07-17-2017 Work Session Complete AgendaS P E C IAL JO IN T C IT Y C O U N C IL AN D H O U S IN G AN D R E D E V E LO PME N T
AU TH O R IT Y W O R K S E S S IO N
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C EN TER, B AR T H O L O ME W R O O M
JU LY 17, 2017
7:15 P M
C all to order
1.A ffordable Housing S trategies
A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at
least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
July 13, 2017
Council Memorandum No. 69 HRA Memorandum No. 20
Housing and Redevelopment
The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners
and City of Richfield
Members of the City Council
Subject: Affordable Housing Strategies
Council Members and Commissioners:
At the April 25 joint City Council and Housing & Redevelopment Authority Work
Session, a representative of the Housing Justice Center (accompanied by
representatives of CAP-HC and VEAP) presented a number of affordable housing
“strategies and tools” for Richfield policy-makers to consider. Since that time, staff has
had the opportunity to further contemplate and research these strategies. This process
has included discussions with:
The housing consultant for the Minnesota chapter of the Urban Land Institute
(ULI);
six of our peer communities (Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park,
Golden Valley, Hopkins), Hennepin County, and Minnesota Housing;
City legal counsel and HRA legal counsel; and
Further meetings with representatives of the Housing Justice Center, C AP-HC
and VEAP.
Based on this research and examination, staff is providing further analysis of each of
the proposed “strategies and tools” as well as suggesting a few additional strategies for
consideration (attached).
Before implementing strategies, staff suggests that policy-makers better define the
goals that such strategies are meant to accomplish. Currently, Richfield has among the
highest percentage of housing affordable to “low income” households in both Hennepin
County and in the Twin Cities region. According to the most recent information available
from the Metropolitan Council1, Richfield’s status at each affordability threshold is as
follows:
Affordability to households earning 80% or less than the Area Median Income
(AMI): 90% of Richfield’s rental housing meet this criteria. It is staff’s assertion that a
certain amount of “upscale” rental housing is healthy for a community and helps provide
1 Analysis includes only those communities with 1,000 or more rental units
the market demand for the kinds of retail and restaurants that resident’s desire. As
such, staff suggests that the construction of new market rate rental housing could
increase the “upscale” rental housing beyond its current 10% level.
Affordability to households earning 50% or less than the Area Median Income
(AMI): This is the predominant affordability level in Richfield. Currently 63% of
Richfield’s rental housing falls into this category. This ratio places Richfield 8th in the
metro region (out of 51 communities) and 1st in Hennepin County (among 17
communities) for providing housing at this affordability level. The vast majority of this
housing is “naturally occurring affordable housing”, which is affordable by virtue of its
poor condition or the obsolescence of its design or amenities. Much of this housing can
be rehabilitated and improved. There are some buildings, however, that are structurally
substandard to a degree at which renovation would be infeasible and unadvised.
Affordability to households earning 30% or less than the Area Median Income
(AMI): Richfield currently provides a relatively small percentage of housing for this
income level, which is described as “very low income” in affordability terms. Only 10.1%
of Richfield’s rental housing stock meets this level. Two of our peer communities
provide a greater proportion of housing at this affordability level (Golden Valley at
18.5%, Columbia Heights at 13.9%), two are at similar proportions (Roseville at 10.6%
and Edina at 10.1%), and two having a lower proportion (St. Louis Park at 8.5% and
Brooklyn Park at 8.2%).
It is a generally shared belief that housing for “very low income” families (</= 30% AMI)
needs to be formally subsidized and should provide social services on site. Historically,
Richfield residents have opposed housing fitting this description (based on denied
proposals in 2008 and 2012).
Before implementing any particular affordability strategies, staff is recommending that
the City Council and HRA establish policy statements or goals for each of the following:
Development of new subsidized housing with social services for very low income
households;
Preservation of existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) aimed at
households earning between 30%-80% of the AMI;
A strategy for dealing with affordable housing in buildings that are unsafe and/or
structurally substandard and cannot be feasibly renovated;
Development of new upscale rental housing (for households earning more than
80% of the Area Median Income).
The Rental Housing Inventory and Needs Assessment prepared for the Ci ty and HRA in
2012 provides an analysis of the gaps that exist in the rental housing stock , as a whole,
and can offer a resource when developing these goals.
