i
c
o
:;:
U
GI
en
.lI:
o
o
.a
"CI
C
III
:c
lD
C
C
C
III
ii:
iii
u
o
..I
CU L..
cu.c<(o
.......... ......
ltJ C .
'O._cul;
o >- 0).-
E..... III VI
E .- CU C
lIJ L.. CU
OCU'O
uCUltJ
u'O_'O
ltJ 'O.~ ~
ocuco
.....~cu=
>-0'0 ltJ
.., - 0-
0_- U')......,
UltJCUVl
1'O..,l...CU
0.. VI..... s:
ltJCUCUO
U~C-
CU 0 CU III
.c -
.....CU.cVl
VI.c.....ltJ
QJ ......, >-:::
ro 0).0 e
-CCUCU
:J ':;" 0) N
U - C.
-0.
ltJ ._ ltJ CU
U~L.U)
._ :J >- :J
uE~"'"
C lIJO"';
:J>-Ccc
o.ocu'Ocu
u.c'O-E
c..... cu5 0..
19S:~.c.Q
=e VlCU
o O)'OC >- >
0.. .....CU
O-ltJ='O
L...~- ltJ
.., """'"'0 C. "'C
~ ~ CUu ~
~'OC.-CU
CU .- C C ;>
VI ltJ :J ;>
.c CU- E CU
I-L..o.. VI
.....0
~.....
E :(J
c:~
ltJ VI
-c>-
o..cu~
CU'OIii
VlCUo.
:J ..... 'u
~ ltJ._
~ .- C
Ca.:J
.!!!eE
CU 0.. CU
'5 o...c
ltJ.....
V)........., 1-
t: ltJ 0
.!2..,"-
Q..C'O
CU CU
EEt;
.l!! 0.. ltJ
au
~- cu
.....CUL..
11l > 0
VlCU......
- 'O.c
C .....
.Q Iii ~
O):i:l 0
CUCL..
L..cuO)
cu'O CU
.c 'Vi .c
.....CU.....
o L.. cu
.....CU.....
E.....ltJ
ltJ'O
L..L..O
.Et;E
C C E
00
u E 8
OCUu
l-'OltJ
Q)-
U.!
r::::-
1\1 r::::
e~
,E1Il-
r:::: e i
o 01 ~
U r:::: 10;
lD'- Q,
to;;l:!..E
::s 1\1 Q)
III 01 ~
I~ II) Q)
...to;;'tJ
.....
... cu
GI C
l3 C L.. cu
\.J .. cu U
to;; GlOo..c
5cC......llE
l31l1~5.coL..
ct: L...-:i:l:J......
.....ECCCUC
cu :J cu cu 0
.....CGlcL..U
3::1ll III .., ._.c VI
- WI' ......,~
o....CU......u
'Oo.c.cOltJ
....,...u _
~Vlt;.cl;lIJ
..;Ie.!!! 1lI.!!!'Vi:B
l..:~GI.oCL..
OIii-IllCUltJ
~ 0.........'0.....
cu'-IlI:(J-c
E'!:!'" .~ cu
m30.8cE
ttE>Vlcuo..
..... "'=:s!0
t:cu'iii~Vlcu:>.
cu.!:: C..... cuL.. >cu U
~:JGlltJ =
I;;: 0'''C.c cu'O 0
g. cu ..... 0)'0 0..-
-L..iiic~cu=
Q) t:.- III cu li; u
~..!!!1:a.>~3
QQ.:GI<(ltJcuo
_:>""C EVlU
ltl;g'iiiai:JEc
~oGl"E ltJ
._Q.....u._~~
lJl........IlIEuo
~t:GI-EltJo..
-CUCIlI -0
cEGI:WIll.~b
f'1cumCcuccu
~ ~E~ iii.g::E:
cu t: GI"iii:C'-.c
.c~>Glu:(J~
1-<.IlI..ltJL..~
1:'
~
cu
E
~
LC
.....
t:
cu
E
~
Q)
:::.
cu
Q
-
III
t:
o
.~
Q)
ct:
C
f'1
C
l'\Icu
CU'O
.c:J
.....-
.cg
~.-
~.....
ltJ
......c
c.....
cu VI
t;cu
-ViE
c-
o ltJ
u .9-
cu.!:!
