►
From YouTube: July 17, 2019 Housing Policy & Development Committee
Description
Minneapolis Housing Policy & Development Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/
A
B
B
This
is
our
regular
meeting
of
HPD
I
am
joined
by
councilmember,
Goodman,
bender
and
Schrader,
and
we
are
a
quorum
of
the
committee.
We
have
three
items
today
to
consent
items
and
one
discussion
item
will
take
up
the
consent
items
first.
Item
number
one
is
confirming
the
designation
of
Tracy
Scott
as
interim
director
of
the
Minneapolis
Public
Housing
Authority
and
item
number
two
is
a
passage
of
a
resolution
transferring
one
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
dollars
for
the
4d,
affordable
housing,
incentive
program
and
I'll
see.
B
If
my
colleagues
want
to
pull
any
of
the
consent
items
for
discussion
and
then
I
will
move
to
approve
both
items,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
and
the
consent
items
are
approved.
Next,
we
will
move
on
to
item
number
3,
which
is
a
receiving
and
filing
the
report
on
our
inclusion.
Air
housing
policies,
compliance
alternatives
with
that.
Thank
you
great.
C
In
December
of
2018,
the
City
Council
adopted
the
Minneapolis
2040
comprehensive
plan
which
allows
for
more
development
capacity
to
support
increased
housing,
supply
diversity
and
affordability
throughout
the
city.
Minneapolis
2040
also
supports
a
mixed
income:
housing
development
throughout
the
city
to
help
achieve
the
city's
affordable
housing
goals.
The
council
approved
a
staff
direction
in
tandem
with
the
Minneapolis
2040
plan,
directing
staff
to
develop
a
comprehensive
inclusionary
housing
policy
for
city
council
consideration
this
year
in
2019,
the
City
Council
approved
a
framework
for
this
policy.
C
Under
the
framework,
the
policy
will
apply
to
all
residential
projects,
taking
site
plan
approval,
subject
to
a
2b.
Yet
to
be
determined
threshold,
the
policy
will
apply
citywide,
not
just
certain
geographic
areas.
Rental
housing
projects
will
be
required
to
produce
either
10%
of
the
unit's
affordable
to
households
with
incomes
at
or
below
60%
of
the
area.
Median
income
without
any
city,
subsidy
or
a
developer
could
opt
to
provide
20%
of
the
units
affordable
to
households
with
incomes
at
or
below
50%
of
the
area
median
income
and
be
eligible
for
city
financial
assistance.
C
The
policy
will
also
include
affordability
requirements
for
ownership
projects,
and
there
are
many
policy
elements
that
still
need
to
be
developed,
including
the
topic
that
will
be
presented
by
grounded
solutions
network
today
on
compliance
alternatives.
The
framework
adopted
by
the
City
Council
in
December
was
recommended
by
staff
and
city
consultants
based
on
economic
analysis
and
stakeholder
feedback
over
the
last
three
and
a
half
years,
grounded
solutions,
Network
produced
two
reports,
one
in
2016
and
one
in
2018.
Both
of
these
reports
are
available
on
the
city's
website
to
develop
the
comprehensive
inclusionary
housing
policy.
C
The
city
issued
a
request
for
proposals
in
early
19
grounded
Solutions
Network
was
selected
based
on
their
extensive
expertise
and
experience,
assisting
local
governments
with
inclusionary
housing
policies
nationwide.
They
are
here
this
week
to
present
to
the
HPD
committee
and
hold
stakeholder
meetings
on
the
topic
of
compliance
alternatives.
The
input
they
receive
this
week
will
help
inform
their
policy
recommendations
to
us.
We
expect
to
bring
draft
policy
recommendations
back
to
the
HPD
committee
to
this
committee
on
October,
20,
sorry,
October,
16th,
and
a
request
for
council
action
to
approve
a
policy
on
December
4th.
C
B
You
to
mention
hey
I,
wanted
to
emphasize
that
last
point.
You
made
that
this
is.
We
are
receiving
information.
This
is
a
receiving
file
that
we're
not
getting
a
recommendation
today,
but
that
we
are
being
presented
with
information
that
help
us
to
help
inform
future
decisions.
You
know
so
it's
not
a
debate.
It's
not
a
decision
point.
This
is
a
presentation
from
grounded
solutions.
I
did
forget
to
mention
that,
as
a
part
of
this
will
also
be
receiving
and
filing
a
short
public
comment
period.
B
C
A
A
A
A
Couple
more
details
on
each
of
these
in
lieu
these
are
most
frequently
assessed
as
a
fee
per
affordable
unit
required,
in
addition
to
being
the
most
commonly
offered.
Compliance
alternative
and
lucy's
are
also
the
most
commonly
used
alternative
for
large
part,
because
they're
simply
very
easy
for
developers
to
implement
and
use,
and
there
are
a
variety
of
situations
where
it
might
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
have
an
in
lieu
fee
option
available,
but
I'll
go
into
in
a
few
minutes.
A
Off-Site
production
can
be
a
good
alternative
if
you
have
a
strong,
affordable
housing
developer
community
who
can
partner
to
build
those
units
off-site
and
also
if
those
developers
have
relatively
easy
access
to
land
on
which
to
build,
affordable
housing.
In
this
example,
the
building
on
the
left
is
the
Lumina
luxury
condo
development
in
San
Francisco,
and
they
met
their
own
inclusionary
housing
obligation
by
building
the
all
affordable
building
on
the
right
in
a
different
location.
A
This
was
a
redevelopment
of
an
83
acre
horse
racing
track
and
the
master
developer
dedicated
the
site
in
the
upper
right
corner
there
for
use
for
affordable
housing
as
part
of
meeting
their
inclusionary
obligation.
Land
donation
doesn't
always
have
to
work
in
this
way.
You
don't
always
have
to
have
a
huge
site
of
which
you
dedicate
a
small
part.
