Community Assistantship Program A Housing Inventory of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota Prepared in partnership with Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Pequot Lakes Prepared by Adrienne Hannert Research Assistant University of Minnesota May, 2007 CAP Report 110 May 2007 CAP is a cross-college, cross-campus University of Minnesota initiative coordinated by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. Funds for this project were generously provided by the Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Pequot Lakes and CURA. This is a publication of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), an all-University applied research and technology center at the University of Minnesota that connects faculty and students with community organizations and public institutions working on significant public policy issues in Minnesota. The content of this report is the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by CAP, CURA or the University of Minnesota. © 2007 by The Regents of the University of Minnesota. This publication may be reproduced in its entirety (except photographs or other materials reprinted here with permission from other sources) in print or electronic form, for noncommercial educational and nonprofit use only, provided that two copies of the resulting publication are sent to the CURA editor at the address below and that the following acknowledgment is included: "Reprinted with permission of the University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA)." For information regarding commercial reprints or reproduction of portions of this publication, contact the CURA editor at the address below. This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) University of Minnesota 330 HHH Center 301--19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-1551 Fax: (612) 626-0273 E-mail: cura@umn.edu Web site: http://www.cura.umn.edu The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. A Housing Inventory of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota FALL 2006 Pequot Lakes HRA Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 2 This project was supported by the Community Assistantship Program (CAP), a program of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the University of Minnesota, CURA, or CAP. Report by Adrienne Hannert, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. Fall 2006. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 3 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary................................................................................4 II. Purpose...................................................................................4 III. Process……………………………………………………………….6 IV. Results.....................................................................................10 V. Recommendations……………………..………………………….12 VI. Useful Links ………………………………..……………………....14 VII. Appendices...............................................................................14 Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 4 A Housing Inventory of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota- Fall 2006 I. Executive Summary The purpose of the 2006 Pequot Lakes Housing Inventory was to create a detailed inventory of the existing housing stock in the urban area of Pequot Lakes. Information on the town’s housing was acquired through a comprehensive windshield survey assessing the exterior conditions of the homes within approximately one square mile surrounding the Pequot Lakes downtown area; accessing town and county property records; and a survey of homeowners and renters of homes in Pequot Lakes’ urban area. The final product of the housing inventory is a comprehensive database of the housing stock which will be used by the Pequot Lakes HRA to build future housing programs and to create a long-term housing plan for the town. II. Purpose Background Pequot Lakes is playing a vital role in contributing to the fifth fastest growing region in Minnesota (CGI Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan). Between 1970 and 1990, the area comprising present day Pequot Lakes approximately doubled in size; from 1990 through 2000, Pequot Lakes grew by 17 percent (Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan, CGI 2003). Growth in the community is attributed to three main factors: (1) advances in transportation and technology; (2) the growth of the tourism industry; and (3) changing demographics of the area (CGI Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan). Comprehensive Plan The City of Pequot Lakes amicably annexed Sibley Township in 2002, and the two jurisdictions have since formed a Comprehensive Plan to address future growth in the area. The Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August