►
From YouTube: August 22, 2018 Housing Policy & Development Committee
Description
Minneapolis Housing Policy & Development Committee Meeting
A
Good
afternoon
I'll
call
this
meeting
to
order.
This
is
the
meeting
of
the
housing
policy
and
Development
Committee
I'm,
chair
of
a
committee,
kam
Gordon
I'm
joined
today
by
my
colleagues,
Jeremiah
Ellison,
and
vice-chair
Kevin
Reich
Lissa
bender
and
Jeremy
Schrader
were
a
quorum
of
the
committee,
so
we
can
conduct
our
business
there's
seven
items
on
our
agenda.
A
We
have
a
public
hearing
and
two
discussion
items
and
there's
four
items
on
our
consent:
agenda:
I'll
move
our
consent
agenda
items;
first,
I'm
gonna
pull
number
three
because
I
know
there's
a
staff
direction
for
it,
so
I'm
gonna,
move
to
four
and
five
number:
two
is
a
contract
with
NeighborWorks
home
partners
and
build
worth
Minnesota
to
provide
lending
administration
services
for
our
2018
homeownership
opportunity.
Minneapolis
program
item
four
is
approving
revisions
to
the
guidelines
for
Minneapolis,
Noah
preservation,
fund
and
item
5
is
receiving
and
filing
a
report
on
our
40
pilot
initiative.
A
B
B
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
call
out
the
great
work
on
that,
and
also
for
the
four
D
program,
a
couple
things
just
looking
forward
to
October
when
we
kind
of
have
the
next
vision
of
that
I
really
like
the
thought
and
how
the
pilot
went
things
that
stuck
out
for
me.
I,
really
love
to
see
more
integration
with
kind
of
the
environmental
programs
that
we're
offering.
Also
I
love
the
thought
about
what
apartments.
What
tears
are
an
like
we're
we
want
to
be
rewarding,
the
landlords
are
doing
the
most
work.
B
One
thing
I
want
to
highlight
was
some
landlords
we're
making
sure
that
they
were
in
the
best
property,
they're
Tier
one
they
also
own
tier
three.
So
that
might
be
another
consideration
to
make
sure
that
all
the
properties
are
coming
into
the
highest
form
of
compliance
with
the
city
and
also
just
want
to
highlight
in
the
the
governor's
task
force
final
report
just
came
out
this
week
and
highlighted
exactly
what
we're
doing
sea
bed
is
doing
here
so
also
just
wanted
to
commend
them
on
that.
A
A
C
I
see
bill
here
in
the
crowd
today,
who
I
think
was
pretty
spot-on
about
the
fact
that
if
the
city
is
going
to
have,
if
we're
gonna
have
a
goal
and
a
in
a
principle
of
supporting
communities
of
color
and
and
investing
in
community
of
color
that
we
should
be
explicit
about
that
goal.
Right
and
and
I
really
also
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
and
especially
council.
Vice
president
Jenkins,
we're
always
pushing
the
council
to
be
explicit
about
our
goals
in
in
racial
equity
and
so
I'll.
Go
ahead
and
read
the
staff
direction.
C
I
moved
to
direct
see
pet
housing
staff
to
engage
with
organizations
of
color
to
receive
input
on
the
implementation
of
the
small,
medium
multifamily
loan
program,
including
disposition
strategies
to
expand
community-based
ownership,
particularly
among
neighborhood
residents
and
community-based
organizations
led
by
people
of
color,
and
to
return
to
the
Housing
and
policy
development
committee.
In
the
first
quarter
of
2019.
With
recommended
changes
to
the
program
guidelines.
E
You
mr.
chair
I'm,
very
supportive
of
the
staff
direction
and
really
thankful
for
cousin
Olson
for
bringing
it
forward.
I
also
wanted
to
note
that,
in
the
context
of
a
lot
of
our
work
to
protect,
renters
I
think
that
this
is
an
important
piece
of
that
overall
puzzle
and
as
we
learn
more
about
landlords
in
our
city,
we
know
that
a
huge
majority
of
the
units,
the
rental
units
in
our
city,
are
actually
owned
by
a
small
percentage
of
landlords.
E
And
then
we
have
many
many
landlords
that
own
one
to
four
units
and
there's
actually
a
very
small
number
of
landlords
that
own
something
between
4
and
like
a
lot
and
I.
Think
as
we
go
forward
in
thinking
about
how
to
protect
renters,
we
don't
want
to
do
anything
that
decreases
local
ownership
of
buildings
and,
in
fact,
I
think.
We
want
to
continue
to
encourage
and
support
local
ownership
of
land
community
ownership
of
land,
especially
investing
in
community
of
color
and
supporting
ownership
and
there's
probably
a
lot
of
opportunity.
E
If
we
look
at
the
thousands
of
people
who
owned
between
1
&
4
units
in
our
city
to
think
about
how
we
might
help
support
those
entrepreneurs
and
becoming
that
sort
of
second
grouping
of
owning
more
units
and
that
maybe
a
piece
of
this
work
when
I
met
with
staff
I
had
suggested,
could
we
think
about
doing
outreach
to
these
smaller
landlords
and
understand?
Are
their
barriers
them
becoming
medium-sized
landlords
and
and
then
learning
from
our
smaller
landlords?
E
You
know
what
might
or
might
not
work
and
the
protections
that
were
thinking
about
bringing
forward
in
terms
of
being
able
to
support
their
entrepreneurship
into
the
future.
So
I
think
this
aligns
really
well
with
all
of
that
package
of
work
that
we're
doing
and
I'm
really
glad
to
see
it
go
forward
as
a
part
of
our
preservation
strategies.
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
exciting
work
happening
in
the
overall
category
of
starting
to
preserve,
affordable
housing
in
our
city.
F
A
A
First,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed.
No,
that
motion
carries
and
now
then,
on
approving
the
guidelines
for
this
new
Minneapolis
small
and
medium
multifamily
loan
program
pilot
and
authorizing
the
three-year
participation
agreement
with
entities
in
the
report.
Please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say
no.
That
motion
carries
them
now.
We've
dispensed
with
our
consent
agenda
and
we're
ready
to
move
into
our
first
item,
which
is
our
public
hearing
and
I.
Believe
mr.
Bauer
is
going
to
make
a
presentation
and
a
report
unless
it's
actually
yes
welcome.
A
G
Good
afternoon,
chairman
Gordon
and
committee
matter,
members
and
council
vice
president,
my
name
is
Allison
Nessie
and
I'm,
an
intergovernmental
relations
department,
which
is
responsible
for
drafting
and
submitting
to
HUD
of
both
the
annual
consolidated
action
plan,
which
outlines
the
city
intended
use
of
our
entitlement
funds
and
sets
the
goals
for
our
HUD
funded
projects
and
programs.
The
entitlement
fund
programs
are
the
Community
Development
Block
Grants
emergency
solution,
grants
home
investment
partnerships
program
and
housing
opportunities
for
persons
with
AIDS.
G
We
also
annually
draft
and
submit
the
consolidated
annual
performance
and
evaluation
report
referred
to
as
the
caper,
which
is
before
you
and
it's
draft
form
today
we're
about
97%
done
with
the
draft
we're
still
adding
information
on
August
29th.
We
will
be
submitting
the
caper
to
HUD
and
just
a
reminder.
The
caper
is
not
a
policy
document.
G
A
Thank
you
very
much
before
I
open
the
public
hearing
to
committee
members
have
any
questions
seeing
none
then
well.
Thank
you
for
that
nice
to
seem
to
report.
This
is
a
something
we
do
annually
and
we
also
would
appreciate
any
community
comments.
If
anybody
has
any
I,
don't
believe
anybody
has
signed
in
okay,
well,
I'll,
open
the
public
hearing
and
we'll
take
comments.
Please
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
my.
F
Name
is
Bill
English
in
the
I.
Am
the
consulting
project
director
for
the
North
job-creation
team,
an
effort
willing
to
bring
a
thousand
living
wage
jobs
to
North
Minneapolis.
It
is
in
that
context
that
I
appear
today
at
quite
a
last
minute
notice.
So
it's
because
this
is
open.
A
public
hearing.
I
must
call
attention
to
this
committee
that
the
city's
process
for
notifying
communities,
particularly
under
served
communities
its
bankrupt.
F
You
cannot
depend
on
neighborhood
groups,
often
which
had
little
staff
dysfunctional
to
notify
the
communities
of
important
issues.
I'll
learn
about
this
whole
policy.
That's
Friday
I'd
like
to
think
and
pair
up
some
fooling
myself,
I'm
pretty
well
attuned,
but
my
frankly
office
is
the
city's
website,
maybe
twice
a
year,
there's
not
often
much
there,
and
maybe
that's
our
own
that
but
to
depend
on
notifying
neighborhood
groups
and
post
it
on
the
city
website.
F
As
the
adequate
communications
to
underserved
communities
is
foolish,
if
not
insipid,
it's
just
not
the
way
to
communicate
your
city
staff
should
know.
We
have
insight.
We
have
kmo
J,
we
have
a
television
channel,
we
are
on
a
school
district
channel.
There
are
more
ways
to
communicate
with
our
community
and
let
us
know
then,
this
one.
So
as
you
engage
in
this
public
hearing,
it
is
important
that
staff
pay
close
attention.
I
must
also
bring
up
one
other
thing.
This
whole
policy
is
geared
towards
de
facto
discrimination.
F
Let
me
be
very
specific:
I
have
nothing
but
admiration,
BPL
and
urban
homeworks,
but
I
must
assure
you
that
your
record
is
unknown
of
all
of
the
houses
that
they
have
done
in
the
last
seven
years.
This
council
needs
an
audit
how
many
of
those
have
went
to
people
of
color?
How
many
more
over?
How
many
african-american
contractors
have
they
used
to
conduct
this
work?
