Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LRO briefs Minneapolis council on social housing models; staff to prepare RFP options
Summary
Legislative Research and Oversight presented a typology of social housing models (Group A: public-developer mixed-income funds; Group B: public-housing conversions; Group C: portfolio-driven affordable housing) and recommended next steps including an RFP and enterprise review panel; MPHA examples and funding options were discussed.
The Legislative Research and Oversight Division presented an overview of social housing to the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 21, outlining three broad models cities use to create permanently affordable rental housing and recommending next steps toward a request for proposals (RFP).
Andrew Hawkins, LRO director, and Sarah Renner described the typology used by the NYU Furman Center: Group A public‑developer mixed‑income models (examples: Montgomery County’s $100 million housing production fund), Group B public‑housing conversions leveraging federal Restore and Rebuild subsidies, and Group C portfolio‑driven affordable housing like Dakota County’s senior units funded in part by a county levy. “Social housing is rental housing that is owned and managed by public or public‑oriented landlords,” Hawkins said.
Speakers discussed local context and feasibility. LRO noted Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) has roughly 900 units of unused capacity; MPHA is piloting a program using Restore and Rebuild subsidies to develop 15 deeply affordable units, and the city previously allocated $1.3 million to support that pilot. Hawkins and Renner said the RFP would define a preferred approach but not preclude other models; an enterprise review panel would vet proposals and subject‑matter experts from administrative departments would participate.
Council members asked whether social housing would replace or supplement existing nonprofit and private partners, how it might connect to municipal revenue strategies (examples cited include Seattle’s excess‑compensation tax and Colorado’s targeted state income tax allocation), and how a public developer’s capital stack and long‑term operating costs would be sustained. Council President Payne said the typology helped him assess which model might align with Minneapolis’s market. LRO staff said a deeper feasibility study and clearly identified funding pathways would be required before major capital commitments.
LRO will accept council direction on a preferred model and stand up an RFP process if there is consensus; staff said a timeline and reporting milestones would accompany any contract and that the work would likely extend into next year.