.oc
o :J
I-E
III
Q)
-=
..-.... c:
ii11l10
.s. ~ -=
u,&1lI
t:lDl:e!
::s....oo
~ 0, a. 'tJ
1O;r::::1Ili::
a.. r:::: 1..:
I~..E e 0
_1ll_U
.
.
c
o
:iJ
ltJ
1:::
o
0..
VI
C
ltJ
L..
.....
o
.....
VI
cu
VI
:J
'0
C
ltJ
VI
.:>(.
C
.
.....
ltJ
.c
.....
.....
c
cu
E
0..
o
cu
>
cu
'0
L..
.E
c
ltJ
0..
:2~
:J .-
or:
.ccu
VI VI
CD
,
CO)
CU
cu L..
uO
.- E
r:
cu cu'
'OVllIJ
C - :J
ltJ~'O:?
,CU c-
~I ~ ~
o.c 0
:s! .21 a:: .c
t.c.~ >-
8cE~
c5:oc
OCU.....CU
:pL.-o"?
ltJ o..cu.c
1::: ~ ~ 0)
o :J'-
a. 00'" UJ ..c
lJ)C.uL.
Co VI 0
ltJ.- CU.....
1....... ~ C
.....ltJ cu
L..t;cuE
o L..
=ltJo..
VI ltJ VI 0
.0 L.. ltJ-
:JL..CUCU
.cltJL..>
.....CUltJCU
lIJccu'O
~:g :(J.~
L.. o.c u
......- I- L..
L....... cu
ltJ ltJ . E
CUUllJ
c.Q.!!! E
VI >-~ 0
c= c U
oltJ:Jcu
:i:l'U 1::: VI
ltJ cu 0 C
U 0.. 0.. cu
o VI o..c
.....J cu 0._
CD
Cl
Cl
N
~
III
:::I
C
III
..,
C
III
ii:
GI
III
:)
"CI
C
III
..I
l"i
c
o
:;:
U
GI
II)
.lI:
o
o
.a
"CI
c
III
:c
lD
C
C
C
III
ii:
iii
u
o
..I
cu
:5 ~
cu
c.!!!. VI
oo<n ~
:u o.5!:! .... U')
Ill"'" U VI VI
.....-=CUCU
cBouu
CUVlo..CO
E-='O:ga.
cu '0 c.-
i5.c 1ll'E1ii .
EltJVlo>O)
.- VI Iii c e.!:
O)E 00 0.. VI
c 0)'- o.:J
'Vi ~ O)'~ ltJ,g
:J 0) C .- cu
oe'iii'O.c~
.co..:J'O.....cu
ltJ ,05:'Oc
VI.c c......
cu (5 VI '0 ltJ 0
-c s.... ..... C .....,
:J.....,.-ral!l1J
uc..... CO
cocOlcuU
._ucu'!:E'O
t;IiiEccuc
:J .- cu 0 L.. ltJ
E.!:!o..N'5cu
::::Ecuo-o..
co_'Ocu>-
COli) ..:!s.....&.J
-cu.8uccu
0.. -= .!: O).c
CU'- cu .-.....
"""lI)"",,-U')
.:::C:J~CU.c
VlCU ltJ'O.....
c'O=E ~
Q) 0- .........
.c.....~.!!!:(J.....
cultJ>-O'Ou
L.....c.....s.... ra
0......=.....00..
EE~5~E
o ltJ'u u c'-
U L..__'- cu
cuO)cltJ'OlIJ
.co:Ju=cu
I- a.E.9E~
-
-
o
~
o
10
=
oW
=
C)
e
oW
4U
:l!!
~
0,
.5 r::::
III 0
::s-_
0-
.r::::.l!!
IlIlii~
Q)el;;
'tsQ)e
.::! - 0,
g ~e
--- Q.
VI.!!! VI
cu.o .-
ti::ro:5
:i:l'Oc
c Ci.-
cu......~
'O......~
.- III cu
>-...... '0
.....o:J
.;;; CU
0..0.5
.u :c;
.- u VI
C :J C
:JL..o
Et;:i:l
cuco..