It
could
be
you
dedicate
a
small
parcel
of
land
elsewhere
in
the
city.
That's
just
for
use
for
affordable
housing.
A
Many
communities
offer
this
option.
It's
not
one,
that's
very
frequently
used,
but
when
it
is
used,
it
tends
to
be
a
real
win-win.
So
it's
nice
to
have
it
on
the
table
and
the
last
most
popular
option
is
this
concept
of
placing
affordability
restrictions
on
existing
housing
units
in
the
city
after
conducting
any
needed
rehabilitation.
A
So
those
are
the
four
main
options.
Occasionally,
cities
will
offer
some
other
compliance
alternative.
Something
like
you
know,
you
can
build
senior
housing
or
housing
for
disabled
or
just
make
us
a
proposal
and
at
the
city's
discretion
we'll
let
you
know
if
that
meets
our
needs.
But
again
these
are
the
four
most
common
options
and,
what's
interesting
is
that
all
four
of
these
compliance
alternatives
tend
to
end
up
with
generally
the
same
outcome
at
the
end
of
the
day.
A
A
So,
for
example,
you
could
use
in
lieu
fee
revenue
to
say
further
write
down
the
affordability
of
existing
affordable
units
and
another
development,
or
something
like
that,
but
in
general
this
is
what
you're
gonna
find
and
I
bring
that
up,
because
as
I
walk
through
the
pros
and
cons
of
compliance,
alternatives,
I'm
gonna
do
so
generally
here
the
pros
and
cons
of
alternatives.
If
there
are
places
where
one
of
these
options
has
a
specific
benefit
or
drawback
I'll
call
that
out.
A
So
let
me
start
with
some
of
the
benefits
of
offering
compliance
alternatives
in
your
policy.
One
big
one
is:
it
gives
you
the
opportunity
to
leverage
other,
affordable
housing
funding
sources
and
which
can
lead
to
a
greater
number
of
affordable
units
being
built
than
would
have
been
built
on-site
in
2014
granted.
A
Solutions
Network
did
an
in-depth
study
of
Seattle's
inclusionary
ordinance
and
they
found
that
in
that
case
they
were
able
to
leverage
two
hundred
and
five
thousand
dollars
of
federal
state
and
local
funds
per
affordable
unit
in
a
certain
type
of
affordable
housing
project
for
only
a
fifty
seven
thousand
dollar
city
investment.
So
that's
like
a
one
two,
three
and
a
half
leveraging
ratio
and
in
the
set
of
projects
that
we
studied.
A
This
leveraging
led
to
28%
more
affordable
units
being
built
with
these
in
lieu
fee
funds
than
would
have
been
built
if
those
developers
have
used
the
on-site
option
now
that
leveraging
is
not
necessarily
replicable
in
every
community,
it
depends
on
the
availability
of
federal
funds
etc.
But
it
is
one
example
of
pretty
compelling
effective
leveraging.
A
Another
benefit
is
that
the
developers
who
build
affordable
housing
overall,
you
know,
really
have
an
expertise
in
both
building
and
managing
those
units,
and
so
tapping
into
that
expertise
can
be
helpful
in
a
couple
of
different
ways.
A
big
one
is
that,
as
you're
all
aware,
affordable
units
and
mixed
income
developments
can
only
be
required
to
maintain
their
affordability
for
20
years
or
for
30
years.
A
If
tax
increment
financing
is
used
but
affordable
housing
built
by
an
all,
affordable
developer,
those
don't
have
those
same
restrictions
and
so
there's
a
likelihood
that
those
units
could
remain
affordable
in
perpetuity.
It's
a
pretty
big
benefit
and
that
alone
could
be
a
reason
for
Minneapolis
to
seriously
consider
compliance
alternatives
and,
in
addition,
affordable
housing
developers
tend
to
offer
supportive
services
and
amenities
to
the
residents
of
their
buildings.
That
can
provide
significant
benefits
to
those
households.
A
Compliance
alternatives
also
provide
a
lot
of
flexibility,
not
particularly
in
lieu
fees.
Money
is
very
flexible
and
also
those
fees
tend
to
have
fewer
restrictions,
even
then
say,
federal,
affordable
housing
funds,
so
some
examples
of
how
you
might
want
to
take
advantage
of
compliance
alternatives.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
you
can
achieve
deeper
levels
of
affordability,
sometimes
with
alternatives.
Then
you
can
with
on-site
development.
In
Seattle
there
in
lieu
fee-funded
units
served
30
to
60
percent
of
area
median
income,
whereas
on-site
would
have
served
eighty
percent.
A
Some
communities
also
find
that
the
market
tends
to
provide
units
with
fewer
bedrooms
like
studios.
One
bedrooms
may
be
two
bedrooms,
whereas
what
might
be
needed
for
low-income
households
could
be
more
family
sized
units.
So
you
can
use
your
compliance
alternatives
to
fill
that
gap
in
what's
being
provided
and,
finally,
if
you're
concerned
that
historically
lower
cost
neighborhoods
might
be
experiencing
or
just
starting
to
experience,
significant
housing
price
increases
that
could
displace
current
residents.
A
Compliance
alternatives
can
also
be
a
great
solution
to
address
a
variety
of
specific
situations.
We're
on
site
development
is
difficult
for
one
reason
or
another.
So
a
couple
of
examples
of
that
there
are
some
challenges
to
building
affordable
units
on
site
in
developments
that
are
primarily
intended
for
students
right.
So
one
example
of
that
is,
you
know
the
design
of
units
that
are
intended
to
house.
Multiple
students
might
not
be
the
same
as
a
design,
that's
needed
for
a
non
student
household
with
compliance
alternatives.
A
Finally,
providing
compliance
alternatives
can
make
it
more
likely
that
more
projects
will
be
successfully
find
a
way
to
pencil
out
under
the
inclusionary
zoning
requirements.