F
Not
accusing
anyone
here
on
this
council,
in
particular
this
committee,
specifically
of
doing
anything
inappropriate,
perhaps
us
anything,
it's
out
of
unawareness
unawareness
that
they
intended
good,
that
you
do
by
default
ends
up
serving
us.
I
know
urban
home
works,
and
I
know
that
good
work,
but
getting
urban
on
works
to
work
with
black
churches
has
been
an
act
of
fruition
on
my
part.
I
could
not
get
them
to
engage
with
black
churches.
They
have
to
answer
that
question.
F
Why
you
have
to
demand
that
they
do
said
you
give
them
preference
over
Lots
over
anyone
else.
That's
real!
So,
as
you
ask
your
staff
that
you
engage
in
staff
work
to
bring
back
to
you,
some
results
that
they
have
achieved,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
communities
of
color,
both
in
both
in
the
contracting,
both
in
the
results
of
people
ended
up
in
rental
and
home
occupancy.
F
We
have
a
wealth
of
organizations
qualifying
people
for
homeownership
bill,
wealth,
Minnesota
and
other,
and
they
have
a
ready
list
of
candidates
ready
to
purchase
home
even
a
on
the
what
holds
more
rental
housing
units
and
anybody
in
the
city.
When
I
asked
the
question
how
many
black
contractors
have
you
use,
they
can't
answer
now.
F
I
don't
buy
that
argument
and
I
think
we've
been
not
as
diligent
as
we
should
be
and
I
don't
know
much
about
housing.
Don't
pretend
you
know:
I'm
focused
on
jobs,
so
I'm
here
today
to
speak
to
for
Reverend
McAfee
who
is
ill.
He
had
to
preach
from
a
sitting
down.
He
has
he
called
on
I
promise
to
come
here
for
the
coalition
of
black
church
ministers
that
are
working
on
us.
They
have
commitments
from
Wells
Fargo
for
money,
so
they
don't
need
to
beg
the
city
for
subsidy.
F
Portland
is
cruelly
their
process
legal
process
that
you
can
give
priority.
As
you
know,
community
north
Minneapolis,
in
particular
stricken
hard
by
the
tornadoes
and
the
illegal
foreclosures
so
well.
Fargo
has
committed
dollars
for
mortgage
to
the
black
ministers
and
they
will
work
with
the
National
and
narrow
a
person
what
they
called
of
black
Realtors.
They
are
also
engaged
in
a
collaboration
with
the
black
ministers,
so
we
have
the
capacity
we
can
build
the
capacity
of
our
nonprofits
to
be
as
effective.
It's
in
to
the
two
larger
ones.
F
I
beg
you
to
not
fall
into
the
trap
of
pushing
this
through
now.
I
know
you
had
to
do
this
for
19,
because
you
got
to
get
this
money
spent
by
hood.
But
what
didn't
I
know
that,
a
month
ago,
why
wasn't
staff
open
about
that?
So
we
need
to
rush
this
through,
but
we're
going
to
take
time
to
inform
the
community.
Those
are
questions
that
I
raised
of
you.
F
F
A
Seeing
no
one
then
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
I
think
that
makes
mr.
English's
words
even
more
powerful.
Those
will
definitely
be
put
in
the
record
and
I
think
they've
been
burned
and
etched
in
the
minds
of
all
the
committee
members
up
here.
I
think
you're,
absolutely
right,
I
think
we've
got
some
programs
going
and
we
have
some
abilities
to
track
the
city
dollars
and
where
they're
going
and
others
we
don't
and
you
could
have,
you
could
be
signing
shining
a
light
on
something
we
could
do
a
much
better
job
at
I.
A
Appreciate
that
see.
No
other
comments,
then
I'm
prepared
to
move
forward
with
this
action,
which
is
authorizing
this,
the
middle
of
our
consolidated
annual
performance
and
evaluation
report
to
the
US
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development,
and
also
directing
staff,
to
include
any
comments
that
we've
received,
including
those
today
to
be
submitted,
along
with
the
report
to
HUD
and
all
that's
gonna,
take
place,
I
guess
on
August
28th,
as
we
heard
seeing
no
comments
or
questions
on
the
motion,
then
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
say
no.
A
H
A
H
Be
sure
you
being
here
excuse
me,
chair
Gordon,
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Kevin
kinase
and
I'm.
A
senior
project
coordinator
with
C
peg
I
come
before
you
today
with
two
action
items.
The
first
action
item
is
the
approval
of
modifications
to
the
minneapolis
homes
program
guidelines
and
then
the
second
item
is
approval
of
the
point
system
for
the
minneapolis
homes,
development
assistance
program,
request
for
proposal.
H
This
market
creates
challenges
for
families
more
than
average
families
in
minneapolis
to
afford
a
home
in
minneapolis,
and
this
impacts
a
rate
of
service
tussles
of
color
due
to
economic
disparities
as
well.
Our
current
programs
are
about
60
percent
households
of
color
at
our
current
income
guidelines,
but
we're
concerned
that
appreciating
values
may
impact
that
in
the
future,
however,
the
challenges
also
create
an
opportunity
to
adjust
how
we
provide
funding
through
our
programs
in
order
to
use
it
to
address
the
appreciating
market.
H
To
meet
the
increased
need
for
down
payment
assistance
and
closing
cost
assistance
due
to
market
appreciation,
staff
proposed
updating
the
homebuyer
assistance
programs,
the
home
worship,
opportunity,
Minneapolis,
Minneapolis
homes,
rehab
and
Grill
North
to
an
80%
ami
bar
or
from
$7,500
to
ten
thousand
five
hundred
dollars.
Staff
additionally
proposed
modifications
to
the
Minneapolis
homes,
development
assistance,
request
for
proposals
process
with
point
changes,
including
additional
points
for
serving
lower
ami
households,
building
denser
housing
at
two
to
four
units
and
for
developers,
selecting
Lots
through
our
Neighborhood
Stabilization
program.
H
We're
also
removing
the
visible
design
points.
As
that's
now
a
requirement
of
the
program.
The
RP
is
projected
to
be
released
in
September
of
this
year
with
awards
to
be
determined
in
January
2019,
to
align
the
program
with
the
goals
of
increasing
density
on
Lots
and
continuing
to
serve
households
below
80%
amri
staff
is
proposing
modifications
to
the
minneapolis
homes
development
assistance
program.
H
Currently,
the
city
provides
development
gap,
which
is
the
difference
between
the
cost
to
construct
a
home
and
what
can
be
sold
on
the
open
market
and
also
looking
at
our
home
buyer
assistance
that
we
provide
to
purchasers
which
is
the
down
payment
and
closing
cost
assistance.
That
they're
eligible
for
staff
proposes
a
change
to
our
model.
To
allow
us
to
use
a
portion
of
the
development
gap
for
homebuyer
assistance.
H
The
program
or
the
proposal
also
includes
increasing
the
max
maximum
value
gap
by
twenty-five
thousand
to
proposals
that
are
2
to
4
units
on
eligible
Lots
and
then
updating
the
long
term
affordability
requirement
to
30
years
and
then
continuing
to
reserve
lots
of
Northeast
minutes
or
Minneapolis
in
South
Minneapolis
for
long
term
affordability.
The
chart
that
I
have
before
you
depicts
the
maximum
value
gap
that
is
available
and
then
also
the
affordability
gap
scenario.
H
That's
available
so
on
the
left
side
is
the
maximum
value
gap
that
a
developer
could
access
to
build
a
home
through
this
program,
and
then
you
can
see
that
on
both
charts,
the
total
gap
remains
the
same.
But
if
you
look
to
the
right,
if
we
look
at
value
gap
being
reduced,
we
can
then
increase
the
portability
gap,
that's
available
for
projects.
So,
looking
at
like
a
80%
ami
project,
we
may
have
provided
$70,000
in
the
value
gap
and
$10,000
an
affordability
gap.
H
If
that
value
gap
is
no
longer
needed,
we
can
then
have
the
homebuyer
acess
up
to
thirty.
Seven
thousand
five
hundred
dollars
of
affordability,
gap
and
I
should
also
note
that
there
was
a
error
on
this
chart.
I
think
when
it
was
submitted
to
you
and
it
had
eighty-five
thousand
dollars
for
the
second
row
instead
of
eighty.
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear.
A
A
H
A
A
A
D
A
H
A
I'm
happy
to
move
this
forward,
then
the
policy
with
it
before
you
approving
the
modification
to
the
guidelines
and
the
point
system
that
we'll
be
using
for
the
future,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say
no.
That
motion
carries
and
that
will
bring
us
to
our
final
item
for
today,
which
is
our
discuss.
I
Thank
You
chair
Gordon
members
of
the
committee,
the
for
the
last
15
years.
The
city
has
had
an
inclusionary
housing
policy
that
requires
any
project,
any
residential
project
of
10
or
more
units
that
is
financially
assisted
by
the
city
to
include
affordable
units,
so
that
policy
has
been
in
place
for
about
15
years
and
then
it
was
expanded
in
2016
to
apply
to
any
residential
projects
of
10
or
more
units
that
are
built
on
on
land
that
is
owned
by
the
city.
It
was
further
expanded
in
2017,
then
I'm.
I
Sorry
2017
is
when
it
was
expanded
to
apply
to
city-owned
land
in
2016.
It
was
expanded
to
apply
to
not
just
city
funding
funded
projects,
but
projects
that
received
passed
through
funding
like
from
the
Met
Council
livable
communities
act
fund,
for
example,
so
those
are
the
currently
the
triggers
that
are
in
place
and
then
just
most
recently
in
2018,
the
the
City
Council
approved,
requiring
affordability
in
projects
that
receive
environmental
cleanup
funds
as
well.
I
So
those
are
collectively
to
date
the
triggers
that
we
have
to
require
affordable
housing
units
in
residential
projects
of
10
or
more
units
in
the
city.