.c80
..... 0)
,cu c
E ro 'Vi
ltJ ~ :J
L..= 0
O)U.c
o ltJ
L........-
o..oB
c.....O
0'0 - lIJ
:ucu'OltJ
ltJ '0 C VI
.....cltJE
ccuo..
cu.....xltJ
EccuL..
._ 0)
cu VI 0 0
_..........L..
o..L..Vlo..
E.E:J.c
._~..c u
0) cu ..... :J
c...... '0 lIJ
'Vi 0 C cu
:J cu ltJ L..
o 0) ltJ
.ccgc
II ~.Ui.Q
.- cu :J t
c.c 0 cu
t-t.....J::tn
'0
C
ltJ
.....
C
cu
E
0..
o
cu
>
cu
'0
.c
0)
:J
o
L..
.c
.....
cu
u
C
ltJ
.....
lIJ
'iij VI
VIE
ltJltJ
O)L..
.!: g
VlL..
:Jo..
Oc
.co
cu:u
.0 III
ltJr:
'Ocu
L..lIJ
~~
ltJo..
.
.c
0)
:J
e
.c
.....
VI
E
ltJ
L..
0)
e>-
c.~
L..
cu 0
~'5
III :J
t;ltJ
"in ~
VlCU
ltJ E
0)0..
.!: 0
~Qj
o >
.c.g
'OCU
c L..
ltJ'O
..... C VI
C ltJ ltJ
CUO)
E c .c
CU'- u
> VI :J
o:J VI
L.. 0
o...c
E-
.- B
cu 0
E-
o cu
.c'5
.....
c;
cu
E
cu
L..
u
.!:
x
III
.....
L..
o
0)
C
'0
C
o
.0
,
.....
c
cu
E
cu
.....
III
.0
ltJ
X
ltJ
.....
VI'
00)
o c
..... .-
u
IiiC
u ltJ
VI C
ti::ii::
. .
0)
c cu
:c; .....
ltJ ltJ
~ ...,
'u 'u
~ ~
..... >-
ltJ ltJ
'0 g E
cu.-
E ~
.- 0
ltJ.c
c cu
a-
.- u
.....>-
.!!!u
:J cu
O)~
cu-
L..'O
cu C
VI ltJ
:J cu
-g:c
.!!!~
L..
'00
c::::
ltJ ltJ
VI......
o 0
bc
cO
0:U
u u
-2
ltJ.....
'u lIJ
.- C
::::0
au
. .
=
M
.....
ltJ
.c
.....
VI
cu
E
VI
c
cu
'0
.....
ltJ
.....>-
c~
cu=
E~
0.. '0
o L..
-0
cu::::
1;; III
'00)
L.. C
o .-
......VI
:J
'00
c.c
ltJ L..
cu2l
'OltJ
:J ~
0) 0)
CD
CI
CI
N
~
III
:s
c
III
..,
@)
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Emergency PlanlNational Incident Management System Update
DATE: February 28, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The storm activity in September of 2005 brought to front and center the use of the City's
Emergency Operations Plan and the need to comply with the requirements of the National
Incident Management System (NIMS).
DISCUSSION
The Fire Chief will be at the meeting to provide an update to the Council and describe the
requirements to comply with NIMS. Attached are various documents that will show the first
draft of the City's submittal to Anoka County as part of Anoka County's Emergency
Managements Hazard Mitigation Plan (attached). Based on the information included in the plan
you will see that a significant amount of research was put into the completion of the draft. Also
attached are the various check lists that were utilized to assist in the research process.
To date the City of Andover is in compliance with the NIMS requirements and staff is committed
to stay in compliance. The entire Management Team has taken and passed the IS-700 (attached),
the resolutions identified in the check lists were approved by the Council in November of 2005
and the City Staff are in the process of updating the City's Emergency Operations Plan
(attached).
ACTION REOUESTED
The Council is requested to receive a presentation from the Fire Chief and Administrator.
\...--
Hazard Mitigation Plan Checklist
NIMS Checklist
NIMS IS-700
City of Andover / Anoka County Hazard Mitigation Plan (less City Code)
City of Andover Emergency Operations Plan
Anoka County Emergency Management
Updates Meeting
(Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.)
Hazard Mitigation Plan CHECKLIST
1:1 Identify a Community Representative who will be responsible for data gathering on behalf of
your community.