If
you
only
have
an
on
site
requirement,
there
will
likely
be
slightly
more
projects
that
end
up
deciding
that
they
just
can't
move
forward,
because
they
can't
find
a
way
to
make
a
pencil
and
the
feasibility
benefit
of
compliance
alternatives.
This
was
actually
borne
out
in
a
really
interesting
study
of
inclusionary
programs
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area,
compared
to
programs
in
the
Boston
area.
A
The
San
Francisco
area
programs,
which
offered
several
compliance
alternatives,
did
not
have
any
effect
on
housing
production,
but
the
Boston
area
programs,
which
offered
few
or
no
compliance
alternatives,
did
end
up
having
a
small
effect
on
housing
starts.
So
compliance
alternatives
could
play
a
value
in
Minneapolis
to
reduce
the
likelihood
that
the
inclusionary
policy
would
impact
housing
production
even
a
little
bit.
A
Of
course,
there
are
some
potential
downsides
to
offer
and
compliance
alternatives.
The
biggest
one
has
to
do
with
this
concept
of
creating
mixed
income
development
right.
So
Minneapolis
2040
set
a
goal
of
seeing
mixed
income
development
throughout
the
city,
and
one
of
the
action
steps
to
accomplish
that
goal
was
to
expand
the
inclusionary
housing
policy.
A
Where
sometimes
the
cost
of
housing
is
out
of
reach
of
middle
and
lower-income
Minneapolis
residents.
So
if
you
require
units
to
be
built
on-site
that
guarantees
that
lower-income
residents
will
have
access
to
those
higher
amenity
neighborhoods
where
market
rate
development
is
happening,
and
there
is
significant
research
showing
the
benefits
of
living
in
a
mixed
income
neighborhood
with
access
to
amenities
requiring
on-site
development
is
not
the
only
way
to
ensure
that
lower
income
households
have
access
to
those
higher
amenity
neighborhoods.
A
A
And
similarly,
if
you
allow
off-site
development
as
a
compliance
alternative
and
there's
the
same
percentage
of
affordable
units
required
in
on-site
or
off-site,
it
could
make
a
lot
of
economic
sense
for
developer
to
choose
to
build
those
affordable
units
off-site
in
a
lower
cost
area
rather
than
on-site
in
a
higher
cost
area,
and
then
compounding
that
problem.
The
affordable
housing
developers,
who
tend
to
be
the
ones
who
implement
any
of
these
compliance
alternatives,
use
fee
revenues,
etc.
A
They
also
tend
to
build
most
of
their
affordable
units
in
lower
cost
areas,
because
the
cost
of
land
is
lower
and
sort
of
the
federal,
affordable
housing
funding,
guidelines
and
restrictions,
etc.
So
long
and
short,
if
part
of
the
goal
is
to
make
sure
that
lower-income
households
have
access
to
affordable
units
in
high
amenity
areas,
you
need
to
be
careful
of
how
you
structure
your
compliance
alternatives.
There
are
lots
of
exciting
options
for
how
to
do
that,
which
I
will
share
with
you
in
a
moment.
A
All
that
said,
you
know,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
you
may
end
up
deciding
that
for
your
community.
It
makes
sense
to
collect
fees
and
higher
income
areas
and
spend
those
to
create
and
preserve
affordable
homes
in
areas
that
are
about
to
transition.
If
you
only
have
an
on-site
requirement,
then
you'll
only
see
affordable
units
built
through
your
inclusionary
policy
in
those
transitioning
neighborhoods
after
market
rate
development
starts
to
happen,
which
could
potentially
be
too
late
to
try
to
slightly
put
the
brakes
on
displacement.
A.
A
Couple
of
the
downsides
a
little
more
straightforward,
so
if
you
build
affordable
units
on
site
with
market
rate
units,
they
get
built
at
the
same
time
right
they
get
leased
up.
At
the
same
time,
if
you
collect
fees,
it
can
take
a
while
to
actually
spend
those
in
Seattle
an
average
of
three
point
nine
years
to
spend
the
fees
interesting
story,
though
about
Seattle,
they
ended
up,
collect
most
of
their
fees
during
an
economic
boom
time,
as
you
might
expect.
But
then,
with
this
delay,
they
actually
spent
their
fees
during
a
downturn.
A
So
that
meant
that
nothing
else
is
being
built
that
lowered
the
construction
costs
for
the
affordable
housing
developers,
lowered
laying
costs
and
overall,
probably
meant
that
they
were
able
to
do
more
and
make
those
dollars
go
farther
than
they
would
have
if
they
were
built
in
the
boom
time.
So
no
guarantee
that
would
happen
somewhere
else,
but
seems
like
a
plausible
scenario
for
other
communities
as
well.
A
A
couple
other
downsides,
I
mentioned
earlier.
You
can
only
use
your
in
lieu
fees
to
leverage
other
funds
to
the
extent
that
those
other
funds
exist
and
are
not
being
competed
for
other
uses,
and
then
we
often
find
that,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
communities
tend
to
set
their
compliance
alternative
requirements
so
low
that
they
end
up
producing
far
fewer
affordable
units
than
would
be
produced
on-site,
and
this
is
particularly
a
problem
that
we
have
seen
historically
within
Luffy's
being
set
extremely
low.
A
This
is
a
very
easily
solvable
problem,
it's
quite
straightforward
to
come
up
with
a
reasonable
formula
that
makes
those
costs
relatively
equivalent,
but
it's
just
something
you
need
to
watch
out
for
as
you're
putting
your
policy
together.
And
finally,
you
know
there
is
a
perception
issue.
So,
regardless
of
all
the
benefits
I
just
ran
through
of
offering
compliance
alternatives,
it
can
look
to
the
public
like
this
is
a
loophole
or
a
way
for
developers
to
buy
their
way
out
of
their
obligations.
So
that's
something
to
consider
as
well.
A
A
You
can
also
set
requirements
for
the
geographic
use
of
alternatives.