In
2016
in
inclusionary,
zoning
ordinance
was
introduced
by
councilmember
bender
and
reintroduced
in
2018
by
council
president
bender
to
further
the
city's
inclusionary
housing
policy
to
apply
to
more
projects
than
just
the
ones
mentioned.
I
They
are
here
today
to
to
give
a
presentation
of
this
work
and
also
wanted
to
note
that
this
work
included
consulting
with
and
receiving
input
from
private
developers,
as
well
as
affordable
housing
advocates
and
other
housing
professionals
in
our
industry.
The
timing
of
this
report
and
future
future
work
with
the
consultants
is
intended
to
inform
a
potential
inclusionary
zoning
framework
to
be
considered
by
the
City
Council
concurrent
with
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan,
in
order
to
support
the
affordable
housing
goals
in
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan.
I
A
final,
complete,
comprehensive,
inclusionary
housing
policy
would
require
more
work
that
we
would
do
in
2019
for
some
kind
of
adoption,
probably
in
the
mid
to
late
part
of
20
2019.
So
with
that
brief
introduction,
I
would
now
like
to
introduce
Stephanie
Reyes
with
grounded
solutions
network
to
deliver
their
report.
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
Gordon
and
committee
members,
I'm
Stephanie
Reyes
with
grounded
solutions
network.
These
are
my
colleagues
Victor
Kobus
and
Neyman
Freeman
for
those
of
you
who
are
not
familiar
with
grounded
solutions.
Network,
you
can
read
a
little
bit
about
us
here
since
2010
we've
provided
technical
assistance
to
over
50
cities
and
organizations
throughout
the
country
on
affordable
housing
issues
and
inclusionary.
Housing
is
one
of
our
areas
of
expertise.
J
So
here's
our
plan
for
today
I'll
start
out
with
a
brief
background
on
inclusionary
housing.
Then
walk
you
through
the
results
of
our
policy,
analysis
and
financial
feasibility
analysis
for
Minneapolis,
and
then
we'll
walk
you
through
three
feasible
policy
options
for
an
inclusionary
housing
policy
for
Minneapolis
and
tell
you
which
one
we
think
makes
the
most
sense
and
why?
J
Let's
dive
in
under
inclusionary
housing
policies,
a
certain
percentage
of
housing
units
in
market
rate
developments
are
set
aside
at
below
market
rate
prices
or
rents
for
lower-income
households,
and
this
is
usually
a
relatively
small
percent,
maybe
ten
or
fifteen
percent
of
the
units
in
the
development
why
the
communities
turn
to
inclusionary
housing.
Well,
there
are
a
few
reasons.
One
is
to
balance
growth
with
affordability,
so
most
communities
want
to
see
new
jobs
coming
in
new
public
investment
in
transit,
roads
parks,
etc.
J
Those
new
investments
of
course
make
neighborhoods
more
attractive
and
drive
up
housing
prices,
which
can
be
most
impactful
on
lowest
income
residents.
Longtime
residents
who
face
rising
rents
and
displacement
pressure,
so
inclusionary
housing
is
a
way
to
ensure
that
new
development
has
a
role
to
play.
Sets
that
expectation
that
new
development
can
help
achieve
our
equity
and
inclusion
goals
as
the
community
changes
over
time.
J
Another
reason
communities
look
to
inclusionary
housing
is
to
address
racial
disparities
and
improve
racial
equity.
The
council
adopted
this
goal,
among
others
as
part
of
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan,
and
recognizing
that
housing
disparities
among
people
of
color
and
indigenous
peoples
compared
to
white
people
are
strongly
linked
to
other
disparities,
including
health,
education
and
income,
etc.
J
Is
it
trying
to
give
you
a
sense
of
official
statute,
but
under
Minnesota
law,
cities
in
Minnesota
are
allowed
to
condition
discretionary
land
use
approvals
on
a
developer's
agreement
to
provide
affordable
housing
and
these
discretionary
land
use
approvals
can
be
anything
from
Planned
Unit
development,
approval
to
a
site
plan,
approval,
etc
and
grounded
solutions.
Network
recommends
that
Minneapolis
use
the
statutory
authority
to
make
that
length,
rather
than
use
a
purely
voluntary
and
incentive
based
approach.
J
Why
is
that?
Well
a
couple
reasons:
nationwide
we've
seen
voluntary
programs
tend
to
produce
significantly
fewer,
affordable
housing
units
than
programs
which
have
requirements
for
some
or
all
projects.
In
addition
to
these
nationwide
results,
there
are
a
few
reasons
why
a
voluntary
policy
really
wouldn't
work
given
Minneapolis
is
unique,
a
development
context
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
J
Well,
the
good
news
is
projects
that
take
advantage
of
those
benefits
can
have
a
more
rosy
financial
picture
right.
You
can
get
increased
project
revenue
if
you
have
more
units
to
rent
out
and
you
get
significant
cost
reductions
from
the
reducing
parking.
Well,
that
means
that
the
action
assisity
has
already
taken,
make
it
financially
possible
for
development
to
contribute
more
towards
affordable
housing
under
an
inclusionary
housing
policy
than
they
would
have
without
these
planning
benefits
in
place.
J
Well,
that's
all
good
news,
but
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
many
voluntary
inclusionary
housing
programs
are
kind
of
structured
in
a
way
that
they
hold
the
base
zoning
fairly
restrictive.
So
they
don't
allow
much
density
by
default.
They
require
a
lot
of
parking
by
default
and
then
they
only
allow
developers
to
access
additional
density
or
reduced
parking
in
exchange
for
affordability.
Well,
because
the
city
has
already
implemented
those
best
practice
planning
strategies
using
this
kind
of
approach
of
a
restricted
basis,
owning
this
doesn't
make
sense
here
in
Minneapolis.
J
J
So,
in
addition
to
this
kind
of
voluntary
versus
required
question,
there
are
a
bunch
of
other
questions
that
policymakers
need
to
make
decisions
on
for
an
inclusionary
policy.
These
are
four
of
them,
and
financial
feasibility
analysis
can
inform
the
answers
to
these
four
questions.
What
are
you
trying
to
get
at?
What
question?
Are
you
trying
to
answer
with
financial
feasibility?
Well,
let
me
outline
a
scenario
here.
J
The
scenario
you
want
to
avoid
in
the
scenario
you'd
want
to
get
you,
so
any
inclusionary
housing
policy
involves
some
risk
that
projects
that
are
feasible
to
build
without
the
inclusionary
requirements.
Like
this
example,
project
may
become
not
feasible
with
the
combination
of
affordable
requirements
and
incentives
offered
in
your
policy
under
a
voluntary
program.
This
is
not
a
huge
problem.
Right
developers
will
just
choose
to
not
take
advantage
of
the
voluntary
program,
not
provide
affordable
units,
not
use
the
incentives.
J
They'll
build
their
project
anyway,
you
get
fewer,
affordable
homes,
but
development
continues,
but
into
a
program
with
requirements.
This
first
option
here
is
not
available.
So
what
you
end
up
is
you
know
for
projects
like
this
example,
project
that
become
infeasible,
they
just
don't
get
built
and
if
the
market
is
similar-
and
there
are
lots
of
similar
projects
to
this
example
project,
then
you're
seeing
more
and
more
projects
not
getting
built.
Well,
why
does
that
matter?
Well,
a
couple
of
reasons
you
know
in
my
constraining
supply
further
in
the
faith
that
continued
demand.
J
J
For
these
reasons,
any
city
that
has
a
policy-
that's
not
purely
voluntary-
has
to
pay
close
attention
to
financial
feasibility,
and
what
you're
trying
to
achieve
is
this
right
for
most
projects,
even
with
your
affordable
requirements
and
your
incentives,
the
revenues
are
still
are
higher
enough
than
the
costs
that
the
projects
are
feasible
and
developer.
The
men
can
move
forward,
so
that's
the
general
concept
and
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Rick
to
talk
about
our
methodology,
results.
K
Thank
you,
the
chair,
Gordon
council,
the
committee
members,
thanks
for
having
us
here,
I,
get
to
share
the
numbers,
excuse
me
and
before
I
do
I
want
to
just
do
a
little
bit
of
which
direction
yeah
a
little
bit
of
contact
setting
in
terms
of
what
we
can't
do
with
these
kinds
of
studies.
Stephanie
mentioned
that
the
reason
we
do
a
feasibility
study
is
to
answer
the
question
about
what
the
impact
of
a
proposed
policy
is
likely
to
be
on
feasibility.
K
But
what
policy
makers
often
want
to
know
is
how
much
could
we
require
in
terms
of
affordable
housing
and
still
have
it
be
feasible,
and
what
you'll
see
is
that
we
can't
fully
answer
that
question,
because
every
project
is
different.
The
economics
are
different
from
place
to
place
from
different
sides
of
the
street
different
types
of
projects.
K
What
we
can
answer
instead
is
show
us
some
real,
realistic
examples
of
actual
projects
or
projects
that
could
realistically
be
built,
and
then,
let's
look
at
what
the
implication
of
a
particular
policy
is
on
the
feasibility
of
those
projects.
We
don't
have
the
kind
of
data
that
would
let
us
tell
you
what
the
average
project
is.
We
just
have
realistic
examples.
So
you'll
see
that
when
we
show
real
specific
numbers,
the
numbers
were
showing.
K
You
are
the
right
numbers
as
long
as
you
assume
the
specific
project
that
we've
assumed,
but
you'd
have
to
keep
in
mind
at
all
times
that
there
are
lots
of
other
kinds
of
projects
out
there
in
the
market.
We
started
this
analysis.
We
actually
are
building
on
work
that
we
did
in
2016
for
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
we
did
a
very
thorough
feasibility
study
in
2016
and
what
we've
done
this
year
is
really
update
that
study
and
add
to
it.