1:1 As soon as possible the Community Representative should review the checklist of necessary
data and begin determining how to obtain each data item.
1:1 In one week, an Anoka County Emergency Management representative will contact you to
discuss the data gathering process and answer questions.
1:1 Target completion dates:
o Bv Auqust 5, 2005, complete jurisdiction community description (Task 1), jurisdiction
demographics and age characteristics description (Task 2), and jurisdictional economics
description (Task 3).
o Bv Auqust 12, 2005, complete the 11 hazard templates (Task 4), and the 11 hazard
incident descriptions (Task 5).
o Bv Auqust 19. 2005, complete the critical facilities template (Task 6).
o Bv Auqust 26, 2005, complete the community land use and development template
(Task 7).
o Bv September 2.2005, complete the three jurisdiction capabilities templates (Task 8).
o Bv September 16, 2005, complete the mitigation goals/objectives/actions templates
(Task 9).
1:1 Anoka County Emergency Management will work with consultant to complete the draft Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
1:1 A copy of the draft plan will be sent to each community representative for review and approval
before submitting the draft plan to FEMA.
1:1 FEMA returns accepted plan to Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management
for state approval or returns plan to county for corrections.
1:1 When approved by FEMA, City Council, Town Board and County Board will need to adopt final
approved plan.
Complete checklist and provide all the data needed (in electronic format) to Kelli Rogers with Anoka
County Emergency Management at KeIlLRoqers@co.anoka.mn.us
7/27/2005
Hazard Mitigation Plan Checklist.doc
Anoka County Emergency Management
Updates Meeting
(Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.)
NIMS CHECK LIST
o NIMS Requirements
o MUST PASS RESOLUTION Adopting the National Incident Management System by December
31, 2005.
o Mail a copy of the resolution to Anoka County Emergency Management by December 31, 2005.
We will submit to the state.
o IS 700 MUST be taken by the Emergency Manager or designee. Strongly recommend that
emergency response department leaders (Le. Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director)
also take the course and determine who else within your jurisdiction would benefit from this
class.
· Course is offered at htlo:lltraininq.fema.qov/EMIWebIlS/is700.aso
· Only need to take final exam on line. Go to above website for the following:
o Printable version ofIS-700 (Self-Studv Guide) - PDF
o Download Final Exam Questions - PDF
o If your iurisdiction EVER INTENDS TO APPLY at the community level for a Homeland Security
qrant. each iurisdiction MUST COMPLETE NIMCAST (NIMS Capability Assessment Support
Tool) at www.fema.qov/nimcast.This is a web-based self-assessment system that is used to
evaluate incident response and management capabilities for each jurisdiction.
· Each jurisdiction that receives any grant monies or plans to apply for any federal grants
in the future (Le. EMPG, Fire Grants, DOJ, CEDAP, Law Enforcement competitive
grants, etc) are required to complete this assessment.
· Need to request a password from HSEM prior to completing assessment. Complete the
Registration for Authorized NIMCAST Account. (Form in handouts) Fax the request form
to the state for approval, login and password.
· Advise Anoka County Emergency Management of your decision as to whether your
community decides to complete NIMCAST.
o Incorporate NIMS into existing training and exercise programs.
o Incorporate NIMS principles, policies and terminology into Emergency Operations Plans.
o Institutionalizing the use of the ICS across all disciplines and agencies within your jurisdiction by
updating plans and procedures with the NIMS concepts and terminology.
o NIMS Recommendation
o Pass Resolution Promoting Intrastate Mutual-Aid Agreements.
· Should be adopted no later than December 31, 2006.
. Prefer this be completed with the NIMS adoption and mail the resolution along with the
NfMS required resolution to Anoka County Emergency Management by December 31,
2005. We will get copies to the state.
o IS 800 - National Response Plan (NRP), an introduction virtual course.
. Strongly recommend each jurisdiction Emergency Manager and emergency response
department leaders (Le.: Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director) take the course.
· Course is offered online only at htlp:lltraininq.fema.qovIIEMIWebIlS/IS800.ASP
· Interactive Web-based Course -NETC Virtual Campus
All documents are included on the provided CD,
in formats that can be modified and printed.
7/27/2005 NIMS CHECKLIST. doc