1 / 31

Met Council’s Housing Needs Formula & Local Government Response

Met Council’s Housing Needs Formula & Local Government Response 1976 Land Use Planning Act requires cities in region to prepare a housing element in comprehensive plan to include…

Jims
Download Presentation

Met Council’s Housing Needs Formula & Local Government Response

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Met Council’s Housing Needs Formula & Local Government Response

  2. 1976 Land Use Planning Act requires cities in region to prepare a housing element in comprehensive plan to include… “…standards, plans and programs for providing adequate housing to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs…” • 1995 Livable Communities Act • Negotiated housing goals; not need-based • Covers 1995-2010

  3. Housing Needs for 2010 - 2020 • Return to needs-based planning • “A land planning exercise” • Newly-constructed affordable housing • Designed to guide land development

  4. Step 1:Regional growth projections • 166,547 new households between 2010-2020 • City level growth forecasts

  5. Step 2:Growth in low-income population • Proportion of growth consisting of low-income households • 38%, or 64,100 households

  6. Step 3:Private sector adjustment • Estimate the number of units that will “filter down” and become affordable, providing housing to new low-income households • 20,300 new low-income households will be housed in such units • Units already exist • From The Next Decade of Housing in Minnesota

  7. Step 4: Calculate need for newly constructed affordable housing units 64,100 (new low-income households) -20,300 (units already existing that will filter down) + 2,200 (5% vacancy rate adjustment) + 5,000(units needed to house the homeless) 51,000 TOTAL NEED (30.6% of regional HH growth)

  8. Step 5:Apply 30.6% to city-level forecast • “Uniform allocation of affordable housing need”

  9. Step 6:Adjust for “low-wage proximity” • Calculate ratio of low-wage jobs to low-wage residents • If ratio greater than 1.0, “need” increases

  10. Step 7: Adjust for existing distribution of affordable housing units • Cities with more than 30% of units affordable decrease their “need” (30.6% is the overall metro-area estimate of need)

  11. Step 8:Adjust for availability of transit service • Cities with high transit service receive a 20% boost in “need” number • No adjustment for cities with low transit service • Cities with no transit service receive a 20% reduction in “need” number

  12. Step 9: Final adjustment so that the sum of all city-level “need” numbers = 51,000 • 51,000 is total regional need • Previous adjustments had cumulative effect of increasing that number • Final adjustment (K2) needed to bring total back to 51,000

  13. The Formula: City’s affordable housing need = (HH growthc * .306) * (1 + (J/Wc - 1) + (.3 – ExAffHsgc) + (TAc)) * K2

  14. Blaine 1,267 Circle Pines 13 Ramsey 1,402 Chanhassen 1,301 New Germany 4 Lakeville 2,288 Apple Valley 1,324 Eagan 530 Bloomington 627 Brooklyn Park 1,590 Edina 212 Excelsior 29 Minneapolis 4,088 Arden Hills 288 Maplewood 333 Saint Paul 2,625 Jordan 37 Shakopee 2,105 Sample results

  15. Need-based affordable housing goals, 2010-2020

  16. Assessment • Vast improvement over LCA • Redistributes effort away from the more affordable northern communities and toward the southwest

  17. Comparison of LCA goals (projected forward to 2020) and needs-based goals

  18. Assessment (cont.) • Assumes “filtering down” • Ignores demolition and “filtering up” • Definition of “low-income” uses income for household size of 4; average household size in region is < 3 • Step 6 adjustment assumes all low-wage workers live in affordable housing; Council’s own figures say 44% do not

  19. Assessment (cont.) • Addresses need for affordable housing due to population growth between 2010-2020 • Current estimate – 170,000 households lack affordable housing in region, 20,000 more will lack affordable housing by 2010 • Total unmet need of 190,000 in 2010 • LUPA: • “…adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs…”

  20. Assessment (cont.) • New formula will address only 20 to 25% of the actual need for affordable housing in the region

  21. How will cities respond? • Survey of 31 suburban communities with the largest affordable housing need numbers according to formula Andover Apple Valley Blaine Bloomington Brooklyn Pk Burnsville Champlin Chanhassen Chaska Columbia Hts Coon Rapids Cottage Grove Eagan Eden Prairie Edina Elko Farmington Forest Lake Hastings Lake Elmo Lino Lakes Medina Minnetonka Minnetrista Oakdale Orono Robbinsdale Rosemount Savage St. Louis Pk Woodbury

  22. Have you seen the Met Council’s recent report on “Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities”? Are you aware of what your community’s need level is, according to the report? Not aware of need level: 19% (6) Aware of need level: 81% (25) n=31

  23. What is your reaction to these goals? Do they seem high or low or about right for your community? Do they seem feasible for you to meet? Satisfaction with goals: Not satisfied: 60% (9) Satisfied: 40% (6) n=15 Perception of levels: Low: 4% (1) About right: 26% (7) High: 70% (19) n=27 Feasibility: Not feasible: 67% (14) Feasible: 33% (7) n=21

  24. Do you keep a data base tracking the supply of low- and moderate-income housing? No: 70% (21) Yes: 30% (9)

  25. Will your community be using the need number established in that report as the affordable housing target in your comprehensive plan update? No: 10% (3) Not sure (may not use because need number is not desirable): 45% (14) Not sure (may not use because of a lack of factual knowledge): 10% (3) Yes: 35% (11)

  26. What are the problems you foresee, or the obstacles, to meeting these goals? 1. Market forces/cost of land: 65% (20) 2. Lack of available land: 37% (11) 3. Lack of funding: 32% (10) 4. Political will: 23% (7) 5. Restrictions on eminent domain: 6% (1) 6. Other (affordable owner units, access to transit/jobs, lack of staff, red tape, low-density development, clean-up costs for redevelopment, construction standards): 71% (22)

  27. What do you think is going to be needed for your city to achieve its affordable housing goals? Funding: 37% (11) Education/political will: 23% (7) Available land: 7% (2) Rezoning:7% (2) Work of non-profits/CDCs: 3% (1) Other (affordable housing program, staff resources, change in market, time, dialogue): 43% (13)

  28. If there were state and federal funds available for affordable housing production, could you meet your affordable housing goals? No: 14% (4) Not sure: 34% (14) Yes: 48% (14)

  29. In your opinion, is there anything in your zoning ordinances, permitting processes, or other requirements that discourages or prevents adding to the supply of low-moderate income housing? No: 33% (9) Yes: 67% (18) n=27 Deterrents: • Lot size requirements (low-density zoning): 53% (9) • Design guidelines: 35% (6) • Square foot minimums: 24% (4) • Lack of funding: 12% (2) • Accessory apts. not allowed: 6% (1) • Taxes: 6% (1) • Red tape/length of approval process: 6% (1)

  30. Please indicate whether – and how much – each of the following local practices limit the development of low-moderate income housing in your community.

  31. More analysis to come • Data on specific programs used and their assessments of those program • Comparison to data collected in 2001 • Cross-tabulations • Add interview information to Citizen Guides

More Related