So
Santa
Monica
says
that
if
you're
gonna
build
units
off
site,
they
have
to
be
built
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
original
market
rate
project,
and
then
Boston
requires
that
at
least
half
of
its
in
luffy's
be
spent
in
neighborhoods,
with
a
demonstrated
need
for
affordable
housing.
A
And
then
you
also
have
the
option
to
limit
by
right
use
of
alternatives
to
only
a
few
certain
edge
cases
right.
So
you
could
say
you
know
student
housing,
access
to
alternatives
by
right,
luxury
ownership,
housing.
You
could
use
alternatives,
other
projects,
maybe
they
need
to
ask
for
city
approval
in
order
to
use
a
compliance,
alternative
or
they're
not
eligible.
A
You
can
also
require
that
at
least
some
of
the
affordable
units
be
built
on
site.
I
mentioned
again.
Chicago
a
quarter
of
units
must
be
built
on
site,
and
then
you
can
just
structure
your
compliance
alternatives
to
make
the
on
site
performance
the
preferable
and
more
financially
beneficial
option
most
of
the
time
right.
So,
for
example,
in
Santa
Monica
they
have
an
off-site
option.
A
But
if
you
build
off
site
you
have
to
build
25%
more
affordable
units,
then
you
would
have
a
few
built
on
site
and
you
can
also
set
your
in
lieu
fee
to
a
number
that
will
generally
be
slightly
higher
than
the
cost
of
on-site
performance
for
most
projects.
That'll,
give
you
a
majority
of
folks
choosing
on-site
development,
and
the
last
point
I'll
make
on
this
topic.
Is
that,
as
you
think,
about
compliance
alternatives,
it
is
important
to
make
sure
that
any
alternative
you
offer
is
a
genuine
alternative
right.
A
So
you
don't
want
to
say
you
can
build
off
site
if
you
build
three
times
as
many
units,
that's
not
something
that's
going
to
be
feasible
for
any
project.
It
doesn't
make
sense.
That
said,
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
compliance
alternative
has
to
be
preferable
for
all
or
most
projects.
It
just
means
that
it
has
to
be
a
reasonable
alternative.
Some
of
the
time
for
some
projects
and
before
I
turned
over
to
discussion.
A
Andre
I
mentioned
that
we
did
host
a
couple
of
stakeholder
meetings
yesterday,
one
in
the
morning
with
some
developers
and
one
the
afternoon
with
some
nonprofit
members.
I.
Think
some
of
those
folks
are
here
today
and
will
be
able
to
speak
for
themselves,
which
is
wonderful,
but
I
did
want
to
just
give
you
a
couple
of
highlights
from
each
of
those
conversations.
A
Just
want
to
reassure
you
that
grounded
solutions
take
is
that,
while
the
exact
amount
of
an
affordable
housing
contribution
from
market
rate
development
can
vary
with
different
market
cycles,
we
are
very
confident
that
market
rate
development
in
Minneapolis
does
have
the
ability
to
contribute
to
affordable
housing
from
our
nonprofit
focus
group.
A
couple
of
main
points
we
heard
folks
are
generally
in
agreement
that
providing
flexibility
through
compliance
alternatives
makes
sense.
They
emphasize
that
it
is
important
to
ensure
that
the
contribution
from
the
alternative
compliance
is
equivalent
to
on-site
production.
A
There's
a
lot
of
interest
in
affordable
homes
to
serve
lower-income
households.
So
we
talked
about
how
50%
of
area
median
income
is
a
greater
indeed
than
60%,
and
then
there
was
also
a
suggestion
that
when
housing,
TIF
districts
are
used,
that
perhaps
any
excess
TIF
that
was
generated
from
that
project
could
be
directed
to
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund.
B
D
D
E
You
mr.
chair,
this
may
be
more
like
reflections
or
ideas,
but
I
would
invite
any
comment
back
from
you
or
staff
as
they're
talking
about
the
different
alternatives
for
compliance.
One
question
I
had
was
that
in
a
city
that
already
does
fund
new
construction
leveraging
other
sources
through
a
trust
fund.
The
question
became
to
me.
You
know,
then
do
we
want
to
use
this
as
another
source
of
funding
for
our
trust
fund?
E
I
do
think
I've
heard
over
the
years
that
we've
been
discussing
this
policy
a
lot
of
interest
from
council
members
who
see
significant,
develop
in
their
development
in
their
board
to
have
the
unit's
on
site,
and
so
I
think
that
that
was
one
of
the
sort
of
original
reasons
that
we
started:
exploring
inclusionary
zoning
when
you
look
at
maps
of
housing
cost
in
our
city
the
places.
It's
no
surprise
that
the
places
where
we
are
seeing
the
most
new
construction
are
the
places
that
rents
have
gone
up.
F
F
Is
this
model
that
wasn't
discussed
where
developers
are
building
one
project
with
two
buildings,
so
one
is
financed
privately
and
they
can
finance
the
project
privately
and
the
other,
which
is
on
the
exact
same
site,
potentially
sharing
amenities
and
also
maybe
even
sharing
parking
and
greenhouses
and
trails
and
access
to
parks,
and
all
that
is
built
immediately.
Adjacent.
F
That's
also
happening,
I
believe
on
the
firestation
site
and
the
Third
Ward,
where
they're
building
a
full
market
rate
building
immediately
next
to
a
full,
affordable
building,
which
I
think
it
makes
it
easier
generally
to
finance
and
I
hadn't
heard
that
discussed
as
a
compliance
alternative.
But
it
sounds
like
that
would
be
one
way
to
acknowledge
that
it's
difficult
to
finance
mix
juice
within
mixed
income
within
mixed
use,
and
so
I
would
like
to
see
that
just
thought
through
by
our
staff.
F
So
we
could
make
that
a
compliance
alternative,
because
I
think
that
that's
something
also
that
makes
neighborhoods
really
happy
I
mean
in
the
neighborhood
that
I
live
in
we're
gonna
have
one
of
these
projects
and
people
in
my
neighborhood
wanted
the
affordable
housing
they
fought
for
it.