of 2004 by the City of Pequot Lakes (CGI). Proposed implementation strategies for meeting Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 5 the Comprehensive Plan’s goals had direct effects on the housing stock of Pequot Lakes: updating the land use ordinances preserving natural resources and vegetation, as well as the creation of a rural/urban transition zone and the importance of identifying and prioritizing capital improvement projects. (CGI Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan). Housing Plan Pequot Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan states that the intent of the Housing Plan of Pequot Lakes is to “create a housing environment that accommodates people in all stages of the life cycle, and provides quality housing for people and families at all income levels.” The Comprehensive Plan also addresses the housing stock of 2003, specifically concluding that the housing stock provided plenty of rental housing opportunities and senior housing options; however, the housing demand of an increasingly dense population comprising of a growing active senior population and an increasing younger working family population needed to be addressed. Though in 2000, affordability and availability of rental housing options was not statistically a problem for Pequot Lakes, the availability of high- quality, affordable housing for families of more than 2 or 3 people was difficult to find (Housing, Comp Plan, CGI). In the Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan several policies were proposed to address housing in Pequot Lakes: (1) “Expand high-density housing options close to downtown and in suitable areas of the rural/urban transition zone”; (2) “Provide a balanced mix of life-cycle housing options for the local workforce”; (3) “Provide desired amenities with medium- and high-density housing for future seniors”; (4) “Seek to eliminate substandard housing to increase property values and provide for safe living environments”. These policies will be used in guiding the creation of a long-term housing plan for Pequot Lakes. Highway 371 Another factor that effects the future planning of Pequot Lakes is the potential realigning of Highway 371. This main artery through the Central Lakes Region is set to expand to a four-lane highway cutting through the downtown of Pequot Lakes- much planning and designing is in progress to take advantage of the increased traffic that this expansion will bring, rather than lose business from the faster moving traffic. (Pequot Lakes Downtown Plan, CGI - Updated 10/06) Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 6 Housing Inventory The purpose of the Pequot Lakes Housing Inventory was to produce a comprehensive housing inventory of the current stock of Pequot Lakes’ urban area in the context of the City’s new zoning ordinances and comprehensive plan. The primary use of the information collected was for the City and the Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Pequot Lakes to have a clear understanding of Pequot Lakes’ housing stock and identify locations for potential redevelopment. Additionally, the information was used to gauge the renter’s and homeowner’s perception of the quality of their homes and the interest of homeowner incentive funds for rehab. The information and recommendations provided in the Housing Inventory will be used by Pequot Lakes in developing their Long-term Housing Plan. Information on the town’s housing stock was acquired through a comprehensive windshield survey assessing the exterior conditions of the housing within approximately one square mile surrounding the Pequot Lakes downtown area; accessing town and county records; and a survey of homeowners and renters of homes in Pequot Lakes’ urban area. III. Process Before beginning the windshield survey of Pequot Lakes it was important to gain background knowledge of the residential history of Pequot Lakes: the role of the HRA, recent projects in the City, planning processes and the reaction of residents’ toward these processes. Housing Inventory Boundaries -2006 Source: Community Growth Institute. City of Pequot Lakes Zoning Map. 2007. http://www.communitygrowth.com/client_files/documents/ PL//PL_map_zoning.pdf Getting Started I first met with Sharon Thurlow of the Pequot Lakes HRA in September 2006 to discuss the City’s desired housing survey. On this first visit, I was given a map of the area of Pequot Lakes, taken on a driving tour of the area to be surveyed and given a brief history of Pequot Lakes. During this first visit, Thurlow and I discussed the planning process Pequot Lakes was involved in with the assistance of the Community Growth Institute (CGI) in Baxter, MN and the work that had already been completed prior to the windshield survey that would be helpful to my tasks: Brainerd, MN had completed a housing survey in the early Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 7 1990s from which Thurlow had a prototype survey. Also, in 1994, the HRA had conducted a mailed housing study of residents. We first met with Dawn Bittner, the Zoning Administrator of Pequot Lakes, to discuss her thoughts on the windshield survey and learn of the resources the City offices would be able to provide. Bittner assisted us with defining the border of the survey and suggesting elements of the housing stock to pay attention to. I was also welcomed to access the property records at city hall; however, we soon found out that this portion of the project had already been accomplished. Community Growth Institute Following our meeting with Bittner, Sharon and I met with Chuck Marohn, President of the Community Growth Institute. Marohn explained that CGI had completed a large part of the work toward the City’s desired end result - they had entered the City and Crow Wing County property information and building and zoning permit information electronically into a database file and were very easily able to give me the database files on a CD. Recent developments such as the adoption of Pequot Lakes Comprehensive and Downtown Plans were explained by Marohn and Thurlow and copies of the reports were given to me. The creation of two new zoning classifications: Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) and Urban Residential (UR) and their implications on the community were explained. This new classification allows for commercial development in what were traditionally residentially zoned areas, giving more flexibility in zoning and creating the opportunity for better investments. The new zoning code also allows for higher density building which will contribute to more pedestrian-friendly development - it is the hope this higher density will promote a residential feel in the downtown area and local investment in business, which would lessen the effects felt during “off-season”. This was important information to learn as many of the properties I would be surveying had recently undergone zoning changes to one of these two zoning classifications. (See Map 1 in Appendix F for the zoning map of downtown Pequot Lakes.) Marohn also shared his insight into the process of conducting a windshield survey and gave several thoughts on resources to review when creating the survey, elements to consider and the type of properties to focus on while conducting the survey. Marohn and Sharon talked of the role of the City in the redevelopment of properties and the nature of growth and rehab of properties. Both Marohn and Thurlow agreed on the importance of incentives such as city, state and federal funds for homeowners to improve properties rather Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 8 than spending HRA money to rehab or redevelop lots. The presence of very dilapidated homes was also discussed - Marohn and Thurlow explained that as homeowners of homes that only needed smaller improvements used incentives to improve their property conditions, values would increase and these homes in very poor shape would be taken care of by the market - private developers would purchase the land for redevelopment. Windshield Survey After this first visit to Pequot Lakes, I met with Lyn Bruin, faculty advisor to this project and professor in the University of Minnesota’s Housing Studies department. Bruin provided several manuals on rural community development which included sample windshield surveys. The most helpful windshield surveys were from Iowa State University and the University of Illinois. After looking at several of these rural community development manuals I began to create a prototype of a windshield survey that I would use to conduct the Pequot Lakes windshield survey (Appendix A). The windshield survey was used as follows: Elements of each home were marked “n/a” if the home did not have the element (except in the case of gutters) – this was most common in the categories of “chimneys”, “porches” and “other buildings”. Many homes were surveyed that did not have gutters, unlike a lack of chimney or porch, the lack of gutters was surveyed as a lack of an element hurting the quality of the home – thus homes without gutters were given a “1” in this category, a “3” if they had a few gutters, and a “5” if all gutters and downspouts were present and pointing away from the foundation of the home. The “sidewalk” category was eliminated from the survey after the windshield survey was begun because of the lack of sidewalks in the town of Pequot Lakes and the quality of walks to the front door of homes was difficult to survey from a car. The “off-street parking” category was ranked as follows: the home received a “5” if the home had a well-paved driveway