While we are still in the data gathering phase of the Comprehensive Plan, a great deal
of the feedback thus far has related to affordable housing.
A cursory review of these comments shows that about half of the respondents are
generally supportive of affordable housing and/or are concerned about the inadequacy
of affordable housing while the other half have a negative view of affordable housing
and feel that Richfield has more than enough affordable housing.
Staff’s suggestion is that the formation of policy statements/goals related to affordable
housing should occur as part of the ongoing Comprehe nsive Plan process.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
SLD:js
Email: Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
Attachments
1
Analysis of Affordable Housing Preservation
Strategies & Tools
The following strategies and tools are suggested by the Housing Justice Center as options to help the City
preserve its affordable housing stock.
Strategy/Tool: Identification of buildings; Document the problem
Staff Feedback: Since the inception of the City’s Rental Licensing Program in 1989, staff has
maintained a list of the City’s rental housing. Staff has begun identifying
NOAH (naturally occurring affordable housing) buildings and those that are
the most at-risk of becoming less affordable.
Resources Required: Staff time
Places Enacted in MN: Unknown
Staff Recommendation: Staff will continue to compile and improve our listing of rental housing,
paying particular attention to the identification of naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH) complexes with 30 or more units.
Strategy/Tool: Advanced notice period required for the sale of affordable housing
Staff Feedback: From both a practical and legal standpoint, the most difficult aspect of this
tool would be enforcement. What punitive actions would be taken to prevent
this requirement from being ignored? Who would be subjected to that
punitive action? The seller may no longer have any presence in Richfield, and
the buyer would not have been empowered to provide such notice.
Attorney Feedback: A requirement that property owners give the City advanced notice before the
sale of a building triggers enforcement concerns. Arguably, a seller could
disregard the requirement with the only potential consequence being a
monetary fine or penalty relating to the ordinance violation. Such a
consequence may not be a significant deterrent. Also, monitoring compliance
would be challenging. A notice requirement could be effective if tied to the
City’s rental licensing requirements and/or made a condition for properties
receiving public funding or assistance. Without a tie to licensing or public
funding, a notice requirement potentially raises questions about interference
with private property rights. The cities of Denver and Portland have
2
ordinances requiring mandatory notice, but the ordinances apply to buildings
that receive public money. And even in those cases, a seller’s noncompliance
with the ordinance doesn’t invalidate the sale. The primary purpose of this
strategy would be to give the City time to approach an alternative buyer
rather than to punish a seller that does not comply with the notice
requirement. The City Attorney is not aware of any court opinions relating to
a mandatory notice period.
Resources Required: Adoption of an ordinance and staff/attorney time for enforcing the
ordinance.
Places Enacted in MN: Nobody has enacted yet. Minneapolis is expected to do so this year. St. Louis
Park and Golden Valley are studying the topic but have not yet reached any
firm conclusion.
Seattle has such an ordinance, but it has been reported that they do not
enforce it.
Staff Recommendation: Require a 90-day notice for the sale of any affordable housing development
that received any assistance from the City of Richfield and/or Richfield
HRA/EDA.
Work with St. Louis Park and Golden Valley to continue researching the
legality and practicalities of requiring such notice on other proper ties.
Strategy/Tool: Help preservation buyers to buy at-risk buildings
Staff Feedback: A first step in this strategy is to develop and nurture relationships with
“preservation buyers.” City staff is committed to continuing to improve these
relationships. A better identification of such “buyers” would be helpful and
that is something that housing advocacy groups could help provide.
While not stated in this recommended strategy, it is implied that the City
would provide financial assistance to the prospective buyer.
Resources Required: Funding to assist in property purchases.
Places Enacted in MN: Several
Staff Recommendation: Staff will continue to meet with potential preservation buyers to make them
aware of potentially available properties and of resources that may be
3
available to assist in rehabilitation.
Given the limited resources available to the City and HRA/EDA and given the
local desire to ensure that affordable housing is maintained as “quality
affordable housing,” staff would recommend that financial assistance be
directed to the rehabilitation of affordable units (addressed further on
another point) rather than the acquisition of NOAH units to be preserved
without improvements.
