Laserfiche WebLink
I. INTRODUCTION AND. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Since 1971, the Metropolitan Council has used its A-95 review <br />authority 'to reward communities which plan for and provide low- <br />and moderate-income housing opportunities- The Council has done <br />so based on Policy 39 in its Housing Chapter of the <br />Metropolitan Development Guide. Policy 39 establishes funding <br />priorities based upon each community's provision of lower-cost <br />.housing opportunities, and its.plans, policies and programs to <br />provide such housing in the future. Policy 39 is, in turn, <br />based on evaluation criteria that have been used to measure <br />...... in~ ~erformance. The criteria have been revised~ <br /> twice, most recently xn 1976. <br /> The criteria apply to local applications for state or federal <br /> funds including transportation, criminal justice, parks and open <br /> space, and aging grantS. Applicatiops.f~r federal or state <br /> · nor are applications <br /> housing subsidy programs are not lnclU~eG, <br /> for projects which are clearly regional in nature and are <br /> defined as such in an adopted Council plan. <br /> The criteria apply only to applications from public agencies and <br /> local governmental units for federal or state assistance. <br /> Applications from private groupS and organizations are exempt <br /> from this policy because, unlike local units of government, <br /> these organizations do not make major housing decisions for the <br /> community. <br /> <br />WHY REVISE THE CRITERIA~ <br />There are several reasons why the Metropolitan Council.is <br />proposing to revise its criteria to measure local housing <br />performance at this time. The Council wants to be responsive to <br />local community-concerns and criticisms of the criteria which <br />have been expressed over the past several yearS. Some' <br />'communities have felt that the present criteria do not <br />sufficiently-recognize the more current activities which <br />communities have engaged in to provide affordable housing <br />opportunities. Rather, the communities have said the current <br />criteria place far too great an emphasis upon past performance <br />and the historical fact there is more affordable housing in the <br />older communities, particularly housing for low- and moderate- <br />income people and subsidized housing units. <br /> Some communities have' said that the present system results in <br /> continually rewarding the same communities year after year for <br /> factors of historical consequence such as the cost of housing at <br /> the time the community developed, and that this is not <br /> necessarily representative of local efforts to provide <br /> · . In addition, they f~el that such criteria <br /> affordable housing ...... :-~ withln the point system. <br /> are given a disproport~ona~ w=~..~ <br /> Their concern, shared by the Council, is that there ls <br /> opportunity for all communities to be rewarded for their efforts <br /> and ~chievementS in providing and encouraging afforable <br /> houslng. The criteria should recognize the housing activities <br /> <br /> <br />