Laserfiche WebLink
Applications (whether funded or unfunded) submitted to the Consolidated Request for <br />o <br />Proposals (the “Super RFP”), county-issued RFPs, or other major competitive funding <br />processes <br />Align counts of existing affordable housing (including unsubsidized affordable housing) with the <br />30%, 31-50% and 51-80% of area median income levels defined in the Need. <br />Expand the list of scoring opportunities to reflect the full and evolving range of housing activities, <br />programs, and tools used by local jurisdictions, including new elements such as: <br />Strategies to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing <br />o <br />Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity efforts <br />o <br />Efforts to recruit landlords toaccept Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers <br />o <br />Foreclosure prevention, counseling, mitigation, and remediation <br />o <br />Energy, water, and other resource conservation <br />o <br />Use the mechanisms of the Affordable Housing Production Survey and Housing Performance <br />Score process to refer jurisdictions to best practice resources, technical toolkits, and funding <br />opportunities. <br />Evaluate the potential utility of using the housing element and implementation program <br />components of local comprehensive plans as an assessment component under the Scores. <br />Plan for the transition from the existing scoring system to the new Housing Performance Scores <br />developed under this plan. <br />Institutionalize local government review and comment on their preliminary Housing Performance <br />Scores and create a formal structure for local governments to provide the Council additional <br />information. <br />Table 7: Comparison of 2002Housing Performance Scores methodology with 2015Housing Performance <br />Scoresmethodology <br />2002 Methodology2015 Methodology <br />Up to 25 points for existing affordable <br />Up to 37 points for characteristics of the housing stock <br />existing housing stockUp to 25 points for local housing programs <br />Overall points <br />Up to 63 points for local initiatives to facilitate and policies <br />structure <br />affordable workforce housing development or Up to 50 points for new affordable housing <br />preservationconstruction or rehabilitation/preservation of <br />affordable housing <br />Adjustments to <br />Points available for new construction vs. <br />recognize local <br />Nonerehabilitation/preservation adjusted by <br />variation <br />Community Designation <br />Uses multiple thresholds to define affordable <br />housing: <br />Approach to <br />30% or less of AMI <br />Used a single threshold to define affordable <br />income <br />Between 31% and 50% AMI <br />housing (60% of AMIsince 2011) <br />thresholds <br />Between 51% and 80% AMI <br />Between 81% and 115% AMI for <br />homeownership <br />Provides morepoints for housing affordable <br />Income <br />Noneto lower income households, starting at <br />targeting <br />households earning 30%or lessof AMI <br />Page - 7|METROPOLITAN COUNCIL <br /> <br />