Housing & Redevelopment Authority - Regular Meeting

Roll call, please.

Bowie. Here. Coleman. Here. Jost. Here. Kim. Here. Nacre. Here. Yang. Here. Chair Johnson. Here. Seven present, zero absent. Item number one for discussion is resolution RES 20 six-four zero five, approving the commercial corridor program guidelines citywide.

Wonderful, thank you so much. One of the things I wanted to just take a few seconds of privilege to say, I'm really excited to be back with our body in person, and thank you again to vice chair Joseph for your continued leadership and holding it down while it was gone. In addition, thank you all for participating in the next four items. Each of them are related to guideline changes that we've heard over programs and a series of programs that we've heard over the last couple of weeks. I intentionally would like for today to be a discussion.

Several commissioners have come to us with different questions. We really do appreciate your questions, your input, your thoughts. So some of the different programs, such as the commercial corridor program guidelines, have different scenarios, have things that have floated as ideas. My intention is really to be able to have that discussion with you here and also to entertain a lot of the different suggestions that are forward because I think this is a part of the process of getting something something that we think is responsive to the guidelines that we were wanting to see here. So the commercial corridor program piece had several different scenarios.

I'm hoping that folks had a chance to review them, and I wanted to have a chance to I did get a chance to check-in with several of you on just some of the initial thoughts. None of these were ones that were like, here's the direct pathway forward. But they were some that came over in the last week to our office that suggested pathways forward. I will share with you that I think it's really important and significant to acknowledge that these funding sources overall, we're not talking about a substantial one substantial amount of money going into any corridor. We're often talking about scenarios that warrant corridors to have less than $100,000 each to do what really needs to be done, which is investing in businesses and investing in entire communities in order to be able to once again go back to our original plan for this fund, which was to respond to the needs that we have now.

And so with every single scenario, I don't think there's a bad scenario or one that I would argue is detrimental to serving our city because all of them would do that in some way, shape, or form. So I wanted to just open up the scenario conversation because I also want commissioners to be able to have a chance to talk about the ones that they felt strongly of. I've had a chance to touch base with several different folks, and I'll just share, you know, the the index that we have, that staff has provided, the index score that is scenario one. Definitely something that I wanna just acknowledge took a lot of time and effort to put forth. And so huge shout out to to director Lloyd and his team for really just taking their due diligence to come up with a index score, a formula that we thought worked well.

Some of the additional scenarios that came from the other pieces, I will share in transparency. Something that I am actually supportive of as well is the index score option, which has actually that in this case, I hate the word removed, but actually does not have a have a significant change. It's $3,600 per each corridor. But what it does is actually allow the corridors to address the needs of every other place besides the $5,000,000 that we are investing in downtown. And so that's one that I thought that was really important to put through a scenario.

I also thought it was a good suggestion of alternative. But I wanted to have open conversations about all of them. Several of them were brought forth around the ACP and the QCT. So I hope folks got a chance to to look at each of them to give their input and their guidance on them. But I wanted to have the discussion, I most likely wanna hear feedback from those that are presented and if there scenarios that we just didn't get a chance to put through in time, but the commissioners wanted to see.

So I'll start there and simply say that I think we have a path forward today. I also think that, again, none of those scenarios were, I think, submitted in bad faith. I think all of them were submitted with equity in mind. I just think it's really important that we spread our dollar as much as we can. And so looking at this, I don't have a strong preference. Preference. So I wanted to see where the commissioners were because I think it's important that we have a majority. Commissioner Bui.

Thank you, chair Johnson, and welcome back. It's so Thank you. So glad to have you here physically with us. I just have a clarifying question. You know, I I definitely look forward to the discussion.

I know we have I haven't had a chance to connect with all the commissioners, but I just have a clarifying question around the index total. There's some of the scenarios that include the total of the index, and there's other scenarios that does not. And please excuse me if this was in the presentation previously, but I just would want to at least hear from either one of the staff, particularly around what does the index total actually like, how is that formalized? And if there's a scenario that can list from, like, from top to down around how we should gauge the index total.

Sure. Welcome, Ms. Libran. Yes.

Hi, Chair. Welcome back.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bouie, are you talking about sorry, I'm flipping through all my papers The scenario that's using the 2025 scoring method?

It's like the fourth column that just says index total and it lists the score.