Strategy/Tool: Right of First Refusal
Staff feedback: As suggested, this would encompass the tenants having a collective Right of
First Refusal rather than the City. It is unclear what role the City would play in
establishing the legal framework to enable this or its role in managing such a
process.
It is unclear how effective such a law would be on the local level and absent
significant financial resources. There is a similar state law that applies to
mobile home parks, giving mobile home owners the right of first refusal to
buy park land. This law proved ineffective in a recent case in St. Anthony
where a mobile home park was sold to a developer instead of Aeon on behalf
of the home owners.
Attorney Feedback: When the HRA or EDA convey land to a developer and the development does
not commence, a right of first refusal provides the HRA or EDA with the ability
to repurchase the property for the price at which it was purchased (plus any
improvements made to the property). If the developer assembles land for a
development and the development does not commence, the HRA or EDA
could obtain a right of first refusal to buy the assembled property before the
developer attempts to sell it. This type of right of first refusal would require
the EDA or HRA to buy the property for fair market value. If the HRA or EDA
provide a subsidy to the development, it is easier to obtain a right of first
refusal from a developer. Without a subsidy, developers are reluctant to
execute rights of first refusal. Developers’ main concern over these
agreements is that potential buyers see these documents on the title work
and don’t want to put an offer on the land because another entity has the
right to step in and buy the property for whatever the potential buyer is
offering or a bidding war may ensue between the potential buyer and the
entity with the right of first refusal.
Resources Required: Funding for attorney research.
4
Places Enacted in MN: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends working with our peer cities and with the League of
Minnesota Cities (and similar organizations) to draft language in State
Statutes giving similar Right of First Refusal powers to apartment tenants that
are currently provided to mobile home tenants.
Strategy/Tool:
Local programs offering rehab financing in return for affordability
commitments
Staff Feedback: Staff has been advocating for federal, state, and county programs of this
nature (and has mentioned it at our Legislative Breakfast meeting) for several
years. Lacking players at a higher level, Richfield can fund a limited program.
Urban Land Institute staff has offered to set up a meeting with Hennepin
County, Minnesota Housing and interested cities to talk further about the
need for resources.
Local funding will have to be diverted from other needs and the funding may
ultimately be insufficient to make an appreciable difference.
Some local funding sources suggested (i.e., CDBG) are best used in the case of
small buildings given the federal rules that apply with eight or more units.
(Note: CDBG is a federal program, which is dependent upon Congress
authorizing funds.) The City received $244,000 in CDBG for 2017. The funds
are currently directed to low income residents through the Deferred Loan
Program, affordable homeownership opportunities, and several public service
agencies. Redirecting the funds to apartment rehab would leave these
programs unfunded.
This strategy also requires willing owners. Financing terms will need to be
attractive enough to incentivize owners to participate.
Resources Required: Staff believes the cost of rehabilitating an apartment unit (with some
associated improvements to the contiguous common area) to be
approximately $15,000 per unit.
Places Enacted in MN: Bloomington - $50,000 put into NOAH fund every year (2% of $2.1 million
HRA levy).
5
Staff Recommendation: Staff has identified $237,000 in the proposed 2018 EDA budget for an
Affordable Rental Housing Rehab Pilot Loan/Grant Fund. This could pay half
the cost to rehabilitate over 30 apartment units next year. If successful, the
program would be continued in 2019.
Strategy/Tool: 4d Property Tax Program
Staff Feedback: The state no longer administers this program or funds this program. While
the statute allows for “local subsidies,” the City would need to find the
resources to fund it (i.e., providing a tax reduction/credit to affordable
apartment owners would mean increasing taxes on others and/or reducing
services). It also may be that the tax credit would primarily serve existing
affordable housing providers and not result in increasing the supply or
preventing an owner from selling to a new owner who would raise rents.
Resources Required: Local funding
Places Enacted in MN: None
Staff Recommendation: Further research is needed on this concept to determine the effectiveness,
costs, and benefits.
Strategy/Tool: Prohibition of Section 8 Discrimination
Staff Feedback: In the Minneapolis case, opposing landlords claimed that they could simply
raise their rents over the Section 8 payment standard which would disqualify
their units according to HUD’s policies. This would have the unintended
consequence of making rental housing less affordable. Or rents may already
be too high to meet payment standards.