and a garage in good condition. If the home had a garage in good condition, but no paved driveway or if it had a well-paved driveway but no garage it received a “4”, if there was no off-street parking or cars were visibly parked on the grass a “1” was given for that category, “2”s and “3”s were given in the category based on the conditions of the drives or garages. The “yard” category was ranked by the appearance of the lawn, landscaping and was also influenced by the “trash & garbage” and “off-street parking” category - if there was garbage or cars parked in the yard the property was given a lower score. The “yard” Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 9 category was difficult to rank in very shady parts of the City where grass was unable to be grown - in these cases usually a “4” or “5” was given to a home. Many times it was difficult to find the address of home being surveyed –several properties did not display an address or the address CGI had on file for the property was very different from the address posted on the home -maps created by the Community Growth Institute (CGI) were helpful in determining many of the addresses of these homes, Homeowner/ Resident Surveys After completing windshield surveys of approximately 280 properties the data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet (see Appendix D for the sample form) and scores given to each property’s elements were averaged to determined a one number “score” for each property. This method was flawed because of the “n/a” scores given to homes in some categories; however, the scores produced results that were usable for the purpose of the windshield survey. Properties scoring an average of three or below were identified and chosen as properties that would have surveys sent to the owners and/or residents of each property. Initially, less than 40 properties were identified through this method; however, a second drive through the city of Pequot Lakes identified approximately 80 more properties to be sent surveys. A sample survey sent to homeowners and residents can be found as Appendix B at the end of this document. CGI data obtained from City and County records were used to identify whether each property was homesteaded or non-homesteaded and the names of each homeowner- this was unexpectedly difficult as many residents of Pequot Lakes use post office boxes to receive their mail and the records from CGI did not indicate whether each property was homesteaded or not. Many surveys sent out were returned because of incorrect addresses. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 10 IV. Results Ultimately, 168 surveys were sent to homeowners and residents (70 to homesteaded properties, 49 to owners of non-homesteaded properties and 49 to residents of non- homesteaded properties). Fifty-six surveys were returned for a 33% response rate. Fifty percent (28 surveys out of 56 returned surveys) responded that “yes” they were interested in fix- up fund programs; 34% (19 out of 56) respondents were not interested; less than 1 percent (3) were maybe interested; and 6 respondents did not answer the question. Com par i son of Average Scores betw een Wi ndsh i el d Survey & Resi den t Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 1 2 3 4 5 n / a l ef t bl ank Average Score Gi ven Pe rc en ta ge o f Pr op er ti es w it h sc or e W i ndsh i el d Survey Score Hom eow ners' Responsed Median and average scores for each element of the windshield survey by the surveyor were calculated – the “gutter and downspout” category came in the lowest, averaging a 3, while the “garbage and trash” category averaged a 5. Most categories both averaged and had a median score of a “4”. Residents’ responses ranking their own homes were similar to rankings given by the windshield surveyor, responders seemed more critical of their homes than the surveyor had expected: “1” s and “2” s were frequently given to elements of homes. Respondents of the survey had lived in their homes for a wide range of time spans: from 1 month up to 59 years. People who had owned their homes from between 1 year and 15 years appeared to be the most interested in fix-up funds and also made up the largest response group: 28 respondents had lived in their homes from 1 -15 years – only two of these respondents said “no” they were not interested in fix-up funds and one of these respondents was an employee of the Pequot Lakes HRA and thus unable to receive funds; two respondents left the question blank (one indicated that they were a renter, the other Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 11 was in a rent-to-own situation); and the three “maybes” were received out of these 27 responses. Map 2 in Appendix F at the end of this report highlights the properties that were sent surveys, those that responses