I
mean
I,
think
they
would
have
been
ok
with
all
of
it
being
affordable,
but
the
process
of
getting
money
to
build,
affordable
housing
even
for
private
developers
is
very
difficult,
so
I
think
we
need
to.
F
If
we're
not
going
to
have
developers
telling
us
what
to
do
other
than
telling
us
what
we
can
do
with
our
own
money,
which
I
don't
love.
As
you
know,
I'm
looking
right
at
you.
Thank
you
for
making
those
suggestions.
I
was
looking
at
Steve
Kramer,
but
you
can
assess
how
we
can
tax
for
at
all.
You
want
I
also
know
what
everybody
else
is
going
to
do,
and
I
do
think
that
that
compliance
alternative
is
something
that
should
be
legitimately
studied
and
made
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
those
projects
succeed.
B
Thank
You
councillor
for
coming,
did
you
want
to
address
any
any
of
the
other
things
brought
up
before
we
enter
into
public
comment?
E
Maybe
just
clarify
I
mean
so
my
gut
reaction
as
well.
Is
that
really?
The
only
reason
we
would
consider
in
lieu
fees
is,
if
we're
concerned
about
feasibility,
because
the
amount
of
money
that
we
would
raise
through
that
source
is
sort
of
my
gut
is
that
it
would
not
be
a
significant
increase
to
our
trust
fund,
which
we
already
use
for
that
that
tool
right.
We
were
already
funding,
affordable
housing
production
through
our
trust
fund,
so
then
sort
of
following
that
thread.
E
If,
if
we're
also
contemplating
offering
TIF
financing
for
projects
in
a
sense,
that's
another
version
of
that's
another
way
for
us
to
address
this
issue
of
feasibility.
So
if
we're
looking
at
in
luffy's,
my
sense
of
the
council
is
that
we
would
only
look
at
in
blue
fees
if
it
was
a
question
of
feasibility
which
were
already
attempting
to
address
through
financing.
F
You
mr.
vice
chair
I
also
wanted
to
note
that
you
know
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
the
use
of
tax
increment
for
anything,
including
this,
but
I
did,
like
many
of
you,
receive
fairly
well
presented
proposal
from
Kelly
Dorn,
which
is
something
that
he
had
suggested
to
the
governor's
office,
which
was
an
alternative
form
of
financing
for
affordable
housing
and
I
am
going
to
be
calling
him
and
asking
our
city
staff
to
meet
with
me
and
him.
F
So
he
can
go
through
his
idea
even
further
and
I
think
that's
also
something
downtown
council
is
looking
at,
which
might
be
slightly
more
palatable
to
me
than
tax
increment,
but
not
much,
but
I
do
think
any
developer
coming
up
with
an
idea
that
they
can
suggest
to
us.
That's
out
of
the
box
is
appreciated
and
I
think
that
those
kinds
of
comments
to
us
deserve
feeling
that
out
and
saying,
if
that's
possible,
so
I
just
wanted
to
note.
F
I
have
had
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
our
housing
staff
and
I
am
gonna
meet
with
them,
mainly
because
he
he
pitches
it
as
an
alternative
to
tax.
Increments
of
that,
of
course,
brought
you
know,
I
was
excited
to
hear.
There
was
someone
who
had
an
alternative,
although
I
think
it's
a
similar
thing,
but
I
am
willing
to
address
it
and
we'll
be
following
up
with
him
as
well.
Great.
B
And
custom
equipment
that
point
is
well-taken,
I.
Think
all
the
more.
Why
all
the
more
disappointing
that
we
didn't
actually
get
some
feedback
for
this
process
when
it
came
to
meet
our
meeting
with
the
developers?
So
hopefully
we
have
some
folks
who
are
interested
in
speaking
during
the
public
comment
period.
E
You
mr.
chair
just
a
note
on
process-
and
maybe
staff
will
comment
on
this
as
well,
but
I
think
this
was
really
more
from
counsel
side,
so
our
intention
was
to
have
you
know
this
information
presented
to
us
a
chance
for
council
members
on
the
committee,
but
then
also
other
council
members.
You
know
to
think
about
this
information
to
follow
up
with
staff
or
the
consultants
with
any
questions
and
then
some
time
before
their
next
visit.
Our
intention
and
hope
was
to
give
a
little
more
direction
on
some
of
these
alternatives.
E
So,
for
example,
we
think
we
probably
want
the
final
policy
to
include
or
not
to
include
the
in
lieu
fees.
You
know,
if
there's
a
question
about:
maybe
compliance
alternatives
make
sense,
but
within
a
geographic
area,
that's
close
to
the
building
or
not
so
some
of
those
kind
of
turning
points
of
where
the
analysis
and
policy
recommendations
will
come,
and
so
that
would
likely
come
as
a
staff
direction.
You
know
in
the
next
couple
of
months
between
now
and
when
the
consultants
are
expected
to
come
back
for
their
next
technical
visit
thanks.
Mr.
chairman,
thank.
B
You
for
that
perspective,
thank
you
for
putting
that
context
down
on
open
up
for
public
comment.
I
know
that
there
are
a
number
of
groups
and
individuals
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
issue.
I'll
sort
of
you
know
these
aren't
so
much
parameters,
but
this
is
sort
of
my
recommendation
because
we
are
getting.
You
know
an
analysis
from
our
consultant
and
because
we
are
not
getting
a
recommendation
at
this
time.
B
F
B
So
yeah,
so
the
customer
vendor
has
moved
to
receive
a
file.
The
presentation
which
is
sort
of
three
point
one
here
in
the
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
and
that
report
has
received
and
filed
with
that.
We
will
take
public
comment.
Please
try
to
keep
it
to
three
minutes
and
I.
Don't
have
a
list
in
front
of
me
but
I'll.
