Laserfiche WebLink
recommends eliminating the reference to the Community Index. <br />(See General Concern 1.). <br />19. Local Comprehe:,sjie Plan Housing Element Review Guidelines. <br />(pages 40-45) '7he AMM is concerned about combining Central <br />Cities, MUSA Communities and Freestanding cities into one set <br />of guidelines. There is so much difference in concerns and <br />existing conditions that we question if one set of generic <br />criteria can deal with all issues adequately. <br />20. Local Housing Bond Plan Review Guidelines. (pages 46-49). The AMM <br />reiterates its recommendation that Housing Revenue Bond <br />projects and proposals originating with the MHFA be submitted <br />for review to the Metropolitan Council and local communities <br />to assure consistency with regional and local plans. <br />21. Community Index. (pages 54-65) General Concern 1 contains the <br />AMM's major concern and recommendation with respect to the <br />Community Index. There are also some technical type concerns <br />with respect to the index. A partial listing includes: <br />-Communities split by the MUSA line may be penalized because of <br />high value of houses (large lot estates) already in existence <br />outside the MUSA. <br />-The same house might have different values in different areas <br />due to intangible factors. <br />-Market Place influence on housing style types and costs. <br />