were received from, and whether the responses indicated if they were interested in fix-up funds. Twenty-one (21) respondents had owned their home for over 15 years, six of these respondents indicated that they were interested in fix-up funds, while the rest answered “no”. Of the three respondents who had owned their homes for less than one year, one respondent was interested in fix-up funds and none of the three respondents made any comments regarding part of their home that needed repair. Another interesting pattern observed from the data analysis was the similarity in responses of respondents living at/ owning properties in close proximity to one another: for example, six (6) of the seven (7) properties on Spruce Avenue responded “yes” or “maybe” to the “interested in funds” question; two properties in close proximity to one another on Heath both responded “not interested”. Three of the four properties on Brown responded “no” to the “interested in funds” question. "Year Bui l t" of Hom es i n Wi ndsh i el d Survey 42% 30% 14% 7% 7% Pre-1950 1950-1979 1980-19990 1991-2005 New construct i on "Year Bui l t" of Hom es w i th Returned Surveys 54% 22% 6% 4% 0% 14% Pre-1950 1950-1979 1980-1990 1991-2005 New construct i on ? Of the 56 surveys returned, only 13 respondents actually gave measurable answers to the question: “How long do you plan to live at/ own the [property]?” More common answers included: “?”, “indefinitely”, “unknown” and “forever”. Of the 13 measurable responses, the typical answer to the question regarding the length respondents planned on living in their home was between 1 and 10 years. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 12 The majority of the ages of the homes surveyed in Pequot Lakes were older than 1950, with homes dating from between 1950 and 1979 as the second most common age of the home. The homeowners and renter who returned their surveys lived primarily in homes built before 1950, no homes of in the “new construction” category were sent surveys. Specific analysis of the data can be found in Appendix C of this document. V. Recommendations When making recommendations for Pequot Lakes’ HRA and the future of the City’s housing stock it is important to keep in mind the important role the private market can play paired with small pools of incentive dollars such as city, state and federal funds for homeowners to improve properties, rather than spending larger amounts of City and HRA money on the rehab or redevelopment of lots. Thus, the three recommendations made consider the interest shown toward fix-up funds by survey respondents and the Pequot Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on the need for more life-cycle housing – focusing on homes for young, working families. 1. Fix-up Fund Program One third of respondents of the recent housing survey actively responded that “yes” they would be interested in a fix-up fund program if available – many specifying aspects of their home that need work or improvement. It is recommended that the HRA apply for such fund programs or make programs currently available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (http://www.mhfa.state.mn.us/homes/homes_improvement.htm) better known and accessible to homeowners in Pequot Lakes. Another option may be to seek out a local contractor, non-profit, church or community financial institutions as a partner to create an independent home improvement program tailored to Pequot Lakes’ specific demographic needs: such as increasing maximum income limits, assisting seniors in home repairs, or providing supplies or labor for less than market price. As discussed earlier, residents living in their homes for a length of time between one and 15 years seem more likely to be interested in fix-up fund programs - it could be assumed that there is a greater likelihood that these residents are younger households than those respondents who have owned their homes for longer than 15 years - the interest expressed in potential fix-up funds seems to indicate an younger population willing to invest in Pequot Lakes’ future - a wonderful asset for a community. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 13 2. Redevelopment Though the City’s priorities focus on the private rehab and redevelopment of properties in the downtown and near downtown Pequot Lakes’ area, the presence of very dilapidated homes is hard to and should not be ignored. Properties that do not seem to be “taken care of” by the market and pose health or safety risks need to be addressed by the City and HRA. Because many of the properties in these situations have recently undergone zoning classification changes as part of the city’s comprehensive plan, the potential redevelopment opportunities for these sites are even greater. HRA redevelopment is an especially important consideration as the housing market has slowed down greatly in the past year showing that it can not always be anticipated that the market will absorb all of the properties assumed it could. Homeowners may be hesitant to sell or work with the Housing Authority and in these cases it is important to go back to the need for an attractive fix-up fund program to create incentives for homeowners unwilling to make repairs on their homes without such incentives. Appendix E highlights several properties as suggested properties to either focus on as health and safety concerns or as redevelopment opportunities in the future. 