Laserfiche WebLink
Review 2040 local comprehensive plan updates and subsequent amendments to verify that <br />each community is guiding an adequate supply of land to accommodate their share of the <br />region’s need for low- and moderate-income housing, i.e., the Allocation of Affordable Housing <br />Need. <br />Part III: Council Policies and Roles, page 81: <br />As mentioned previously, the Need and the Goal are frequently confused. Where the Need is a proxy <br />for demand for newadditional affordable housing that should be addressed in local comprehensive <br />plans, the Goal is a mechanism for participants of the Livable Communities Act to show their <br />commitment and effort to produce affordable and life-cycle housing. With their Goal expressing a desire <br />to expand housing choices, the LCA-participating communities are aided and rewarded by access to <br />the LCA funding discussed on page 84. The two measures are products of different legislation with <br />different purposes and requirements. One of the desired outcomes of this Housing Policy Plan is to <br />improve the understanding of the roles of these measures in the regional housing conversation. <br />Part III: Council Policies and Roles, pages 82-3: <br />Emerging from this Housing Policy Planwill beis a new set of scoring criteria the Council will create <br />use to develop local Scores annually. This methodology replaces the Guidelines for Housing <br />Performance developed in 2002 and updated in 2012. Jurisdictions vary widely in their fiscal, technical, <br />and human resource capacity, existing built environments, cost and availability of land, and existing <br />level of developer interest. The Housing Performance Scores should recognize these differences. For <br />the legitimacy of the Scores, all cities and townships should believe they have a real possibility of <br />achieving a highHousing Performance Score. Additionally, the Housing Performance Scores can serve <br />as a platform for the Council and cities to inventory programs and activities, and contemplate new <br />means of addressing local housing needs given available resources.Framework for developing new <br />Housing Performance Scores The goals of the revisions to the Housing Performance Scores areto: <br />Better recognize local variations in their fiscal, technical, and human resource capacity, existing <br />built environments, cost and availability of land, and existing level of developer interest. <br />Provide all cities and townshipsa real possibility of achieving high Housing Performance Scores <br />if they are active in providing affordable housing or related services. <br />Make the scoring process more transparent. <br />Minimize the administrative burden on cities by leveraging information from sources such as <br />applications to the Consolidated Request for Proposals and county housing investments. <br />The table on the following page compares the2002 (revised in 2012)and 2015 methodologies for the <br />Housing Performance Scores.The Council expects that these refinements to the Scores will lead to <br />both a better ability to evaluate local performance on expanding affordable housing and also a greater <br />opportunity to help cities connect tools, ideas, and resources with development opportunities, potential <br />partners, and a larger pool of funding and technical options. <br />Use the following broad categories for the Scores: <br />Tools available at the local level <br />o <br />Tools or resources used in the last five ten years <br />o <br />Number of affordable housing units or affordable housing opportunities created in the <br />o <br />last five ten years <br />Existing stock of affordable housing <br />o <br />Local participation in state, regional, or county housing programs, whether as an <br />o <br />administrator, lender, funding allocator, pass-through entity, or funding applicant <br />Page - 6|METROPOLITAN COUNCIL <br /> <br />