K
So
in
2016
we
interviewed
17
developers
active
in
your
local
market
and
we
looked
at
the
pipeline
of
projects
and
we
collected
data
on
rents
and
sale,
prices
and
construction
costs
and
operating
costs
from
third-party
sources,
and
we
built
eight
different
project
prototypes
with
rental
projects
and
for
sale
projects
at
different
levels
of
density,
and
we
put
together
sort
of
a
sample
of
here's
how
the
project
might
work
financially.
And
then
we
held
a
set
of
focus
groups
with
developers
and
with
housing
experts
to
give
us
feedback
on.
Did
we
get
it
right?
K
Do
these
look
like
real
projects?
We
made
changes.
We
came
back
with
a
final
report.
We
also
looked
at
each
of
those
project
types
how
they
might
be
different
in
different
neighborhoods,
so
we
looked
at
eight
different
neighborhoods
and
we
said:
are
the
rents
higher
or
lower,
or
the
land
prices
higher
or
lower
in
these
neighborhoods,
and
we
adjusted
the
basic
prototypes
to
these
different
neighborhoods.
So
we
had
a
large
number
of
projects,
the
hypothetical
projects,
but
projects
that
were
realistic-
that
we
were
looking
at.
K
What
we
found
in
2016
was
that
in
much
of
Minneapolis
development
was
profitable
and
profitable
enough
to
support
a
reasonable,
affordable
housing
requirement,
but
that
there
were
neighborhoods
where
development
was
happening
in
a
more
modest
scale.
That
were
what
you
would
consider
at
risk
and
and
what
we
meant
by
that
was
there
were
neighborhoods,
where,
if
you
impose
even
a
modest,
affordable
housing
requirement,
you
ran
the
risk
of
projects
that
were
otherwise
feasible
becoming
infeasible,
which
is
basically
how
you
would
get
less
overall
development,
and
because
of
that
conclusion,
we
found
that
you
could.
K
You
could
require
a
very
low,
affordable
requirement,
basically
everywhere.
If
you
wanted
larger
numbers
of
Units,
the
recommendation
was
to
focus
on
offering
incentives
in
addition
to
the
requirements
at
the
time
in
2016,
we
didn't
analyze
the
specifics
of
what
the
incentives
would
work,
how
they
would
work,
how
they
would
be
structured,
how
much
they
would
be.
So
we
were
brought
back
in
this
year
to
look
primarily
at
the
incentive
side
of
the
picture.
K
What
kind
of
incentive
package
would
go
with
what
kind
of
requirements
package
in
order
to
do
that
we
had
to
update
the
analysis
so
that
you
know
we
were
looking
today,
but
we
didn't
redo
the
entire
body
at
work
that
we
did
previously,
because
it
was
a
little
bit
overwhelming
to
have
so
many
different
models.
We
look
just
at
three
types
of
projects
and
all
three
are
rental,
and
these
are
the
most
common
multifamily
projects
in
Minneapolis.
Right
now
we
looked
at
a
wood
frame
rental
project,
which
is
like
a
five
or
six
storey.
K
Building
that's
wood
with
a
parking
podium.
That's
concrete!
Look
at
a
12
or
13
storey,
concrete
mid-rise
project,
it's
more
expensive
to
build,
and
then
we
looked
at
a
steel.
But
you
know
in
a
hypothetical
steel
project,
200
units,
20-story
steel
building
costs
even
more
to
build.
The
rents
are
somewhat
higher
and
we
looked
at
those
three
prototypes
in
instead
of
8
different
neighborhoods,
we
clustered
the
neighborhoods.
We
looked
at
them
in
four
different
types
of
neighborhoods.
K
We
looked
at
downtown
what
we
called
strong
market
areas
right,
which
would
be
the
places
where
you're
seeing
a
lot
of
development
right
now,
but
what
we
called
emerging
market
areas,
which
are
places
where
there's
some
development
but
where
rents
are
significantly
lower
and
then
the
last
is
what
we
called
soft
market
areas,
which
is
many
of
the
neighborhoods
where
development
is
allowed
in
the
planning
code.
But
the
rents
right
now
are
not
high
enough
that
you're
seeing
a
lot
of
building
happening.
K
So
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
the
numbers
that
the
these
are
the
share
of
the
results.
So
the
first
thing
we
want
to
talk
through
is
the
what
it.
What
does
a
project
look
like
in
each
of
those
prototypes
in
each
of
those
places
without
any
affordability
requirements?
And
what
we
found
this
year
consistent
with
what
we
found
in
2016
was
that
you
have
a
number
of
neighborhoods
where
development
is
reasonably
profitable,
where
projects
are
happening.
K
So
you
can
think
if
a
project
is
throwing
off
cash
after
it
pays
for
all
its
operating
expenses.
The
amount
of
cash
that
comes
out
at
the
end
of
the
year
is,
you
know
in
this
example,
six
percent
of
what
it
costs
to
build
the
project,
then
that's
you
know,
was
what
we
were
considering
enough.
What
we've
seen
over
the
last
couple
years
is
that
the
yields
have
come
down
slightly,
so
we're
seeing
projects
in
the
in
the
most
recent
set
a
project
that
we
looked
at.
K
What
the
way
to
think
about
the
marginal
is
that
some
of
the
projects
in
these
of
this
type
in
this
location
are
likely
to
go
forward
and
some
are
not.
So
if
the,
if
the
returns
are
marginal,
it
takes
a
somewhat
special
circumstance
to
make
the
project
work
and
when
it's
marginal,
those
special
circumstances
can
be
enough.
But
when
we're
when
we're
at
a
much
lower
level,
even
with
special
circumstances
were
unlikely
to
see
projects
go
forward,
so
I
just
want
to
say.
K
So
what
we're
doing
is
we're
taking
this
baseline,
here's,
the
here's,
our
picture
of
feasibility
and
again
it's
showing
some
neighborhoods
projects-
are
working.
Other
neighborhoods
projects
are
sort
of
working
or
working
some
of
the
time.
And
lastly,
some
neighborhoods
development
is
not
happening
right
now,
because
the
projects
are
not
feasible,
then
what
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
test
different
scenarios
for
affordability.
So
the
first
thing
I
want
to
show
you
is
15%
of
the
units
if
we
require
that
15%
of
the
units
be
affordable
at
60
percent
of
median
income.
K
This
is
what
happens
to
the
returns
for
those
prototype
projects
and
you'll
notice,
they're
all
lower,
and
you
should
notice
right
away
that
the
emerging
market
neighborhoods
no
longer
have
feasible
projects
at
all.
So
so
what
that
says
is
if
you
were
to
adopt
a
15%
requirement.
We
would
expect
that
in
some
locations
where
development
is
currently
happening,
you
would
see
significantly
less
development
in
the
future.
K
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
heard
repeatedly
from
the
developers
that
we
talked
to
was
how
rapidly
costs
have
been
rising,
particularly
construction
costs
and
land
costs,
and
we
looked
at
the
the
study
that
we
did
before
the
first
thing
we
did
when
we
came
to
town
most.
We
sort
of
updated
the
the
cost
estimates
based
on
inflation
and
based
on
what's
happened
to
construction
costs
around
the
country,
and
then
we
collected
real
examples,
and
what
we
saw
was
that
your
real
numbers
here
have
been
rising
much
faster
than
inflation.
K
The
cost
of
construction
has
been
going
up
really
rapidly.
Hopefully,
all
hurt
this.
The
cost
of
land
has
also
gone
up
over
that
period
of
time,
so
we're
still
seeing
feasible
projects
today
and
the
the
goal
for
this
analysis
is
what
what
does
a
project
look
like
that
today
is
going
looking
for
financing
right,
so
a
project
looking
for
financing
today
is
not
going
to
be
open
for
a
couple
years
right,
but
they're
already
seeing
what
their
construction
costs
are
and
already
seeing
what
their
financing
terms
are.
K
If
construction
costs
continue
to
rise,
the
projects
tomorrow
will
look
different
from
the
projects
today
and
there
will
come
a
point
where
development
becomes
infeasible,
so
we're
showing
you
sort
of
what
we
think
it
looks
like
today,
but
we're
hearing
concern
about
what
happens
next
now,
I
want
to
say
we
heard
that
same
concern.
Two
years
ago
we
heard
a
lot
of
concern
that
the
Minneapolis
had
built
out
the
you
know
saturated
the
market
for
high-end
housing
two
years
ago,
and
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
slowdown.
K
As
a
result,
we
haven't
seen
that
slowdown.
What
what's
happened.
The
only
reason
that
developers
have
been
able
to
pay
higher
costs
of
construction
over
this
period
of
time
is
because,
in
addition
to
those
costs
going
up,
the
rents
have
gone
up
right.
The
rains
have
gone
up
at
an
equally
alarming
rate
and
the
projects
that
are
getting
built
today
are
higher-end
projects
relative
to
the
market
than
the
ones
we
looked
at
in
2016.
K
But
just
because
we've
heard
this
concern
before
it
doesn't
mean
it's
not
an
important
concern.
There
will
come
a
point
for
sure
we
don't
have
a
crystal
ball,
we
can't
say
when,
but
there
will
come
a
point
where
you
actually
can't
keep
building
at
even
higher
and
higher
end
projects
where
the
market
just
won't
absorb
that,
and
well
it's
likely
to
happen
at
that
point
is
that
the
market
will
come
to
a
standstill
and
you'll
stop
seeing
development.
K
When
you
look
at
these
numbers
to
say
well,
let's
find
soon
our
policy
and
let's
charge
the
most.
We
could
right
now
and
then
later,
when
the
markets
softer
we'll
lower
it
right.
We've
looked
at
hundreds
of
these
inclusion,
arey
policies
around
the
country
and
we
haven't
found
one
example
anywhere
of
a
city
that
has
successfully
timed
to
the
market.
It's
just
too
much
to
hope
for
that
you're
gonna
be
able
to
adjust
the
policy
to
sync
with
the
market.