3. Affordable Homeownership Programs for families Several of the goals of Pequot Lakes’ comprehensive plan focus on creating affordable homeownership opportunities for residents at all income levels within the next one to five years, the types of developments likely to be seen the soonest are slightly higher density affordable living options in the area in close proximity to downtown Pequot Lakes according to the Plan. As the HRA works with various partners on affordable homeownership deals, it is recommended that information on these opportunities and programs be made widely and easily available to Pequot Lakes’ residents and residents of surrounding towns. First-time homebuyer classes may also be something to consider bringing into the town if interest in affordable homeownership programs is gauged to be high in Pequot Lakes among first time homebuyers. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Pequot Lakes, MN Housing Inventory - 2006 _____________________________________________________________________ 14 VI. Links to Community Growth Institute Reference Materials „City of Pequot Lakes – Downtown Master Plan http://www.communitygrowth.com/client_files/documents/PL//PL_DTplan_text.pdf „ City of Pequot Lakes Comprehensive Plan http://www.communitygrowth.com/pequot_lakes/comprehensive_plan/ „ Official Zoning Map of Pequot Lakes (01/04/07) http://www.communitygrowth.com/client_files/documents/PL//PL_map_zoning.pdf „ City of Pequot Lakes Zoning Districts and District Provision Summary http://www.communitygrowth.com/client_files/documents//PL_ord_zoningsummary.pdf VII. Appendices A. Sample Windshield Survey B. Sample Resident Survey C. Data Analysis D. Housing Inventory database form E. Images F. Maps Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Appendix A Windshield Housing Survey – 2006 Address: _____________________________ Building Type: Building Material: _____________ … Single Family … Single Family Converted to Multi-Family … Duplex … 4-plex … Apartment (more than 6 units) … Mixed Use (business below) … Mobile Home/ Trailer … Other Number of Units: ______ …Unable to Determine Year Built: ___Pre 1950 __1950-1979 __1980-1990 ___ 1991-2005 ___new construction Ranking of Exterior Condition of Dwelling (1 to 5) ___ Roof (no missing shingles, etc. that might cause leaks) ___ Gutters and downspouts (present and positioned correctly) ___ Windows (storms and screens in place and in good condition) ___ Foundation (no cracks, or bowing, or other deterioration) ___ Porch, steps and handrails (no deteriorated or rotting) ___ Chimney (no missing bricks or mortar) ___ Exterior doors and steps (solid, even & sound) ___ Exterior walls (is paint or other material peeling, chipping or missing, etc.) ___ Sidewalk (not cracked or other tripping hazard) ___ Off-street parking (driveway present & the condition of the driveway) ___Condition of Other buildings on property ___Garbage & trash (containers are closed and trash is not excessively accumulating) ___Yard (grass mowed/ snow shoveled) Ranking System: 1 =dilapidated/ dangerous for inhabitants (for example roof is sagging, walls are leaning) 2= needs many major repairs, 3= needs major repair need to check on cost effectiveness 4= needs minor repair (paint peeling, cracked windows, etc.) 5= Good to excellent condition; appears to receive regular maintenance or new construction Appendix B Address: ______________________________________ Dear Pequot Lakes resident, The Pequot Lakes Housing Redevelopment Authority conducted an exterior housing survey this past month in order to gain a better idea of the condition of the town’s housing stock. The HRA is interested in finding out your interest level or need in using possible future funds: grants or low-interest loans, to more easily do home repairs. 1) Do you: RENT or OWN the property at the above address? (please circle one) If you rent, who is your landlord? ______________________ 2) How long have you lived at the above address?______________ How long do you plan to live at the above address? __________ If landlord: How long have you owned property at the above address?_______ How long do you plan to own the property at the above address?