Let
folks
sort
of
self-regulate
as
they
as
they
go.
G
G
So
organization
did
bring
together
this
group
minneapolis
building
minneapolis
together,
which
is
a
wide
swath
of
active
developers
in
minneapolis
who
developed,
owned
and
managed
literally
thousands
of
affordable
housing
units,
and
we
have
engaged
one-on-one
with
many
of
you
with
staff
and
with
advocates
for
well
over
a
year
on
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy
issue.
So
we're
half
a
year
into
implementation
of
the
interim
policy
and
it's
it's
clear
that
applicability
is
limited.
G
Many
projects
were
in
the
ground
already,
so
we
see
the
cranes
around
around
downtown.
A
lot
of
projects
rushed
in
to
meet
the
deadline
at
the
end
of
last
year,
so
the
Planning
Commission
agendas
were
packed
as
councilmember
Schrader
certainly
knows,
and
then
others
have
come
forward
since
the
policy,
but
the
policy
just
doesn't
apply
so
we
haven't
felt
a
great
impact.
Yet
we
also,
on
the
other
side
of
that
coin,
haven't
seen
new,
affordable
units
put
in
the
pipeline
yet
so
for
us
what
seemed
important
to
focus
on
last
year.
G
It's
really
important
now
to
focus
on
on
this
question
as
you
move
towards
a
more
permanent
policy
that
has
broader
applicability
and
the
and
the
view
of
our
group
hasn't
changed.
The
basic
underlying
issue
that
our
market
can
France
is
a
demand,
supply
imbalance
that
puts
pressure
on
all
rents,
especially
rents
of
existing
Class,
B
and
C
buildings,
which
are
also,
of
course,
our
no.1,
our
newest
dock.
G
You
can't
see
this
this
slide,
but
it's
a
Met
Council
analysis
of
a
number
of
markets
that
have
the
same
problem
and
in
our
case,
between
28
2010
and
2018.
Our
population
grew
by
8.5%,
regionally,
and
certainly
the
city
mirrors
that
but
housing
units
grouped
by
five
point
three
percent,
so
we
continue
to
fall
further
and
further
behind
and
from
the
development
community's
perspective.
G
Again,
these
folks
that
have
built
thousands
of
affordable
housing
units,
any
regulatory
policy
that
overreaches
and
causes
projects
to
become
financially
infeasible
will
deter
investment,
slowed
down
production
overall
and
exacerbate
this
fundamental
underlying
problem.
So,
as
you
move
to
consider
an
Icee
policy
that
will
be
more
sweeping
in
its
reach,
it's
really
important
in
our
view,
to
think
this.
Through
again,
the
feasibility
analysis
that
you
based
your
interim
policy
on
last
fall
has
not
been
updated,
since,
as
Stephanie
indicated
and
in
fairness,
the
grounded
solutions
they
weren't
asked
to
update
it
either.
G
But
you
know
from
the
development
standpoint:
it
hasn't
gotten
any
better
to
develop
land
costs
rise,
labor
costs
rise,
materials
costs
rise,
so
the
local
developers
had
serious
concerns
about
the
validity
of
the
feasibility
work
last
year
and
it
hasn't
better.
As
I
said,
you
may
remember
that
our
collective
recommendation
last
year
was
to
adopt
an
IG
policy
focused
on
10%
of
units
at
60%,
ami
affordability,
with
financial
assistance
available
to
ensure
financial
feasibility.
We
also
recommended
a
series
of
policy
and
program
ideas
focused
on
directly
producing
and
preserving
affordable
housing.
A
mr.
G
And
just
one
last
if
I
can
address.
Mr.
chairman
tells
me
readers
point.
We
didn't
have
a
satisfying
session
yesterday
with
grounded
solutions.
Our
group
doesn't
think
the
underlying
policy
is
right,
yet
hope
we
can
get
right,
but,
alternatively,
complying
with
the
wrong
policy
didn't
make
sense
to
our
group.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
really
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
D
You
have,
but
just
going
over
the
housing
goals.
I
think
we
agree,
has
a
city
for
most
of
these,
but
overall
and
with
all
the
slightest
it
is
a
little
frustrating
is
what
is
the
market
doing?
For
any
of
these
I
mean
we
have
five
direct
goals.
I
would
say
you
can
make
an
argument
for
for
that.
The
market
is
doing
and,
as
you
pointed
out,
we're
losing
affordability
as
a
city
at
a
very
terrifying
rate
and
the.
D
Know
we
have
programs
for
we're
working
innovatively
to
conserve
what
we
have
to
produce
new
units
we're
doing
this
head-on.
We
we
actually
wouldn't
call
this
an
incentive.
I
would
call
us
an
incentive
based.
You
know
we
are
helping
developers
that
want
to
do
affordable
housing.
We
are
providing
funding
for
that
and
we're
not
the
only
ones.
You
know
you
can
get
that
fund
funding
from
national
from
the
state
from
other
philanthropic
and
what
I'm?
D
G
Mr.
chairman,
council
members,
thank
you.
We
do
have
a
series
of
suggestions.
Some
of
them
certainly
are
our
use
of
public
resources.
That's
for
sure,
because
in
my
experience
and
as
you
know,
I've
developed
myself,
hundreds
of
units
of
affordable
housing,
including
highly
affordable
housing,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
all
those
tools
and
the
simple
truth
is:
you
cannot
bend
the
market
to
your.
Your
will.
G
We
did
make
a
recommendation.
I
mean
if
you
would
have
a
10%
policy
with
the
availability
of
assistance
where
it's
needed
to
make
financial
feasibility
stand.
Then
we
think
that
actually
would
be
something
worth
doing
and
we
could
lock
hand.
We
could
lock
arms
and
say
we're
working
on
this
together,
but
as
it
stands
now,
we
think
the
policy
has
gone
too
far
and
will
be
detrimental
to
your
goals
and
certainly
impact
the
ability
of
the
city
to
deal
with
this
fundamental
problem
of
supply
demand
imbalance
well,.
