Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee hears LRO briefing on social housing typologies and next steps for RFP
Summary
Legislative Research & Oversight presented an overview of social housing models (public developer, public housing conversion, and portfolio/dedicated‑fund models) and recommended a policy briefing and RFP for a feasibility study; members asked staff to tailor a deeper study to Minneapolis’ market and revenue options.
The Committee of the Whole received a Legislative Research & Oversight briefing Oct. 21 that outlined social housing typologies, local examples, and potential next steps for a feasibility study.
Andrew Hawkins, director of the Legislative Research & Oversight Division, and policy analyst Sarah Renner walked members through a three‑part typology from the NYU Furman Center. Group A (public developer/revolving loan fund) models — examples included Montgomery County, Md. — use public financing and equity to develop mixed‑income housing. Group B models focus on public housing conversions and leverage federal programs (Restore & Rebuild) to add deeply affordable units. Group C models rely on a large portfolio and dedicated revenue (examples: Dakota County) to sustain long‑term affordability.
Renner noted the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority has roughly 900 units of unused capacity and is piloting a Restore & Rebuild approach to create 15 deeply affordable units; the City provided a $1.3 million contribution to support that pilot. Hawkins and Renner recommended a policy briefing and an RFP to commission a deeper feasibility study that would assess local gaps, capital stacks, governance options, and funding strategies.
Council members asked about where social housing would add value in the Minneapolis market, how projects would be funded and managed, and whether existing tools (public land, bonding, tax levies) could be leveraged. Hawkins pointed to revenue examples in Seattle (excess compensation tax) and Colorado, and Renner emphasized that Group A approaches require significant up‑front investment and skilled public development capacity.
Council President Michael Payne and others expressed interest in models that align with Minnesota law and highlighted Dakota County as an example to study further. LRO staff said they will coordinate a review panel for any RFP submissions and that a selected vendor would be expected to deliver staged reporting and timelines in the coming year.
What’s next: LRO staff will accept direction from Council on preferred approaches and can issue an RFP for a feasibility study; they will return with contract timelines and reporting milestones if and when procurement occurs.