Requires landlords to not discriminate. It doesn’t require their participation in
the program. Minneapolis is considering coupling it with a Landlord Incentive
Fund.
An enforcement process would need to be developed and implemented.
Minneapolis will enforce through complaints filed with their Civil Rights
Commission, a structure Richfield doesn’t have.
6
Attorney Feedback: The Minnesota Human Rights Act makes it an unfair discriminatory practice
for an owner to refuse to rent to a person because of “status with regard to
public assistance.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.09, subd. 1(1). “’Status with regard to
public assistance’ means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state,
or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving
federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent
supplements.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.09, subd. 47. In 2010, the Minnesota Court
of Appeals held that, consistent with federal regulations, Minnesota law does
not require property owners to participate in Section 8 programs. Edwards v.
Hopkins Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 783 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) The
Court, therefore, rejected a claim of discrimination by a tenant who was
displaced when his landlord decided to phase out of the Section 8 program.
However, the Court also said that even though Section 8 is voluntary, the
federal rules were not “intended to pre-empt operation of state and local
laws that prohibit discrimination against a Section 8 voucher-holder because
of status as a Section 8 voucher-holder.”
Based on the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Court’s decision in
Edwards, the City Attorney believes that the City could adopt an ordinance
prohibiting Section 8 discrimination. However, the City could not mandate or
require property owners to participate in Section 8.
The City of Minneapolis passed a Section 8 anti-discrimination ordinance on
March 24, 2017. It will go into effect in May 2018. The ordinance is similar to
the provision in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but it also allows property
owners to claim an “undue hardship” based on financial considerations and
other factors, which may exempt them from the ordinance requirements.
Opponents of the ordinance have sued the city. The landlords are asking the
court to declare the law invalid and order the city not to enforce it.
Resources Required: Potential legal costs in the event of litigation.
Places Enacted in MN: Minneapolis enacted 3/17; effective date mid-2018.
Staff Recommendation: Staff feels that it would be prudent to mirror Minneapolis’ actions related to
this with a 6-12 month delayed action in order to reduce the legal exposure
and to better react to negative impacts.
7
Strategy/Tool: Just Cause Eviction
Staff Feedback: Staff is concerned about the mechanism for determining whether “just
cause” has been met.
Currently, the state of Minnesota is able to take enforcement action on any
violation of the Fair Housing Act. Beyond that, Richfield staff has no ability,
mechanism/structure or expertise to adjudicate whether a tenant has been
asked to vacate at the end of their lease for a cause that is deemed to be
“just” under the terms of the lease. City staff is simply not equipped to handle
the enforcement of such an ordinance.
It has been suggested that the Minnesota Housing Courts could serve as the
body to determine whether or not a landlord would be in violation of a
Richfield ordinance requiring just cause. Staff suspects, however, that this
court could not enforce a local ordinance.
Attorney Feedback: Cities have broad local authority to regulate rental housing, usually via rental
licensing provisions, to address public health, welfare and safety concerns.
However, there is no explicit authority in Minnesota law giving cities the
ability to require landlords and property owners to include specific terms in a
lease agreement. Under state statute, “[a] tenancy at will may be terminated
by either party by giving notice in writing.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.135. In a legal
opinion provided to HOME Line, it was argued that this statute only addresses
the who and how a tenancy may be terminated, but not the why a tenancy
may be terminated. Therefore, the opinion was that an ordinance requiring
landlords to have cause to evict would not be in conflict with the st atute. This
provides a somewhat narrow interpretation of the statute and leaves some
doubt as to how a court might rule on the issue. The City Attorney is not
aware of Minnesota court opinions relating to just cause eviction.
Under Minnesota law, owners of manufactured home park property may only
“evict” mobile home owners for cause as provided in the statute. (Including
nonpayment of rent, violations of law, etc.) Minn. Stat. § 327C.09. The
Legislature has not enacted a similar provision relating to rental properties.
Other states and cities outside of Minnesota have implemented good cause
eviction rules, many of which have been upheld by courts on constitutional
grounds. Additional research would be needed to understand the applicable
state laws and claims that were being made in those cases.