K
So
what
I
take
away
from
that
is
that,
in
order
to
make
the
policy
effective,
you
have
to
have
it
work,
not
just
at
the
peak
of
the
market
but
across
a
broader
swath
of
the
market
cycle.
So
as
the
market
goes
up
and
down,
it
works
in
the
middle
as
well
as
at
the
top
and
unfortunately,
what
I
think
that
means
is
that
at
the
peak
of
the
market
you're
leaving
a
little
bit
on
the
table
right.
So
this
is
my
plea
for
margin
of
error
at
15%.
K
E
A
E
I
think
it's
important
to
note
how
our
regulations
impact
land
costs,
so
I
frequently
have
the
situation
in
my
award
where
well
I
have
a
situation
in
my
ward,
where
our
land
use
policies
say
something
the
zoning
doesn't
really
I
mean
it.
A
lot
of
projects
require
rezoning,
probably
to
be
consistent
with
our
land
use
plans
and
guidance,
but
I
also
have
a
very
common
situation
where
developer
comes
and
has
bought
land
and
can't
make
their
project
worked
under
the
existing
zoning,
and
so
when
we
rezone
it,
we
make
their
project
work.
E
L
E
We're
about
to
adopt
a
comprehensive
plan,
potentially
that
goes
even
further
than
we
have
over
the
last
many
decades,
where
we've
been
gradually
making
it
easier
and
easier
to
build
without
requiring
anything
in
terms
of
an
of
inclusionary
zoning
and
so
land
cost
I'm
sure
is
affected
by
many
factors,
but
our
land
use
regulations
and
zoning
is
one
of
them.
Yes,.
K
Absolutely
I
mean
I
think
this
is
the
key
piece
of
the
economics
is:
what's
the
implication
for
land,
what
happens
to
land
prices
as
we
make
these
policy
changes
and
unfortunately,
the
land
price
is
the
variable
that
we
have
the
least
good
data
about.
There's,
not
a
public
database
of
land
transactions
that
we
can
access.
K
That
the
development
community
has
been
you
know
absorbing
that
in
the
form
of
now
we
can
build
more
now
we
can
build
higher.
Now
we
can
build
less
expensively
with
the
parking
and
that
allows
them
to
pay
more
for
land
so
part
of
what
so
that
concession
essentially
is
baked
into
these
numbers.
Their
ability
to
do
what
we're
showing
here
is
already
assuming
some
portion
of
the
value
that
you've
contributed
by
changing
the
planning,
the
comprehensive
plan
itself.
When
we
first
started
this
analysis,
my
thought
was
that
we'd
be
looking
at.
K
K
So
that's
that's
what
Stephanie
was
saying
before
about
our
recommendation
that
you
don't
really
have
a
good
volunteer
option
here.
As
a
result,
if
you
were
asking
us
this
question
five
or
eight
years
ago,
we
could
very
well
have
said:
here's
how
you
would
do
a
voluntary
program
that
would
be
powerfully
enough
in
sending
developers
to
take
you
up
on
it.
But
at
this
point
that
doesn't
seem
like
a
good
option
because
of
the
land
cost
issues.
K
Yeah
we've
seen
in
the
there's,
not
enough
academic
research
about
the
impact
of
inclusionary
housing,
but
what
research
there
is
shows
fairly
consistently
that
over
time,
the
cost
of
complying
with
the
inclusionary
policy
gets
capitalized
into
lower
land
values
or
land
buys
that
rise
less
rapidly
than
they
might
otherwise.
So
what
you
would
expect
to
see
is
that
at
first,
when
you
adopt
a
policy,
it's
the
the
cost
of
the
policy
is
coming
straight
out
of
the
bottom
line
of
the
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline.
K
But
over
time
the
developers
who
all
face
the
same
increased
cost
will
all
negotiate
for
a
lower
land
price
and
we've
seen
that
happen,
and
it
happens
regularly.
The
thing
that
is
very
difficult
to
predict
is
how
long
it
takes
for
that
to
happen.
It
definitely
takes
years
for
that
to
transpire.
So
the
way
we
do
these
analyses
is
we
folk.
K
We
assume
the
land
cost
is
gonna,
stay
constant
and
we
look
at
what's
feasible,
but
what
we've
seen
is
in
many
communities
what's
feasible
now
you
know
changes
over
time
as
the
land
market
absorbs
the
impact
of
the
inclusionary
and
more
becomes
feasible
later
right.
So
the
question
is:
how
can
you
gradually
adjust
the
expectations
of
landowners
and
developers
rather
than
a
sudden
shock,
and
it's
the
sudden
shock
that
we're
worried
about?
Okay.
G
A
A
K
That's
a
very
good
question:
no
one
gets
6%
what
happens
or
5.9
what
happens
is
a
developer
put
some
of
their
own
money
into
a
project
they
bring
in
investors,
equity
investors
who
put
in
some
of
the
money,
and
then
they
go
to
a
bank
and
they
borrow
some
of
the
money.
So
the
project
over
all
might
have
a
blended.
K
How
how
aggressive
is
this
developer
being
in
their
expectations
about
how
tightly
they're
gonna
operate
it,
etc,
and
so
that
the
yield
number
is
a
is
a
quick
metric
that
allows
you
to
compare
very
different
projects
that
have
very
different
capital
structures
and
very
different
returns.
So
you
can
see
sort
of
on
balance
over
the
whole.
How
profitable
is
the
project
itself
separately?
Is
the
question?
How
much
does
the
investor
receive?
How
much
does
the
developer
receive
right?
K
The
investors
are
receiving
returns
that
are
much
higher
because
the
banks
are
receiving
returns
that
are
much
lower
and
the
developers
return
depends
very
much
on
how
they
capitalize
that
themselves.
Did
they
put
a
lot
of
their
own
money
and
how
much
risk
are
they
taking
so
their
returns
are
gonna
fluctuate
quite
a
bit
and
6%
is
not
relevant
to
any
of
those
right.
It's
just
the
project
itself.
Are
the
rents
high
enough
to
cover
the
cost
of
building
it,
and
then
some
does
that
answer
your
question.
A
I
think
it
does,
and
then
it
makes
me
curious
about
how
how
important
is
that
big
investment
to
ever
their
big
return
on
the
investment
to
everybody?
You're
acting
like
some
developers,
get
much
less
of
a
return,
so
they're
obviously
willing
to
put
in
their
capital
on
their
investment
and
get
less,
and
if
it's,
a
local
investor,
are
they
willing
to
take
less
and
who
will
pull
the
plug
on
it
when
it
and
who
won't
and
I
think
there's
got
to
be
some
variety.
There's.
K
Absolutely
variety:
it's
it
seems
to
me
anecdote
having
looked
at
the
projects
that
I've
looked
at,
that
you
do
have
projects
that
are
funded
with
local
capital
that
are
accepting
lower
returns
than
what
we're
showing.
What
we
focused
on
is
the
institutional
projects
and
there's
two
reasons
for
that.
One
is
that's
where
there's
the
most
data
right.
We
can
actually
look
up
what
the
yields
are
for
real
projects
if
they're
institutionally
financed,
but
the
other
is
that's
where
a
large
portion
of
your
units
are
coming
from
this.
K
K
It's
so
if
you
go,
you
go
to
a
pension
fund
or
some
other
equity
capital
source
of
hedge
fund.
In
you
know,
some
other
insurance
company,
those
types
of
investors
are
routinely
investing
a
portion
of
your
pension
into
residential,
real
estate
and
they're
working
in
multiple
markets
across
the
country
and
the
that
cities
are
essentially
competing
against
each
other
for
access
to
that
capital.
K
The
appropriate
thing
to
be
concerned
about
the
the
mom-and-pop
developers
will
respond
at
some
point
after
that,
in
all
likelihood.
But
the
sort
of
leading
indicator
is
when
the
institutional
capital
backs
off
of
your
market,
and
you
see
it
happen
regularly
there.
So
just
a
regular
cycle
and
you
can
expect
it
to
happen
again
or
whatever
you
do
on
the
inclusionary
policy.
Yeah.
A
We
sometimes
I
get
the
sense.
That's
maybe
some
of
those
institutional
investors
are
less
desirable
than
others,
and
we
hear
about
oh
now,
we're
interested
now.
China
is
very
interested
in
investing
in
Minneapolis,
and
what
does
that
mean,
and
are
they
yeah?
How
socially
conscious
are
those
institutions
gonna
be
about
what's
even
happening
here?
Yeah.
K
K
So
then
we
felt
that
it
was
worth
looking
at
other
levels
of
affordability,
so
we
stepped
down
from
15
to
10,
and
what
you
see
at
10
percent
is
that
in
the
in
the
strong
market
and
the
downtown
neighborhoods,
we
have
now
kind
of
a
margin
of
error.
There's
a
their
projects
are
profitable
enough
that
that
I'm
not
as
worried
about
what
happens
in
the
market
cycle,
etc.
When
the
markets
completely
down
these
projects
won't
happen
either.
K
But
but
this
is
the
level
of
comfort
that
you'd
like
to
see
to
feel
like
your
inclusionary
policy,
isn't
going
to
be
preventing
feasible
projects
from
moving
forward.
However,
even
at
10
percent,
affordable,
you'll
notice
in
the
emerging
market
neighborhoods
we
just
barely
squeak
into
the
marginal
category,
and
so
even
at
a
10
percent.
Citywide
requirement
we're
concerned
that
there
would
be
projects
that
could
get
built
today
that
wouldn't
be
built
under
this
policy.
K
They're
they're,
more
localized
they're
only
certain
places,
or
only
certain
projects,
but
they're
still
likely
to
be
a
meaningful
number
of
them.
You
can
go
down
to
5%
affordability,
and
then
we
don't
have
that
problem
anymore.
At
5%,
every
project
is
a
little
bit
less
profitable,
but
the
feasible
projects
are
all
still
feasible.