D
Before
that
comment,
I
just
want
to
follow
up
with
the
comment.
There's
no
question
just
if,
if
you
really
believe
that
to
that
extent,
I
would
have
expected
a
better
outcome
yesterday
from
the
stakeholder
meeting,
I
would
have
expected
and
here's
other
solutions
to
make
this
work.
So
we
do
have
the
goal
of
making
this
work.
B
So,
given
that
we
only
have
six
more
minutes
of
quorum,
I
did
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
had
somebody
from
the
is
that
the
BMT
coalition
represented
here
I
know
that
there
are
other.
There
are
folks
from
the
Alliance
and
I
see
some
of
the
housing
advocates
here.
I'd
love
for
to
give
them
the
floor
before
we
continued.
If
there
was
anybody,
mister
Mindon,
Steve,
how
you
doing
I
would
love
to
give
somebody
from
the
the
Alliance
or
one
of
the
other
housing
advocacy
groups
at
least
three
minutes.
H
Hello,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr.
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
trom
Wong
and
I'm
new
staff
member
at
the
Alliance
for
metropolitan
stability
I'm,
here
to
express
our
support
for
a
strong
icy
policy
to
ensure
that
all
growth
and
development
taking
place
in
the
city
benefits
all
residents.
H
We
know
that
not
any
one
housing
policy
is
going
to
be
the
Silver
Bullet,
but
we
think
that
a
strong
loophole,
free
isay
policy,
is
really
important
to
playing
a
role
in
that
strong
toolbox
that
you're
creating
to
address
our
affordable
housing
crisis
and
with
I
see.
We
think
that
it's
a
really
important
part
of
continuing
to
work
towards
the
creation
of
a
more
equitable
housing
system
and
in
regards
to
the
presentation
we
just
saw.
H
That's
something
that
we
should
strongly
consider
to
achieve
both
the
number
and
the
geographic
diversity
that
we
want
to
see
and
overall,
we're
just
really
excited
to
join
the
nine
hundred
plus
jurisdictions
and
twenty
five
states
that
have
implemented
isay
and
we
look
forward
to
working
together.
Thank
you
again
for
a
granted
solutions.
Network
for
letting
us
be
a
part
of
this
process
for
the
past
year.
It's
been
really
valuable
for
us
as
a
learning
tool
and
also
as
an
advocacy
tool
thanks.
B
Thank
you.
We've
only
got
three
more
minutes
left
of
quorum,
so
if
there
are
other
sort
of
addressable
questions
or
concerns,
I
would
love
to
hear
and
and
then
you
know,
this
might
be
the
last
comment
and
then,
of
course,
stem
is
raised
if
you
had
any
sort
of
responses
that
she
wanted
to
give
after
this
or
not
no
pressure,
you
are
rather
welcome
to
do
that.
I
I
So
I'll
try
to
do
a
wrap-up
form
on
behalf
of
BMT,
we
were
hoping
to
present
our
PowerPoint
today
as
a
counterpoint
to
the
GSN
report
and
we
weren't,
given
that
opportunity
we'd
like
to
have
that
opportunity
future
date.
The
GSN
report
from
nine
months
ago
was
predicated
on
some
flawed
tax
and
expense
data.
We
said
that
before
the
report
was
presented.
I
Chairman
I'm
speaking
about
nine
months
ago,
when
they
made
a
report,
and
you
adopted
an
interim
ordinance
based
on
their
recommendations
based
on
flawed
data.
We
were
not
given
the
opportunity
to
speak
then
and
make
a
present
presentation
then,
and
we
still
today
we're
limited
to
three
minutes
a
piece
rather
than
dealing
present
our
PowerPoint,
and
we
just
think
you
need
to
meet
with
us
as
a
group
other
than
you
know,
with
two
hours
before
the
committee's
report
was
received.
I
It's
just
this
isn't
a
collaboration,
yet
I
think
we
need
to
make
that
point
clear
as
an
industry
we're
in
the
best
position
to
tell
you
what's
going
to
work
and
not
work,
guaranteed
solution.
Network
is
an
advocate
and
we
expect
them
to
report
and
recommend
to
you
and
I
Z
policy.
You,
as
a
policymaker
board,
have
said
you
want
to
adopt
an
I
Z
policy.
I
I
We've
opposed
discussing
the
alternative
compliance
energy
because
we
don't
agree
with
the
underlying
policy.
Yet
as
an
example,
the
city
of
Bloomington
worked
for
two
years
with
industry
collaboratively
and
adopted
a
policy
that
industry
embraces.
We
recommend
you
stop
what
you're
doing
toss
out
your
schedule,
embrace
us
as
an
industry
partner
and
actually
adopt
the
policy
that
the
industry
can
embrace.
I
I
We
stand
ready
to
partner,
but
we
renew
our
caution
that
you
are
otherwise
in
legislating
against
market
forces,
which
is
never
a
successful
model
for
a
democratic
form
of
government
and
if
you
think,
those
who
do
the
policy
in
the
field
building
both
market
rate
and
a
furball,
don't
know
what
we're
talking
about.
The
outcome
will
be
at
the
reduction
in
production
and
a
heightening
of
the
crisis.
More
NOAA
will
be
cannibalized
for
market
rate
and
will
continue
to
go
in
the
opposite
direction.
I
B
J
J
K
You
were
must
share
I'll
sit
in
committee,
the
opportunity
to
provide
comment
today.
My
name
is
Joseph
Harris
I'm,
a
Minneapolis
resident,
I
love
it
700
South.
Second
Street
in
the
Third
Ward
I
was
born
and
raised
in
Minneapolis
I've
lived
here
for
most
of
my
life.
I
love
this
city
and
I
was
excited
to
be
a
part
helping
it
grow.
So
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
I
joined
Ryan
companies
to
be
a
housing
developer.