___ 3) How many people live at the above address (including yourself, if applicable)?_______ 4) To the best of your knowledge, in what year was your home built?______ 5) Please rate each element of your home from 1 to 5. ___ Roof ___ Gutters and downspouts 5 = brand new, needs no work 4 = adequate for now 3 = is sufficient, but could use some repair in the near future 2= needs major repair 1= needs to be replaced, can’t be fixed N/A= if your home does not have the element ___ Windows ___ Foundation ___ Porch ___ Chimney ___ Exterior doors & steps ___ Exterior walls ___ Sidewalk ___ Off-street parking ___Condition of Other buildings on property ___Yard 6) Do you have any comments on any portion of your home or structure? Problems, needed repairs, etc. _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ 7) In the future would you be interested in applying for funds from the HRA to work on your home? YES NO (please circle one) Please return this survey in the provided self-addressed, stamped envelope by December 13th, 2006. Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out this survey! Windshield Survey Item 1 2 3 4 5 n/a blank Roof 2 2 58 121 80 3 12 278 Gutters and downspouts 98 15 26 61 60 2 16 278 Windows 1 9 73 130 51 2 12 278 Foundation 3 2 35 158 39 2 39 278 Porch, steps and handrails 1 1 24 62 46 128 16 278 Chimney 1 4 28 33 40 152 20 278 Exterior doors and steps 1 3 56 127 72 2 17 278 Exterior walls 2 5 31 143 81 2 14 278 Off-street parking 2 14 47 70 128 3 14 278 Other buildings 2 5 29 75 61 87 19 278 Garbage & Trash 1 3 6 18 234 4 12 278 Yard 1 2 15 157 88 3 12 278 Average 1 2 30 175 55 2 13 278 Resident Survey Responses Item 1 2 3 4 5 n/a no response Roof 3 2 9 17 20 0 5 56 Gutters and downspouts 4 2 9 15 6 15 5 0 2 4 19 5 19 7 1 3 8 29 9 0 6 3 1 3 23 7 13 6 1 0 3 27 5 11 9 6 56 56 Windows 4 8 11 19 9 0 5 56 Foundation 1 5 10 30 4 1 5 56 Porch, steps and handrails 2 3 8 14 10 13 6 56 Chimney 56 Exterior doors and steps 1 2 11 29 8 0 5 56 Exterior walls 56 Sidewalk 56 Off-street parking 56 Other buildings 3 2 9 15 15 5 7 56 Yard 0 3 10 30 8 0 5 56 Average 0 2 11 33 5 0 5 56 Interested in fix-up funds? Yes 28 No 19 Maybe 3 Blank A p p e n d i x C Windshield Survey (percentage) Item 1 2 3 4 5 n/a blank Roof 1% 1% 21% 44% 29% 1% 4% 100% Gutters and downspouts 35% 5% 9% 22% 22% 1% 6% 100% Windows 0% 3% 26% 47% 18% 1% 4% 100% Foundation 1% 1% 13% 57% 14% 1% 14% 100% Porch, steps and handrails 0% 0% 9% 22% 17% 46% 6% 100% Chimney 0% 1% 10% 12% 14% 55% 7% 100% Exterior doors and steps 0% 1% 20% 46% 26% 1% 6% 100% Exterior walls 1% 2% 11% 51% 29% 1% 5% 100% Off-street parking 1% 5% 17% 25% 46% 1% 5% 100% Other buildings 1% A p p e n d i x C 2% 10% 27% 22% 31% 7% 100% Garbage & Trash 0% 1% 2% 6% 84% 1% 4% 100% Yard 0% 1% 5% 56% 32% 1% 4% 100% Average 0% 1% 11% 63% 20% 1% 5% 100% Resident Survey Responses (percentage) no Item 1 2 3 4 5 n/a response 5% 4% 16% 30% 36% 0% 9% 100%Roof Gutters and downspouts 7% 4% 16% 27% 11% 27% 9% 100% 7% 14% 20% 34% 16% 0% 9% 100%Windows 2% 9% 18% 54% 7% 2% 9% 100%Foundation Porch, steps and handrails 4% 5% 14% 25% 18% 23% 11% 100% 0% 4% 7% 34% 9% 34% 13% 100%Chimney Exterior doors and steps 2% 4% 20% 52% 14% 0% 9% 100% 2% 5% 14% 52% 16% 0% 11% 100% Exterior walls 5% 2% 5% 41% 13% 23% 11% 100%Sidewalk 2% 0% 5% 48% 9% 20% 16% 100%Off-street parking 5% 4% 16% 27% 27% 9% 13% 100%Other buildings 0% 5% 18% 54% 14% 0% 9% 100%Yard Average 0% 4% 20% 59% 9% 0% 9% 100% Windshield survey scores of the properties which were ranked by property owner and/ renter (percentage) Item 1 2 3 4 5 n/a left blank Roof 0% 2% 35% 49% 10% 0% 4% 100% Gutters and downspouts 53% 4% 6% 22% 10% 0% 6% 100% A p p e n d i x C Windows 0% 2% 45% 41% 8% 0% 4% 100% Foundation 0% 0% 22% 63% 4% 0% 12% 100% Porch, steps and handrails 0% 0% 18% 22% 8% 47% 6% 100% Chimney 0% 2% 18% 14% 2% 61% 4% 100% Exterior doors and steps 0% 2% 39% 41% 12% 0% 6% 100% Exterior walls 0% 4% 20% 55% 18% 0% 4% 100% Off-street parking 0% 8% 14% 43% 29% 2% 4% 100% Other buildings 0% 0% 20% 45% 10% 22% 4% 100% Yard 0% 0% 12% 65% 20% 0% 4% 100% Average 0% 0% 22% 71% 4% 0% 4% 100% FID Sent Survey? Bldg # Street Name Bldg Material Bldg Type Number of Units Year Built Roof Gutters and downspouts Windows Foundation Porch Appendix D a n hChimney Exterior doors Exterior walls Off-street parki Other buildings Garbage & tras Yard Average Appendix E A 3953 Ramsey B 4032 Brown C 4087 Grove D 4386 Oriole E 30523 Oak F 30675 Rae G 30716 or 30730 Pequot H 30737 or 30773 Gravdahl I 30776 Gravdahl J 30795 County Rd 112 K 30856 County Rd 112 L 30892 Heath M 30984 Gravdahl N 30123 Spruce O 31224 N. Washington P 31216 County Rd 112 31064 County Rd 112 Q R 31132 County Rd 112 S 31181 County Rd 112 T 4462 Oriole Appendix E C O N Q P S TD R B M L K J H I F G A E Appendix F Map 1 Map 2