The
marginal
projects
are
all
still
marginal,
but
5%
is
not
a
very
big
number
you're
not
going
to
get
a
lot
of
units,
and
it's
gonna
feel
like
a
lot
of
work
for
the
number
of
units
you
get.
K
So
this
is
why
we
concluded
before
that.
Incentives
were
an
important
thing
for
you
to
consider.
We
looked
at
a
lot
of
different
incentives,
definitely
talked
about
the
sort
of
planning
and
set
of
density
parking.
What
we
are
focusing
on
is
the
tax
increment
financing,
which
is
basically
cash
from
the
city.
The
tax,
increment,
financing,
I'm
sure
you're,
all
familiar
with,
maybe
more
so
than
I
am
but
the
that
the
Minnesota
allows
you
to
offer
a
project.
K
K
So
it's
like
a
tenant
subsidy,
we're
gonna
pay
for
some
portion
of
the
cost,
and
what
we
looked
at
in
this
scenario
was
if
we
provided
each
of
these
projects
with
the
maximum
allowable
tip,
which
is
a
25
year
period,
and
we
gave
them
all
of
the
increase
in
tax
benefit
that
we
projected
how
profitable
with
the
project
be
and
you'll
see,
they're
all
more
profitable
than
what
we
started
with.
Unfortunately,
that's
not
a
very
realistic
view
of
the
impact
of
TIF,
because
it
leaves
out
some
other
costs.
K
So
when,
when
you
use
the
TIF
program
in
Minnesota
in
Minneapolis
you
in
addition
to
providing
affordable
housing,
you
also
have
to
provide
jobs,
and
you
have
a
prevailing
wage
requirement.
You
have
procurement
requirements
that
all
add
to
cost.
Unfortunately,
we
don't
know
exactly
how
much
we
looked
at
a
number
of
different
projects,
some
of
which
use
your
TIF
your
existing
TIF
program
and
had
to
pay
the
prevailing
wage.
K
We
weren't
able
to
just
to
discern
a
pattern
in
the
cost
per
unit
between
the
TIF
projects
and
the
non
TIF
projects,
but
they're
absolutely
certainly
is
one.
We
just
don't
have
enough
data
points
to
say
exactly
how
much
the
difference
was
so
just
for
the
sake
of
exploring
the
impact
we
looked
at.
What?
If
we
assume
that
there's
a
10%
increase,
it's
absolutely
possible
that
for
many
projects,
the
difference
between
building
with
prevailing
wage
and
building
without
prevailing
wage
could
be
more
than
10
percent
and
for
other
projects
it
might
be
less.
K
But
just
as
a
as
an
exercise,
we
said
what
happens
if
we
build
the
TIF
required
20
percent
of
the
units
at
50
percent
of
median,
and
we
pay
10
percent
more
for
the
cost
of
construction
than
we
would
have
in
our
base
models.
And
under
that
scenario,
all
of
the
projects
that
were
feasible
before
are
still
feasible
and
all
of
the
project
that
we're
marginal
are
still
marginal,
so
it
doesn't
make
the
emerging
market
neighborhood.
K
But
the
projects
that
needed
it
to
be
feasible
would
have
a
place
to
go.
So
you
wouldn't
have
as
much
worry
that
the
policy
was
going
to
undermine
the
feasibility
of
otherwise
feasible
projects,
so
I'm
gonna
stop
it
I'm.
Let's
definitely
talk
about
our
policy
recommendations
based
on
that
and
then
we'll
take
questions.
J
Thanks
Rick,
so
homestretch
here
so
you'll
recall
the
reason
we
did
this
financial
feasibility
analysis
to
inform
these
additional
policy
choices
or
your
policy
I
want
to
start
by
talking
a
little
bit
about
this
last
policy.
Choice
on
the
list
which
is
sued,
your
policy
be
the
same
citywide
or
varied.
J
So
this
is
back
to
Rick's
initial
slide
about
you
know
what
does
development
feasibility
look
like
even
without
affordability?
Even
today-
and
you
know
you
can
see
that
in
the
stronger
market
areas
rents
are
higher,
they
could
support
a
higher,
affordable
housing
requirement.
Fewer
incentives
in
the
emerging
and
softer
markets
rents
are
lower
support,
a
lower
requirement
or
need
more
incentives.
How
do
you
design
a
policy
when
you
have
these
varied
markets
right?
Well,
there
are
a
couple
options,
so
you
could
do
a
geographically
very
policy
right.
You
take
out
the
map.
J
You
draw
the
lines
right.
These
are
the
stronger
market
areas
with
a
higher
requirement.
These
are
the
weaker
market
areas
with
lower
requirement,
as
Seattle
did
now.
There
are
some
downsides
to
that.
The
biggest
one
being
the
process
of
drawing
that
map
can
be
very
time-consuming
and
very
politically
fraught.
You
can
imagine
a
landowner
coming
in
who's
just
on
the
higher
requirements.
Side
of
your
proposed
line,
also
market
conditions
change
over
time.
J
J
You
can
also
address
the
differences
in
housing
markets
by
having
a
citywide
program
where
projects
have
multiple
options
for
how
they
can
comply
right.
So
if
you
look
at
this
example
from
Chicago,
let's
say
you
know,
developers
in
a
softer
market
neighborhood,
where
this
first
alternative
10%
affordable
with
no
public
subsidy,
just
wouldn't
pencil.
For
them
they
have
the
option
of
falling
back
to
the
second
alternative.
Getting
the
public
subsidy
and
getting
the
project
to
work
with
more
affordability,
yeah.
J
So
I
just
talked
about
this
fourth
policy
choice
and
then,
rather
than
walk
through
these
other
three
one
by
one
I'm,
just
going
to
jump
right
ahead
into
three
policy
options
from
Minneapolis.
That
kind
of
address
all
four
of
these
considerations.
Okay,
they
are
option.
One
mirrors
the
thing
we
just
talked
about
in
Chicago
two
choices
for
how
to
comply
10%
with
no
subsidy
20%
with
subsidy
option.
Two
would
be
a
geographically
targeted
program
where
you
draw
those
lines
on
the
map.
In
this
option.
J
We're
suggesting
is
just
a
straight
shot
requirement
with
no
public
subsidy
available
anywhere.
So
you
have
a
high
requirement,
maybe
up
to
15%
in
the
stronger
market
areas
and
a
much
lower
requirement
like
5%
else
are
in
the
city,
then
the
third
option
is
kind
of
a
hybrid
of
the
two.
So
in
stronger
market
areas,
you
could
just
say
here's
your
requirement,
whatever
it
might
be:
10
15
percent,
no
subsidy
but
elsewhere
in
the
city.
J
Another
benefit
is
that
it
does
provide
a
real
choice
for
how
to
come,
and
that
makes
it
more
likely
that
your
inclusionary
housing
policy
will
work
for
more
projects
rather
than
projects
having
to
choose
to
not
go
forward
at
all,
and
it
also
provides
alternatives.
You
know,
if
you
have
developers
who
have
different
experience
with
things
like
Public
Finance
requirements,
they
can
choose
an
option
where
they
don't
have
to
deal
with
that.
J
Another
advantage
is
that
policy
option
one
may
respond
to
changing
market
conditions
more
quickly.
So
you
could
imagine
that
in
a
time
when
it
becomes
more
difficult
to
build
more
projects,
they're
going
to
lean
toward
alternative
to
take
advantage
of
public
subsidy
continue
to
move
forward
in
a
time
when
it's
easier
to
build
more
projects
or
gonna
lean
toward
alternative
one
go
forward
in
that
direction.
J
Another
advantage
that
is
dear
to
my
heart
is
projects
that
use
public
subsidy
are
allowed
to
have
an
affordability
term
of
up
to
30
years
for
those
affordable
units,
as
opposed
to
the
maximum
20-year
period.
That's
allowed
without
public
subsidy.
So
there's
an
advantage
for
projects
that
use
the
subsidy.
J
The
downside
that
this
option
both
have
to
do
with
the
subset
of
projects
that
take
advantage
of
public
subsidy.
It
does
take
some
administrative
burden
from
staff
to
look
on
a
project-by-project
basis
and
determine
well
how
much
subsidies
as
this
project
really
need.
Also,
if
you
do
use
TIF
as
your
subsidy
mechanism,
the
process
of
setting
up
the
TIF
district
not
only
is
kind
of
an
administrative
burden
on
staff,
but
it
can
also
take
several
months,
which
means
it
might
take
longer
for
projects
to
move
forward
than
it.
J
Otherwise
would
take,
but
there
may
well
be
good
opportunities
to
streamline
those
processes
which
could
significantly
reduce
the
extent
of
those
disadvantages.
Oh
and
before
I
get
the
pros
and
cons
of
policy
options.
2
and
3
I
just
want
to
flag
that
if
you
go
with
policy
option,
2
or
3,
you
will
have
to
make
a
decision
about
what
the
affordable
housing
set-aside
is
for
those
strong
market
areas,
we've
used
the
phrase
up
to
15%,
because
I
think
we
really
see
15
percent
as
the
very
outer
limit
maximum
of
what
could
possibly
be
considered.
Feasible.
J
Also,
it
doesn't
have
kind
of
the
administrative
and
potential
project
related
delays
related
to
using
subsidy
and
TIF.
Big
downside
to
this
policy
option
is
the
process
of
drawing
and
maintaining
those
boundaries
on
a
map
slightly
less
affordable
housing
produced
in
those
emerging
market
areas,
so
5%
with
this
option,
as
opposed
to
20%
with
policy
option
one
and
then,
since
none
of
the
projects
will
use
subsidy,
everyone
will
be
limited
to
only
twenty
years
of
affordability.
J
An
option.
Three
is
our
hybrid
program,
which
also
has
a
hybrid
of
pros
and
cons.
