Laserfiche WebLink
residential programs in most cities in the <br />state. Cities want to be part of the solution, <br />and more than anything cities desire to be, <br />and should be, partners in serving the <br />policies of deinstitutionalization. Cities <br />have an interest in, and are in the best <br />position, to preserve a balance in residential <br />neighborhoods between residential programs <br />and all other uses. Because Minnesota cities <br />are committed to inclusion of all individuals, <br />it is in the best interest of the state, care <br />providers, and those individuals served, that <br />all parties include cities as partners before <br />opening a residential program to best plan <br />for community integration. <br />Response: Cities should maintain the <br />statutory authority to require agencies, as <br />well as licensed and registered providers <br />that operate residential programs, to <br />notify the city before properties are <br />operated. Cities should be provided with <br />the necessary contact information after a <br />residential program is licensed or <br />registered. Providers applying to operate <br />residential programs should be required <br />to contact the city to be informed of <br />applicable local regulations. Finally, <br />licensing or registering authorities must <br />be responsible for removing any residents <br />incapable of living in such an <br />environment, particularly if they become <br />a danger to themselves or others. <br />The Legislature should amend Minn. <br />Stat. § 245A.11, subd. 4, to allow for <br />appropriate non -concentration standards <br />for all types of cities to prevent clustering. <br />LE-13. Inclusionary Housing <br />Issue: Provisions in current state statute <br />(Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 11) allowing <br />cities to enter into development agreements <br />for the inclusion of a portion of the units in <br />the development to be affordable for low- or <br />moderate -income families have been a <br />source of conflict between cities and <br />housing developers. <br />Cities are concerned builders that view this <br />statute as a restriction on local authority to <br />adopt policies that promote availability of <br />housing affordable to those who are unable <br />to purchase or rent housing at price points <br />that the market alone provides. <br />Response: The Legislature should: <br />a) Strengthen and clarify cities' <br />authority to carry out policies that <br />offer developers a range of incentives <br />in return for including a designated <br />number of affordable units in their <br />projects. <br />b) Identify strategies to ensure long-term <br />affordability of rental and owner - <br />occupied housing produced as a result <br />of such policies and practices. <br />c) Focus state housing policy to support <br />for local assessment of housing needs <br />and direct additional state resources <br />and the full exercise of local authority <br />to increase development of affordable <br />rental units and access to entry-level, <br />owner -occupied housing. <br />d) Support voluntary measures to <br />encourage cities to adopt and carry <br />out land -use plans, activities, and <br />subdivision regulations aimed at <br />providing for construction and <br />marketing of housing where a portion <br />of all new units are affordable to <br />lower -income households. <br />LE-14. Community Land Trusts <br />Issue: The increasing price of land available <br />for housing development, particularly for <br />retaining affordability of housing for lower - <br />income households, is a concern throughout <br />the state. Creating more permanently <br />affordable, owner -occupied housing depends <br />heavily on maximizing the cost - <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 60 <br />