Housing Appendix D - Housing Policy Plan Technical Advisory Group (TAG) engagement summary

TAG purpose and representatives

The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) convened future-thinking experts from across the region with a diverse set of expertise in housing issues to advise on the early stages of Imagine 2050 Housing Policy Plan development. At meetings between October 2023 and February 2024, Met Council housing policy staff presented regional housing policy topics and organized discussions for local community and housing organization representatives from across the region. TAG members shared perspectives on what the housing plan should focus on to support local needs and what policies would have local buy-in. The types of organizations represented in the TAG included staff from the following groups:

• Cities across community designations
• Counties
• Private and nonprofit developers
• Public housing agencies
• Housing redevelopment authorities
• Nonprofit advocates
• Statewide housing organizations  

The TAG was composed of a wide geographic representation, diverse areas of expertise, and individuals in different stages of their career. TAG members were asked to participate as individuals bringing their whole professional and personal selves, not solely to represent their employers. Before participating in meetings, members were invited to listen to discussions with community members at engagement sessions held throughout the region and look for opportunities to incorporate resident and advocate perspectives in the TAG discussions and their own work. 

Topic overviews and discussion recommendations

The TAG discussions focused on three topic areas. These topics are summarized below. Main ideas and feedback shared by TAG members are listed as bullet points. While a wide range of perspectives were shared, the recommendations indicated below were supported by the whole group. 

Met Council’s role in regional housing policy 

The Met Council’s authority comes from state statute but can serve as an important tool to support the housing goals and needs of the region. The group agreed that Met Council should consider housing infrastructure as part of an interconnected system people need to thrive in our region (physical and mental health, food, transportation, supportive services, daycare, education, jobs).

Land use connections with housing needs, data, and resources for communities

• Met Council should use its land use policy lever more intentionally to allow for more affordable housing development in the region.  
• The group recommended that Met Council differentiate what can be land use and market driven versus a policy goal that is supported by government funding or other intervention.
• The group recommended that Met Council staff explore the use of midpoint densities for tracking local city and township housing consistency in the 2031-2040 decade to make it easier for cities to meet consistency for Land Guided for Affordable Housing.
• Affordable housing development is expensive, so it is helpful to know the minimum density that you can feasibly build 30% area median income housing in different areas of the region.
• Having access to disaggregated data related to housing needs including race, ethnicity, disability status, etc., is important for communities.  
• The group recommended that the Met Council focus on its own investments for anti-displacement policy as a first step, following up with best practices and guidance for local level investments.
• As a policy goal, the group recommended that the Met Council enhance wealth-building opportunities for low-income households, with a focus on ending racial disparities; a majority of renter households of color fall into the 40% to 80% AMI range, and this range should be emphasized, with a focus on ownership and shared ownership. 

Affordability limits

These are a measure of housing affordability that, historically, uses the HUD Area Median Income (AMI) standards to determine housing costs of households at different income levels to determine what is affordable to them. Imagine 2050 uses 30%, 50%, and 60% AMI affordability limits. The group agreed that everyone in the region should have housing that is stable and affordable (at 30% of income) to them. 

Useful affordability measures versus helpful data

• Because there are geographic differences in income, having more localized median incomes would be valuable data but not an ideal regional measure because the HUD/state standard is often used for programs and funding opportunities. The group recommended that Met Council provide localized median incomes, but not to use them for consistency.
• Modifying the standard for affordability by number of income earners per household would be valuable because not all households have two income earners, but it could be complicated and difficult to communicate publicly.
• In overall messaging on affordability, the group recommended that Met Council be clear about any alternative measures of affordability, why and when they are used, and publicized in a way to avoid confusion.  

Issues of household income

• Due to housing costs outpacing wages, spending 30% of one’s income on housing is often not a realistic standard, but changing this standard calculation would likely be too confusing. The group recommended exploring an alternative measure of affordability that better reflects the reality of residents (in other words, 25% AMI) but keep HUD affordability limits as the standard.
• Spending 30% of your income on housing has very different impacts on households depending on their income level. It is much harder for lower-income households to spend 30% of their income on housing. If they can find housing that is affordable at their income level, it can be difficult to afford other basic needs when their remaining household incomes are so low. 

Allocation of Affordable Housing Need

Allocation of Need is a calculation from the Met Council that defines the number of needed units at different AMI affordability levels allocated to municipalities to develop based on forecasted household growth, job-worker ratios, and the existing housing stock in order to reach regional needs for new affordable housing units. 

Considerations for Need calculations

• Met Council needs to put enough pressure on cities to get serious about developing housing at 30% AMI and allow adequate flexibility on how to meet that Need. There is too much focus on 60-80% AMI. The group recommended continuing to prioritize policy and funding that supports deeply affordable housing (30% AMI) and homeownership opportunities.
• The group recommended that there should be distinct Rental and Ownership Need numbers.
  • Homeownership 61-80% AMI, 81-115% AMI
  • Rental 60% AMI and below (addition of 51-60% AMI band)
• There is support for “Aging” and “Supportive Care” Need numbers to represent units specifically for aging and disabled residents in the region.
• There is support for exploring a Need calculation for the preservation of housing units.
• There needs to be more of a focus on racial economic mobility adjustment included in forecasting.
• The deficit in Need from the previous decade for cities and townships is helpful for communities to know but overwhelming for some local governments if accounting for this becomes an expectation in Need calculations.
• Consider giving cities credit towards allocated Need for local policies or other interventions that create and preserve affordable housing. 

Review of Draft Plan

Met Council staff reconvened TAG members to review and comment on the draft Housing Policy Plan and to gather feedback on how the group’s recommendations were represented in the policies and actions, drafted after the TAG meetings concluded. The recommendations discussed are summarized below.

• Continued policy and funding priorities on deeply affordable housing (30% AMI) are well represented in actions.
• Wealth-building opportunities for low-income households, with a focus on ending racial disparities was present throughout actions, but encouraged expansion to clearly include voucher holder, manufactured home parks, and landlord engagement.
• Rental and ownership Future Need numbers should be distinct, with ownership data offered but not used for consistency purposes.
• Actions and policies focus on areas that can be supported by government funding and intervention.
• Improved clarity when mentioning any alternate measures of affordability, including specifics on why and when they are used in policies and programs.
• Met Council focus on internal investment for anti-displacement policies and commitment to provide best practices for local entities.
• Consideration of housing infrastructure as a part of an interconnected system that people need to thrive in the region (jobs, education, health, transportation, etc.). 

We are grateful to the TAG members who shared their time and expertise with each other and with the Met Council to inform the approach to Imagine 2050 housing policy.  

To ensure residents and organizational partners had opportunities to share feedback in advance of and during the drafting of the plan, staff used a variety of general and targeted outreach approaches. This included holding events with seven community organizations and the Metro HRA, presenting to local government staff, and convening a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) made up of local government, business and nonprofit leaders. In addition to these specific events, staff also put together a survey which was available on our website and received 156 submissions. The survey also included an option to ask for a follow-up interview with staff for those who wished to provide a more in-depth response. To read more about HPP engagement, please read the Engagement Report.120 

^120. Metropolitan Council. (July 2024). 2050 housing policy plan community exchange sessions report & affordability limits survey results. https://metrocouncil.org/Housing/Planning/2050-Housing-Policy-Plan/HPP-2050-Engagement.aspx