It
provides
a
good
balance
of
projects
that
receive
subsidy
versus
those
that
don't
compare
to
the
amount
of
affordable
units
produced
and
because
your
projects
here
will
use
subsidy,
because
no
project
in
this
normal
market
area
does
have
access
to
it.
It
means
you'll
have
less
of
those
subsidy
related
downsides.
Of
course,
you
also
draw
your
boundaries
and
maintain
your
boundaries.
J
Affordability
terms
delimited
to
20
years
for
those
projects
that
use
subsidy
I'm.
Sorry
for
those
projects
that
don't
use
subsidy,
which
will
be
most
of
your
projects
right
since
now
we're
not
allowing
subsidy
in
the
smaller
market
areas
and
then,
interestingly,
there
will
be
a
set
of
projects
that,
even
though
they're
in
stronger
market
areas,
the
rents
are
lower,
they
don't
pencil
out
as
well.
They
would
want
the
opportunity
to
use
subsidy
in
order
to
move
forward
under
policy
option
one.
They
would
have
that
opportunity
under
this
policy
option.
J
They
wouldn't
have
that
opportunity,
so
some
projects
just
wouldn't
move
forward
in
those
stronger
market
areas,
so
I
think
oh
yeah.
So
what
do
we
recommend?
I'm?
Guessing?
You
could
probably
imagine
wherever
going
with
this,
based
on
my
previous
slides
and
indeed
granted
solutions
network
recommends
that
Minneapolis
design
a
policy
focused
around
policy
option,
one
with
multiple
alternatives
for
compliance.
This
balances,
housing,
production,
administrative
burden,
public
subsidy,
while
also
not
getting
into
the
complications
of
geographic
boundaries,
and
that
is
basically
it
I
do
like
that.
J
So
our
forthcoming
report,
which
to
be
out
in
mere
weeks,
has
some
more
details
on
what
we
just
presented
and
also
talked
a
little
bit
more
about
kind
of
what
it's
going
to
take
to
cross
the
finish
line
to
get
this
thing
moving
forward.
But
as
Andre
mentioned,
what
we
have
now
can
inform
a
policy
framework
to
be
considered
concurrent
with
a
comp
plan,
and
then
we
can
do
more
work
in
2019.
Thank
you,
sir
Burton.
Thank.
A
A
Was
a
2016
report
that's
published
somewhere?
Maybe
we
can
also
link
that
here
to
so
people
can
have
access
to
that
I
appreciate
the
presentation.
I
just
have
one
little
question
and
then
I
think
we
have
some
more
discussion.
He
talks
a
lot
about
the
20-year
limit
on
affordability
in
the
30
year.
Is
that
in
the
same
statute
for
62
that
gives
us
the
authority
because
it
I
wasn't
quite
getting
why?
A
J
There
are
two
statutes
462,
which
gives
you
that
authority
specifically
says
limits:
affordability,
right,
I,
forget
which
is
which,
but
one
of
them
limits
affordability
to
20
years,
unless
public
subsidy
is
involved
and
then
there's
another
statute
which
just
says
by
default.
You
can't
go
above
30
years
or
vice
versa,
but
there
are
two
different
statutes
that
really
clearly
lay
that
out,
including
this
one.
It.
A
A
J
E
E
The
details
aren't
really
they
really
matter
and
when
grant
solutions
came
in
2016,
they
actually
briefed
every
single
member
of
the
council,
who
was
in
office
last
term
and
folks
took
the
time
to
really
dig
into
those
details,
and
so
my
goal
with
this
policy
has
been
to
create
one
more
tool
that
we
have
as
a
city
to
get
affordable
units.
I,
don't
think
anyone
should
pretend
and
I
don't
want
to
pretend
that
this
is.
You
know
an
overall
solution
to
our
affordability
problem.
E
It
is
just
one
of
many
tools,
and
probably
one
that
of
all
of
the
options
isn't
going
to
create
like
the
most
units
right,
but
I
do
think.
It's
really
important
to
meet
another
goal,
which
is
to
have
mixed
income
communities
and
not
leave
out
folks
from
places
that
are
rapidly
rapidly
developing.
And
when
we
have
the
presentation
at
this
committee
of
the
census
tracts
that
are
gentrifying
the
fastest.
They
are
those
that
have
the
most
new
construction
and
it
was
one
indicator
of
and
and
how
that
study
defined.
E
Gentrification
of
the
way
that
where
we
have
in
our
city,
we
have
developed
almost
all
of
the
new
housing
in
a
very,
very
small
percentage
of
our
total
land,
mostly
in
the
Third
Ward.
Recently
in
the
second,
where
the
10th
Ward
near
the
University,
and
so
a
lot
of
our
housing
is
going
into
a
very
small
part
of
our
land
area
and
a
lot
of
the
new
population.
Growth
and
those
aren't
haven't
included,
affordable
units.
So
far,
so
I
think
this
is
an
opportunity
to
do
so.
E
I
very
important
that
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
so
much
care
has
gone
into
not
exacerbating
our
supply
problem.
We
have
a
2%
rental
vacancy
rate
in
Minneapolis
and
I.
Just
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of
the
problem
that
if
you
talk
to
renter
advocates
who
are
organizing
low-income
renters
in
our
city,
they
will
note
that
their
jobs
have
gotten
significantly
harder,
as
our
rental
market
has
tightened,
that
the
supply
problem
is
causing
issues
for
renter,
particularly
the
most
vulnerable,
low-income
renters
in
our
city
and
supply.
E
It's
like
increasing
our
housing
supply
and
continuing
to
add
needed.
Housing
units
is
a
really
important
part
of
that
puzzle
too,
and
that
is
felt
very
strongly
in
my
ward,
where
80
percent
of
people
are
renters
and
then
I
also
think
it's
important
that
our
policy
be
predictable
and
fair,
and
that's
why
I
really
support
this
notion
that
we're
using
a
policy
that
is
as
easy
to
follow
as
possible
that
is
applying
across
the
city
and
isn't
assuming
that
neighborhoods
that
are
more
affordable.
E
Now
are
gonna
stay
that
way
in
the
future
that
we're
looking
at
every
single
neighborhood
in
the
city
and
planning
for
as
long
term
as
we
can
under
state
law.
Currently,
affordability
in
every
single
neighborhood
in
our
city,
so
I
think
that
the
presentation
has
been
designed
to
address
these
goals
and
it's
our
job
as
policymakers
to
figure
out.
If
we're,
if
we're
there
yet
or
not,
I
did
want
to
say
that
the
timeline
of
this
has
also
been
important
in
conjunction
with
the
comp
plan.
E
So
I
wanted
to
ask
our
seedpod
staff
to
come
and
talk
about
this
a
little
bit
because
there's
this
kind
of
strange
period
of
time
between
when
we
vote
on
our
draft
or
what
will
be
our
than
final
comprehensive
plan
which
were
required
to
do
this
year.
We'll
be
doing
that
by
the
end
of
this
year,
and
then
you
know
the
next
step
is
the
Metropolitan
Council
has
to
approve
it
and
then
we'll
be
updating
our
owning
code,
and
so
we
will
have
a
new
land
use
map
that
will
say
hey.
E
We
want
to
have
six
story,
buildings
on
Lyndale
Avenue
or
on
Lake,
Street
or
whatever
it
might
say,
and
the
current
zoning
may
not
be
exactly
what
the
land-use
plan
says.
So
I
would
expect
we're
going
to
continue,
have
rezoning
applications
in
this
weird
window
of
time,
and
so
I
just
wondered.
If
you
could
talk
about
that
and
how
that's
informed
our
plan
for
inclusionary
zoning.
Mr.
L
First,
an
interim
policy
that
you
could
vote
on
at
the
same
time
that
you
vote
on
the
comp
plan
in
early
December
and
that
we
would
be
back
at
that
same
time
later
this
year
with
a
framework
for
the
permanent
policy.
Now,
why
a
framework
isn't
it?
You
know
it's
kind
of
clear
today
we
know
what
we
want.
L
There
are
lots
of
the
mechanics
lots
of
the
legal
aspects
and
lots
of
the
particulars
to
make
our
programs
work
so
that
when
we
say
we
are
open
for
business
that
we
actually
are,
because
if
it's
a
market
rate
project
that
would
otherwise
not
have
included
affordability,
we
take
very
seriously
not
overly
slowing
down
the
market.
At
the
same
time
that
we
need
to
do
do
what
we
can
to
make
sure
development
is
still
happening.
Okay,
so
we
need
to
take
the
rest
of
this
year.
L
And,
interestingly,
the
timing
kind
of
works
right,
so
you'll
vote
on
the
comp
plan
in
December,
and
then
we
will
submit
it
in
January
to
the
Metropolitan
Council.
They
have
something
like
a
year.
I'm
saying
that
right
to
get
back
to
us
to
say
yes,
we
agree
this
is
you
know
we
had.
We
had,
we
ratify
not
sure
the
verb,
the
comp
plan
and
then
the
council
will
vote
again.
Okay.
L
So
during
that
time
we
will
come
up
with
the
permanent,
the
blanks
and
the
framework
that
you
would
have
voted
on
in
December,
so
we'd
be
back
later
this
year
for
your
staff
direction,
with
both
an
interim
policy
that
would
be
in
effect,
for
let's
just
call
it
2019
and
then
a
permanent
policy
as
well
a
framework
for
a
permanent,
see.
Council.
President
to
your
question,
the
that
interim
policy
would
address
the
situation
where
come
February.
The
council
has
voted
for
the
comp
plan
has
said
on
lyndale
or
today.
L
This
size
project
is
possible
and,
as
of
the
comp
plan
being
voted
on
by
you,
there's
an
understanding
that
you
support
a
bigger
project,
a
denser
project,
a
taller
project
for
any
given
place,
and
a
developer
wants
to
take
advantage
of
that
that,
in
that
circumstance,
where
something
more
than
you
could
build
today,
but
that
the
new
comp
plan
would
say
was.