Resources Required: Staffing for investigating claims and a body for hearing claims and appeals.
8
Places Enacted in MN: None
Staff Recommendation: Given limited staff capacity at this time, we recommend that consideration of
this item be revisited at a later time.
Strategy/Tool:
Incentives to address landlord concerns about renting to certain groups of
tenants
Staff Feedback: Richfield already does this to some degree, and is recommending a number of
further steps to address this concern
Minnesota Housing is developing a pilot program targeted to high -risk
populations and people with barriers to housing beyond affordability. The
City will participate in this program to the greatest extent possible.
Resources Required: $3,000 - $5,000 annually
Places Enacted in MN: Dakota County (church funds), Fargo-Moorhead; Lutheran Social Service,
Minneapolis (out of funds).
Staff Recommendation: In the 2018 Revised Budget, staff would include $3,000 for a Section 8
Security Deposit Assistance Fund and $1,000 for a Section 8 Application Fee
Assistance Fund.
Staff is also recommending an HRA/EDA policy stating that any non-age
restricted multi-family housing development that receives financial assistance
must set aside at least one unit and up to 2% of the units for Section 8
tenants (the average City-wide ratio is .07 Section 8 tenants per unit).
Strategy/Tool: Inclusionary Housing
Staff Feedback: For nearly 20 years, 100% of new publically-assisted, rental housing has
adhered to Richfield’s current informal policy of either providing 20%
affordable housing or contributing 15% of their Tax Increment Financing to
Richfield’s Housing Fund.
Staff will be working on language to formalize our requirements while still
providing some degree of flexibility. From a process standpoint, the update of
9
the City’s Comprehensive Plan would be the ideal venue to make this change.
The HRA could also add the requirement that buildings receiving financial
assistance from the HRA accept Section 8.
Resources Required: Drafting of local ordinances/policies.
Places Enacted in MN: Several
Staff Recommendation: The Zoning Ordinance should be revised to require affordable housing in all
new multi-family developments. An example of such language might state
that any multi-family housing development of 10 units or more must include
at least 20% of the units as affordable to households earning at or below 60%
of the Area Median Income – if such developments are the recipients of Tax
Increment Financing, then 15% of the TIF generated could be given to
Richfield’s Housing and Redevelopment Fund in lieu of providing such units.
Strategy/Tool: Increasing local government leverage through zoning
Staff Feedback: In our meeting with the Housing Justice Center, they were unable to provide
many examples of this strategy but have committed to providing further
information. One example they suggested was zoning a parcel as affordable
and placing restrictions on any rezoning. This is something that would require
further investigation as to its legality or practical application.
Resources Required: TBD
Places Enacted in MN: TBD
Staff Recommendation: Continue a dialog with housing advocacy groups to get more concrete
examples and then further research those examples.
Strategy/Tool: Rental assistance
Staff Feedback: This is one area where Richfield excels. There is no other community in
Minnesota that provides more or better rental assistance relative to its size
10
than Richfield. Our Kids@Home program continues to be revolutionary and
our Section 8 program is administered in a manner that is second-to-none.
Resources Required: EDA Funding.
Places Enacted in MN: Richfield has been the leader on this issue in terms of funding relative to
community size.
Staff Recommendation: Utilizing EDA funding, Staff is proposing to increase Kids@Home funding by
over 35% in 2018. This will allow us to assist an additional 8-12 households.
Strategy/Tool:
Comp Plan: Include strong language and solutions regarding affordable
housing
Staff Feedback:
While we are still in the data gathering phase of the Comprehensive Plan, a
great deal of the feedback thus far has related to affordable housing. A
cursory review of these comments shows that about half of the respondents
are generally supportive of affordable housing and/or are concerned about
the inadequacy of affordable housing while the other half have a negative
view of affordable housing and feel that Richfield has more than enough
affordable housing.
Resources Required: A consultant has been hired to update the Comprehensive Plan.
Places Enacted in MN: All metro communities are required to update their Comprehensive Plans by
2018.
Staff Recommendation: The Comprehensive Plan update is underway and will address affordable
housing.