We
Orien
care
very
deeply
about
the
city
in
this
community.
It
is
our
home.
Our
headquarters
is
here.
K
We
live
here,
we're
honored
that
with
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
build
here
as
well.
We
joined
building
Minneapolis
together
because
we're
concerned
about
the
housing,
affordability
in
this
city,
and
we
want
to
be
part
of
the
solution.
Building
many
apples
together,
as
previously
mentioned,
is
a
broad-based
group
of
organ
of
private
groups,
public
groups,
not-for-profit
developers
for
private
developers,
market
rate
developers,
affordable
housing
developers
in
addition
to
civic
leaders
and
other
who
care
deeply
about
this
community.
The
housing
ecosystem
is
very,
very
delicate.
K
We
presented
in
our
presentation
there's
been
a
lot
of
municipalities
that
have
passed
very
well-intentioned
housing
policies
to
try
to
solve
one
housing
issue
and,
in
turn,
have
ended
up,
making
their
overall
housing
much
less
affordable
for
many
of
their
residents.
We
Harbor
these
concerns
about
the
framework
of
the
current
IC
policy.
K
Being
developed,
I
would
encourage
and
employ
the
council
to
not
follow
policy
precedence
of
cities
that
are
objectively,
more
expensive
and
less
affordable
than
ours
is
Minneapolis
has
shown
to
be
the
national
leader
on
zoning
policy,
and
we
think
we
can
also
be
the
national
leader
on
affordable
housing
policy.
I
would
request
that
the
council
review
the
policy
recommendations
from
building
Minneapolis
together.
We
at
Ryan
are
in
full
support
of
the
BMV
policy
recommendations.
These
are
very
innovative
and
progressive
tools
and
that
won't
constrain
you
supply
and
will
be
pillars
to
helping
us
make
Minneapolis.
K
B
Great
you
know,
given
that
this
is
public
comment
and
not
a
public
hearing.
You
know
I'd
love
a
chance
to
sort
of
cut
this
off
at
some
point,
but
I
did
want
to
see
if
there
was
anybody
else
for
the
public
who
wanted
to
give
another
word,
you
know,
ask
any
questions
or
sort
of
voice
any
addressable
concerns.
L
In
collison
wear
a
lot
of
hats,
affordable
housing
advocates,
also
work
for
the
downtown
Council
and
I
do
want
to
applaud
and
chair
Thank
You
Vice
Chair
Ellison,
for
that
an
invitation
will
be
quick.
I.
Do
an
applaud,
councilmember,
Goodman's
reflection,
that
this
is
a
space
of
creativity
and
that
working
with
private
developers
in
relationship
to
density
perspectives,
particularly
in
coming
and
talking
about
downtown
Minneapolis,
which
is
the
space
that
I
advocate
for
affordable
housing
and
creativity.
L
B
M
Name
is
Trevor
Martinez
I
work
for
Shaffer
Richardson,
we're
located
at
900,
North.
Third
Street
we're
also
a
member
and
support
the
dmt
policy
objectives
is
here.
My
the
I
thing
that
I'm
here
to
talk
just
very
briefly
about
today,
is
to
give
a
big-picture
overview
as
to
one
of
the
alternative
compliance
tools,
specifically
as
it
relates
to
the
using
TIF
and
the
20%
and
50%
target,
and
so
big
picture.
The
reason
why
this
is
challenging
to
use
tip
for
this
perspective
is
because
of
its
variability
because
of
its
it's
sorry.
M
In
other
areas.
Ways
this
has
been
done
with
lisam
has
been
dealt
with,
has
been
more
through
pilot
or
abatement
programs,
as
opposed
to
tax
increment
financing
programs,
because
that
allows
a
lower
amount
of
administrative
burden
as
well
as
it
reduces
the
amount
of
variability.
That
comes
with
the
fact
that
TIF
has
generated
off
of
an
increment,
and
it's
not
based
on
just
a
pure
proposal
that
is
in
front
of
you
outside
of
that.
M
The
what
some
of
the
obstacles
of
the
mixed
income
development
that
happens
is
that
lenders
are
particularly
more
cautious
and
sizing
proceeds
which
hit
the
gap
and
then,
as
our
presentation,
to
the
to
the
grounded
solutions.
Networking
yesterday
showed
that
investors,
it
creates
market
pressures
to
switch
from
building
new
housing
and
increasing
supply
in
order
and
shifting
in
towards
the
redevelopment
for
reinvestment
in
Nilla
properties,
which
limits
causes
upward
pressure
on
rents
and
newer
properties.
We
strand
strongly
with
Libyan
teen
are
happy
to
be
transparent
about
the
confluence
of
factors
were
not
a
black
box.
M
B
A
B
E
E
So
the
purpose
and
the
reason
behind
this
ordinance
as
one
of
many
things
we
are
doing
to
promote
housing,
stability
and
affordability
in
our
community
is
coming
because
our
constituents
and
the
people
who
elected
us
to
be
here
have
told
us
it's
their
highest
priority.
I'm
a
little
disappointed
when
we
hear
folks
that
we
spend
so
much
time
with
come
and
talk
to
us
like
we've
never
met
before,
or
we've
never
heard
from.
E
Our
context
is
very
different
than
the
communities
around
ours
will
be.
You
know
that
in
downtown
Minneapolis
building
giant
high-rises
can
be
built.
As
of
right.
We
have
very
little
way
to
do
an
incentive-based,
inclusionary
zoning
policy
like
the
suburban
communities
around
us.
It's
not
an
option
for
Minneapolis.
B
Thank
you
for
those
closing
comments
and
thank
you
to
my
colleagues
for
your
questions
and
thank
you
to
councilmember,
Goodman
I
know
we
kept
you
a
little
bit.
You
know
we're
doing
the
public
comments,
so
I
apologize
for
that
with
with
no
further
business,
but
before
us
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.
All.