Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edina HRA begins review of inclusionary housing policy, weighs buy‑ins, AMI targets and permanence
Summary
City staff opened a discussion on Edina’s 2015 affordable‑housing policy, explaining current triggers (20+ unit projects, PUDs, city/HRA land) and options (in‑building units, $175,000 buy‑in, 50%/60% AMI tracks); commissioners asked staff for modeling and public engagement and deferred formal changes pending legislative developments.
City staff opened a wide-ranging discussion March 5 about Edina’s inclusionary affordable-housing policy, adopted in 2015, and asked the HRA for guidance on possible revisions to buy‑in fees, AMI targets, triggers and permanence.
Andrew Hawinson, a city staff member, said the policy was created to encourage private developers to include affordable units in multifamily projects and to integrate affordable units with market‑rate units rather than isolate them. He reviewed the policy’s current mechanics: it applies to multifamily developments of 20 units or more when triggered by city or HRA financing, a zoning change/PUD or construction on city/HRA land; the policy offers either 10% of units restricted at 50% of area median income (AMI) or 20% at 60% AMI, with rental affordability typically set for 20 years (30 years if city financing is used).
Staff and commissioners debated whether the $175,000 per‑unit buy‑in remains adequate in today’s market; staff said production gaps can be large, noting an estimated revenue loss of roughly $350,000 per affordable unit (spread over 20 years) and construction costs now north of $400,000 per unit in some 100% affordable projects. Commissioners raised three recurring themes: (1) whether buy‑ins should be higher or indexed to market differentials; (2) whether inclusionary requirements should remain a policy or be codified into zoning to gain enforcement tools; and (3) how to preserve affordability in perpetuity—staff cited the 4040 project where the foundation retained ground‑lease ownership to require long‑term affordability.
Several commissioners favored retaining the option to blend affordable units in market‑rate buildings while keeping buy‑in flexibility so funds can be used for preservation or other affordable projects. Commissioner Jackson summarized the economic shift since 2015: “The world we're living in in 2026 is not the world we were living in in 2015,” and urged staff to model alternatives that could actually be built in the current market.
Staff said it will return with more detailed analysis (cost models, alternative buy‑in formulas, separate rental vs ownership tracks and options for perpetuity) and recommended waiting until after the state legislative session to see if statutory changes alter the city's toolkit. No policy amendments were adopted at the March 5 meeting; commissioners asked for further evaluation and public engagement before any formal changes are proposed.