11
OTHER RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Strategy/Tool:
Building permit fee deferment/forgiveness: 15% of building fees deferred,
with 1/3 of the deferment forgiven for every year rents are kept affordable
Staff Feedback: This would be more of an incentive for the preservation of existing affordable
housing than a punitive action for removing it. Richfield has always
considered itself a better “carrot” organization than a “stick” organization.
Resources Required: This would reduce some revenues generated in building permits, but staff
feels that it is a reduction that could be mitigated.
Places Enacted in MN: unknown
Staff Recommendation: Write and adopt a policy for a deferment of 15% of building fees for the
rehabilitation of affordable rental housing units, with 1/3 of the deferment
forgiven for every year rents are kept affordable.
1
HOUSING STRATEGIES & TOOLS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Tools Description Opportunities Challenges Hennepin County
Cities Considering
Identification of
buildings;
Document the
problem
There should be an organized effort to track
the most significant examples of this trend
as well as identify buildings as soon as they
come on the market (if possible before that).
The City can also do a housing study that will
identify the housing inventory and at-risk
properties.
Richfield is at a great risk given the
high percentage of naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH). Identifying
the multi-family housing in Richfield
and documenting the problem gives
the City more knowledge and ability to
craft a strategic, outcome-oriented
approach.
A number of cities have
been doing housing
studies and research on
their housing inventory,
particularly with the
upcoming Comprehensive
Plans.
Notice Period The City must be given advanced notice
prior to the sale of any building.
A Notice Period will give the City more
to approach a preservation buyer to
rehab the property and prevent
displacement. In addition, the City can
give service providers advanced notice
in order to support tenants.
Developers will push back
stating that it is restraining
their ability to get the best
price (i.e. buyers will lower
the price if the market
fluctuates in the 90 day time
period.) Also, there could be
a potential for the price to rise
if there is a bidding war
between a for-profit and a not
for profit developer.
St. Louis Park, Golden
Valley, Minneapolis, St.
Paul, Bloomington
Help preservation
buyers to buy at
risk buildings
Several of our non-profit housing providers
are actively competing in the market for
these properties, but they are
disadvantaged in competing against for-
profit purchasers on price and timing with
the complex financial process. The City can
help notify preservation buyers when they
know properties will be up for sale (e.g.
Seasons Park).
Preservation buyers will keep the rents
affordable while enhancing the
property.
Preservation buyers often
need at least a 90 day notice
prior to the property being
listed on the market in order
to put together a competitive
bid.
Many cities have
relationships with
preservation buyers, and
there is frequent
communication.
2
HOUSING STRATEGIES & TOOLS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Right of First
Refusal
When owners offer their buildings for sale,
they would be required to notify tenants
and the designated unit of government.
Tenants or the government unit would then
have a defined period of time to match the
essential terms of the offer (price, timeline,
etc.). If they are able to do so, they have the
right to purchase the building themselves.
Prevents tenant displacement and can
help a preservation buyer be
competitive.
It can be hard to anticipate
where these purchase
opportunities will materialize,
making it difficult to know
where to push for local
ordinances.
Could get complicated
determining what the offer’s
“essential terms” are.
Minnesota has a ROFR for
manufactured home parks.
Local programs
offering rehab
financing in return
for affordability
commitments
Many cities, like Richfield, have a supply of
aging complexes that have deferred
maintenance. Many managers of these
complexes cite the costs of improvements as
a reason to either 1) not make
improvements or 2) increase the rents once
improvements are made. Municipalities
could offer rehab financing (low interest
loans, forgivable grants) with commitments
to maintain affordability over a set period of
time. This could be done with CDBG dollars.
Preserves affordable housing units in
the City as well as makes the property
safe housing for residents.
Administration of the
financing (could be done in
conjunction with a local
nonprofit), funds for the
financing.
Bloomington- using their
HRA levy money to put
$50,000 every year for a
NOAH fund to preserve
developments.
It has been proposed to
Brooklyn Park, in
conjunction with their
Rental Rehab Program.
4d Property Tax
Program
This is essentially a tax credit given to
housing providers who receive a
government subsidy, and in exchange
provide a percentage of their units at
affordable levels (60%/50% AMI) for a set
period of time. This is a program Richfield
had when it was funded at the state level.
That funding has dried up, and it seems that
most people think 4D has gone away.
However, the statute allows for “local
subsidies.”
