New Units Produced (2011)
% Progress Towards LCA Goal
*Although new affordable housing goals under LUPA (Comp Plan) and LCA (Livable Communities eligibility) cover the same time period for the same kind of units, the Met Council established generally different goals for cities. For most cities, the LCA goal is set at 65% of the LUPA goal. Some larger cities or those with access to more resource have LCA goals closer to or equal to LUPA goals. Unlike pre-2010 goals, the 2011-2020 goals do not create separate sub-goals for rental and ownership housing units. More information.
New Units Produced
2010 LCA Goals
% Progress Towards 2010 Goals
Metropolitan Council Housing Performance Score
Out of 100 (100 = highest)
Housing Performance Score is generated by the Metropolitan Council's Guidelines for Priority Funding For Housing Performance.
2010 Housing Performance Scores (PDF - 45 KB)
All Metro Communities
2009 Housing Performance Scores (PDF - 27 KB)
All Metro Communities
2008 Housing Performance Scores (PDF - 138 KB)
All Metro Communities
Units affordable at 50% or less of Regional Family Median Income
Total Housing Units
Households at 50% or less of Regional Median Family Income with Housing Problems
Total Households at 50% or less of Regional Family Median Income
% with Problems
Note: The median family income for the Twin Cities was $65,800 in 2000 (or $32,900 at 50% of median).
Housing affordability numbers are adjusted by family size. Housing affordability matches the number of persons in a family to units with different numbers of bedrooms (e.g. a 4-person family is matched to 2 bedroom units). Income limits to affordable housing costs are also adjusted higher for larger families (greater than 4 people) and lower for smaller families (less than 4 people).
Housing problems are defined as household cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding (more than 1 person per room) and/or without complete kitchen and plumbing facilities.
An interview was conducted with an official from Richfield’s planning or community development department in Spring of 2006, shortly after the Metropolitan Council's calculations for affordable housing need numbers were made public. A summary of key issues addressed in the interview is below:
According to the Met Council's recent report on "Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cites," Richfield's affordable housing need number is 765 units for 2010-2020. Our source felt that these goals were high and not feasible. Our source identified the following problems and obstacles to meeting these goals: lack of funding and lack of available land. The new affordable housing goals do not make a distinction between affordable rental and affordable for-sale housing, and our source felt that this would hurt Richfield's ability to produce affordable housing. Our source felt that the new goals are higher than Richfield's LCA goals. Richfield is not sure if it will use the need number established in the Met Council's report as the affordable housing target in its comprehensive plan update.
Richfield does not keep a database tracking the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. It has used the following programs to develop and facilitate the development of affordable housing: TIF, PUD, mortgage revenue bonds, and set-asides for affordable housing. We also asked our source about Richfield's use of some specific policies and programs. The results are summarized below:
PUD with smaller lots or density bonus
Expedited zoning & approval for low-mod
Adjusted fees for low-mod housing
Allow accessory apartments
Set asides for low-moderate housing (i.e., inclusionary zoning)
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Incentives for new construction technologies
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Mortgage Revenue bonds
Richfield has solicited proposals from the local HRA or other developers for building low- and moderate-income housing. It has not acted as a proposer or developer of low- and moderate-income housing. Our source indicated that Richfield has transit-oriented development opportunities, but that they will not make a difference in its ability to produce more affordable housing. Our source felt that with additional funding, Richfield could accomplish its affordable housing goals.
Obstacles and Challenges
Our source did not feel that any aspects of city zoning ordinances or processes discourage or prevent adding to the supply of low-and moderate income housing. We also asked our source about some specific local practices and if they limit the development of low- and moderate-income housing. The results are summarized below:
Restricted amount of land zoned for multi-family housing
Local requirements for building materials
Subdivision regulations requiring high quality materials or wide street paving
Local limits on the use of manufactured housing (e.g., mobile homes)
Building codes hat require updated code enforcement with any rehabilitation
Prohibition on accessory apartment units
Data is not available on the amount of undeveloped land in Richfield that is zoned residential and allows ten or more units per acre Our source felt that in order to meet its affordable housing goals, Richfield needs funding, especially from employers, and subsidies from cities with lots of green space.