Okay.
Would
trigger
this
interim
policy
okay,
so
we
will
spend
a
few
months
coming
up
with.
How
exactly
would
that
work,
and
what
would
we
require
for
your
review
and
approval
later
this
year?.
L
B
Just
want
to
thank
Grande
solutions
for
all
their
work,
but
also
the
the
council
president
for
all
their
work
for
this
time
and
such
kind
of
a
critical
big
policy,
and
especially
also
the
the
department
for
all
their
work
over
the
years,
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
a
citywide
solution.
We
have
a
citywide
affordability
problem.
We
need
a
solution.
That's
going
to
mimic
that
I,
also
kind
of
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
council
president's
comments.
This
is
not
these
Ellucian.
B
We
still
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
producing
more
housing
and
preserving
what
we
have
I
really
need
something
that's
gonna
work.
You
know
also
to
my
ward,
this
mainly
single-family,
where
we
have
great
housing
stock,
but
the
market
isn't
hot.
How
are
we
going
to
say
that,
when
you're
building
in
our
community,
you
must
reflect
community
values
and
I?
That's
what
I
love
about
this
policy?
Is?
It
really
puts
us
in
that
direction
and
I
look
forward
to
working
on
for
the
future.
C
I
want
to
thank,
grounded
solutions
for
coming
through
and
give
us
a
presentation.
You
know,
I
think
that
this
has
been
something
since
getting
elected
just
in
the
past
couple
of
months.
All
of
us
have
been
sort
of
dealing
with
that.
That
initial
question
that
you
posed
at
the
front
of
the
presentation,
which
was,
do
you
do
something
voluntary?
C
Do
you
make
it
mandatory
I
think
that
at
a
gut
level,
a
lot
of
us
have
known
like
we
need
a
policy
that
is
that
that
that
isn't
voluntary
and
so
to
see
that
you
know
sort
of
the
work
that
you
all
did
kind
of
like
affirms.
That
was
what
was
encouraging
and
I'm,
also
in
favor
of
a
citywide
policy.
I.
Think
that
when
you,
you
know,
I
believe
some
of
the
work
that
that
Akira,
the
Center
for
urban
regional
affairs
over
the
U
of
M
has
done
around
gentrification
in
North.
C
Novice,
agnostic
or
ambivalent,
about
development
in
in
our
communities
is
is
really
important.
So
what
I
think
the
council
president
and
customer
shredder
and
Fletcher
for
you
know
leading
on
this
and
then
thank
you
to
staff
for
all
the
heavy,
lifting
and
and
hopefully
getting
this
to
implementation,
so
yeah?
Thank
you.
A
A
E
This
is
really
a
detailed
question
notes
from
not
really
for
ready
for
primetime,
so
my
apologies
to
staff,
but
we
have
been
talking
about
this
idea
that,
rather
than
subsidize
the
development
per
se,
that
we
look
at
ways
to
subsidize
rent-
and
just
that
is
literally
the
question
starting
point.
We're
at
and
I
wondered.
If
other
cities
have
taken
that
kind
of
approach,
I
think
it
could
mean
a
lot
of
different
things
and,
like
I
said,
staff
is
really
still
working
out
the
details
of
what
we
might
even
consider.
E
What
that
might
mean.
But
one
thing
I
might
mean:
is
the
financing
of
a
typical
America
redevelopment
project
might
change.
It
might
not
change
as
much
if
we
use
TIF
on
it
answer
the
back
end
of
a
project
instead
of
the
financing
of
a
project
it
might
be,
it
could
potentially
be
a
meaningful
way
for
us
to
Center
the
tenants
and
the
renters
in
the
building
in
our
policy.
K
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Council
president.
There
is
an
analogous
dynamic,
I
think.
The
question
that
needs
further
research
is
how
you
would
use
TIF
specifically
in
that
context.
What
we
see
in
some
cities
is
the
housing
vouchers
used
in
that
way,
where
city
requires
a
developer,
to
provide
affordable
units
under
an
inclusionary
policy,
but
then
allows
for
the
use
of
vouchers
for
some
portion
of
those
units
and
generally
what
happens?
Is
you
get
a
deeper
level
of
affordability
than
you
would
have
you
know
if
they
just
done
it
without
the
voucher?
K
So
it's
the
I,
think
that
the
what
you're
saying
about
the
project
financing
not
having
to
look
very
different
if
you're
using
the
vouchers,
is
true.
There's
administrative
challenges
with
the
vouchers
and
I
suspect
the
be
administrative
challenges
to
using
TIF
in
a
similar
way,
but
in
terms
of
the
overall
financial
feasibility
it
six
of
one
half
dozen
of
the
other.
The
basic
economics
are:
if
we're
going
to
have
some
small
number
of
affordable
units,
the
development
can
absorb
it.
K
A
C
It
can
kind
of
suck
that
to
deal
with
the
intergovernmental
layer-cake,
but
I.
Think
it's
important
and
and
I'd
certainly
be
more
than
willing
to
advocate
and
fight
for
that
at
the
state
level
or
you
know,
engage
our
our
legal
team
at
the
city
to
create
some
creative
workarounds.
So
anyway
does
what
it
does
note
that
excellent.
E
You
Jerry
gonna
offer
a
couple
final
thoughts.
First,
I
just
really
really
wanted
to
thank
our
staff.
Who've
been
working
on
this
a
lot
and
I
know
they
have
so
many
other
priorities
so,
and
this
is
a
complex
policy
that
has
a
lot
of
different
elements
and
ground
it's
loose
for
all
your
work
and
I
just
want
to
say
to
the
stakeholders.
I
mean
part
of
the
reason
we
wanted
to
do
things.
This
way
was
to
give
time
to
dig
into
these
details.
E
There
are
a
lot
of
detailed
assumptions
in
the
calculations
that
were
presented
today
and
we
welcome
feedback
from
all
the
different
stakeholders
that
have
been
engaged.
I
wanted
to
note
the
importance
of
this
interim
period
and
just
remind
folks
that
we
don't
have
to
make
it
easier
to
develop
in
Minneapolis,
and
we
get
a
lot
of
feedback
about
that
when
we,
when
we
go
in
that
direction,
and
so
we
may
end
up
with
an
interim
period
of
time
where
we
are
requiring
affordable
units
in
projects
that
otherwise
couldn't
be
built.
E
Unless
we
took
action
as
a
council
and
I
think
that's
appropriate,
considering
where
we
are
as
a
city
and
how
much
we
have
done
to
support
more
housing.
Obviously
we
need
more
and
I
think
that
this
council
overall
has
has
embraced
the
idea
that
housing
supply
is
an
important
part
of
the
puzzle,
but
we
also
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
planning
for
this
long
term
affordability.
So
we
know
these
next
few
years
are
going
to
be
awkward
as
we
you
know,
contemplate
the
draft
comprehensive
plan.
E
Is
we
take
our
action
as
a
council
as
we
wait
for
the
Metropolitan
Council
to
review
and
adopt
it?
As
we
look
work,
you
know,
implement
all
the
changes
that
are
needed
to
bring
that
plan
to
life
over
many
years
and
I
think
we're
all
going
to
do
our
best
to
meet
all
of
the
all
of
the
different
goals
that
we
have
so
I.
Just
really
think
everyone
further
continue
to
involvement,
and
we
know
that
we're.
You
know.
E
A
E
Like
thank
you
very
much,
I'd
love
to
move
this
staff
direction
by
myself
and
council
member
Fletcher,
who
was
here
and
I,
know
how
to
leave
and
customer
schraeder,
and
it
has
three
parts.
There
are
some
copies
available
with
the
clerk,
and
this
is
a
direction
to
cpad,
to
return
to
this
committee
in
November,
with
the
recommended
amendments
to
our
unified
housing
policy
to
support
an
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance.
E
Until
we
had
a
final
ordinance,
then
the
third
piece
is
to
come
back
in
November
with
a
recommended
framework
for
the
long
term
plan
that
we
know
will
need
more
work
in
2018,
and
that
would
be
two
that
the
framework
would
bring
recommendations
that
apply
citywide
and
be
feasible,
as
recommended
by
our
consultants.
So
I'll
move
that
very
detailed
staff.
Direction
welcome
comments,
er
question.
A
I
guess
I
want
the
way
I
read
it.
The
third
point
is
that
you
are
pushing
our
staff
towards
option
one
and
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
clear,
it
says
citywide
and
be
feasible,
as
recommended
by
a
third-party
consultant.
My
inclination
is
to
think
that
made
a
lot
of
sense.
I,
have
reasons
why
I
like
that
approach,
I
think
they
were
articulated
well
by
the
consultant
and
is
that
kind
of
the
intention?
Yes,.
E
I
mean
so
I
think
that's
a
fair
assessment
of
the,
but
there's
a
little
broader
than
that
it
leaves
a
little
more
open-ended.
But
yes,
but
it
is
taking
some
of
the
elements
out
of
that
recommend
recommendation,
including
particularly
the
citywide
piece
and
the
feet,
and
the
project.
Feasibility
piece
and
I
think
that
I
mean
that
word
feasible
is
sort
of
I.
Think
meant
to
be
not
if
it's
not
defined
here.
It's
gonna
be
clear,
but
that's
not
the
five-year
well.
A
A
What's
feasible
there
but
I
like
I'm,
happy
to
support
this
as
it
is,
and
just
noting
my
opinion
or
the
record
here,
any
other
comments
on
there
motion
then
on
the
staff
Direction,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say
no.
That
motion
carries
and
I
also
will
move
to
receive
and
file.
Our
report
and
presentation
with
the
feasibility
analysis
and
options,
seeing
no
discussion
on
that.
All
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
both
st..
No,
that
motion
carries
as
well
and
I.
Think
that
concludes
our
business
today.