Laserfiche WebLink
Fiqure B-4. Share of Reqional Need in Each Band <br />51 to <br />80% of <br />AMI <br />25.2% <br />31 to <br />50% of <br />AMI <br />24.9% <br />At or <br />below <br />30% of <br />AM I <br />49.9% <br />Applying these regional shares to each community's adjusted allocation does not reflect the diversity <br />within communities' existing housing stock. For example, one community might have a higher -than - <br />average share of housing in the 51-80% band and lower -than -average shares of housing in the other <br />two bands. To expand housing options and choice, we reduce this community's allocation in the 51- <br />80% band and increase its allocation in the other two bands. <br />The method for Part 3 is diagrammed below in Figure B-5. We start with the regional shares of the <br />Need, adiusting them as outlined in the previous paragraph. Those adiustments are developed in Step <br />1, where we compare each community's shares of affordable units in each band to the average shares <br />for all sewered communities. In Step 2, we combine those adiustments with the "equal share" factors, <br />resulting in each community's share of its allocation that goes to each band. Finally, in Step 3, we apply <br />those shares to the total allocation to calculate the number of units in each band. <br />Note that Part 3 does not change the overall allocation for communities developed in Part 2. Rather, we <br />are simply assigning different shares of each community's allocation to different bands. Accordingly, we <br />are no longer examining differences across communities in the overall level of affordable housing, but <br />differences in affordability within each community's set of affordable units. <br />Page - 24 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL <br />