Increases the number of new
affordable housing units in the City.
Providing the pot of money
for developers to tap into; the
program is voluntary.
Suggested to Brooklyn
Park
3
HOUSING STRATEGIES & TOOLS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Prohibition of
Section 8
Discrimination
Changes to business practices in Richfield
resulted in the following properties no
longer accepting Housing Choice Vouchers:
-Christopherson Properties (no new) (2014)
-Concierge Apartments (2015)
-Woodlake Park Apartments (2016)
-New Orleans Court Apartments (2016)
-Winton Housing Apartments (2016)
-Richland Court Apartments (2016)
-Fountainhead Apartments (2016)
-Seasons Park (2017)
This ordinance would say that properties
cannot exclude applicants simply because
they use a rent subsidy.
Voucher holders would not lose
housing every time a building changes
policies and practices.
There would also more housing
options available to voucher holders.
Oftentimes the challenge will
be for the HRA to lessen the
administrative burden on
landlords participating in the
HCV program. However, given
Richfield has its own HRA,
landlords have said their
experiences with the program
are positive and feel the city is
very responsive. Therefore,
the challenge is minimal for
the City.
St. Louis Park,
Minneapolis, Suggested to
Golden Valley,
Bloomington and Eden
Prairie
Just Cause Eviction
Just Cause Eviction protects tenants from
eviction for improper reason as well as
prevents involuntary displacement through
lease non-renewals or notices to vacate. This
would allow landlords to evict a tenant only
for certain reasons, such as failure to pay
rent or for violation of the lease terms. As
we saw at Crossroads, the new screening
criteria was the reason many tenants’ leases
to not be renewed. Just Cause would allow
these renters to continue living there until
they break a condition of their new lease. It
can be tied in with rental licensing.
Prevents involuntary displacement and
protects tenants from eviction without
a proper reason.
St. Louis Park,
Minneapolis, Suggested to
Golden Valley,
Bloomington and Eden
Prairie
Incentives to
address landlord
concerns about
renting to certain
groups of tenants
Risk Mitigation Fund is oftentimes
associated with the Housing Choice Voucher
program. This Fund can be created as a
response to the extremely low vacancy rate
and the disparity between cost of living and
wages. It serves as a damage fund to
supplement costs the security deposit does
not fulfill. It also has been offered as short-
term vacancy reimbursement.
Incentivizes landlords to participate in
voucher programs, providing voucher
holders with more access to housing
options.
Provides insurance to landlords for any
monetary losses from potential
damage to property.
Funding the RMF;
perpetuating stigma that
voucher holders cause more
damage (no evidence to
support this)
Minneapolis HRA, Metro
HRA, Dakota County CDA;
many models across
Minnesota.
4
HOUSING STRATEGIES & TOOLS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
Inclusionary
Housing
While this is in Richfield’s guidelines to
develop housing with 20% affordability, a
policy would ensure that this happens with
every development. It also can be applied to
rehabbed developments.
Increases the number of new
affordable housing units in the City.
Only applies to new
construction, therefore not
addressing the need to
preserve and maintain NOAH
St. Louis Park, Edina,
Minnetonka, Golden
Valley, Eden Prairie,
Minneapolis and others
are considering
Increasing local
government
leverage through
zoning
Richfield could structure its zoning so as to
prevent an owner engaging in conversion
actions from doing so before obtaining the
city’s zoning related approval.
Provides the City of Richfield with
more leverage to intervene. Minneapolis
Rental assistance
51% of Richfield households are cost
burdened (ACS 2015). Rental assistance
would lessen the burden by supplementing
income, so housing costs are no more than
30% of income.
Residents would be able to afford
housing costs without sacrificing other
basic needs.
It is costly and unsustainable.
As rent increases, rental
assistance is insufficient and
cannot serve as many
households.
Hennepin County & a
number of cities
Comp Plan: Include
strong language
and solutions
regarding
affordable housing
As Richfield completes its Comprehensive
Plan, it is encouraged that the Plan has
detailed solutions with strong language
around the preservation of naturally
occurring affordable housing. This plan will
guide the City’s housing efforts in the next
ten years.
Strong language can positively guide
the City’s housing efforts in the next
ten years.
A number of Hennepin
County cities