It looks slightly different.

So, these are just all the different options.

Mhmm. So every single one of these does use the index total except for the one where we removed it entirely to use 2025 because we did not use the index in 2025. We created it for 2026. So all of the other scenarios in front of you take into account that index score to give us kind of like the size of the corridor essentially what that's doing. And then, we toggled back and forth with the QCT ACP areas.

Got it, thank you. I guess the clarifying question I had was just is the index is that around the concentration, like what are all the factors that goes into the index?

Sure, Commissioner, good question. So it's a number of different things. It's length of corridor, density of business, density of employees and I'm missing one. Vacancy. Vacancies, thank you. Okay. Director McMahon.

So if a score is high then it has high concentration, high employee rates, high less vacancy, I imagine.

Commissioner, generally it is sort of an average. It's a formula to get there. But I think it's fair to say that that usually means that it's a larger corridor, it's more dense with businesses, more dense with employees, and probably has more vacancies the higher the score gets.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Neeker.

Thanks, Chair, and welcome back.

Thank

you. I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation, and I think I always am grateful for the thoughtfulness that we put into these programs because it really matters. I I've looked at the different scenarios. I would say I am not supportive of removing any corridor, including downtown. I think it's first of all, we have a really successful program here.

So when we talked last week, we're talking about, I think, making some small tweaks. We started by talking about ACPs versus QCTs. But I think after one wildly successful year of this program, there's nothing that indicates to me that massive changes are needed. I think we need to look carefully at some of those designations to make sure that we're making equitable decisions. But to remove any corridor, I think, is unwarranted and really isn't fair given that we have needs across all of our corridors.

I think what equity means in this case is giving more to those who need more, which I think the index score does beautifully. I'm agnostic as to whether we use ACP or QCT. That to me seemed last week like more a matter of which is the more up to date way of measuring income inequality and poverty and need rather than really changing which areas would be included. But I'm open to whichever one folks wanna go with that. But I definitely don't support removing any corridor.

And I think in particular when it comes to downtown, this would be a disinvestment in downtown. And it's very clear that our downtown, as we've talked about at this table many, many times, needs every penny. And while $5,000,000 may seem like a lot, it's really a fraction of what other cities are investing in their downtowns, tens of millions of dollars in many places. 5,000,000 is what we are able to put in, but I think putting in 5,000,000 and taking away 90,000 really seems sort of arbitrary and, again, taking away from an area that really could use a whole lot more. So I would really recommend that we make changes that are necessary to this program that we feel are really important to keep it successful.

But for the most part, it seemed like it really worked well last year. And I would advise against making massive changes without a really good reason to do so.

Yeah. And I appreciate that too. I think I want it to be a conversation as well and discussion. And I just wanna be clear too when I say that, you know, last year when this was put into place, we didn't have a 5,000,000 investment in downtown at all. And so when it was put in place at this time, it was an investment that was being shared throughout because that was the investment we could afford.

At this particular time, we are investing a significant investment in downtown, and we aren't doing that in any other neighborhood. And I think that that's something that I think is really important when we talk about equity and when we talk about the investments. I cannot name a multi million dollar program that's going into my ward right now or going into the corridors that are put into place. And so I I don't think it's a divestment disinvestment in downtown when we're significantly putting in 5,000,000. That's actually an increase to this body increased that investment in downtown with an additional $1,000,000 this year than what was proposed.

And so that is something that I want to just be very clear. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority at this time is using our Housing Trust fund dollars to invest directly in downtown. And we are doing that with over $1,000,000 in funding in order to be able to compensate for the corridor or the downtown vitality fund in its totality. So the downtown vitality fund that we'll get to is fully funded by Housing and Redevelopment Authority dollars. And I think that's why we've allowed that flexibility.

But if that were to pass today, it's not a disinvestment in downtown. It's investing in downtown actually substantially more than some of these other places, at least from my vantage point. As someone who doesn't represent downtown but who represents the city and as a chair, I think it's just really important that I wanna make sure the record's clear on just the investments we are putting downtown, and that just feels a little not necessarily a full accurate picture of our investment so far.

Thanks, Sharon. Just to be clear on what I mean, when we adopted the 2026 budget, we adopted the Commercial Corridors Program and we adopted the Downtown Vitality Fund as part of that. And so the downtown community was expecting the $5,000,000 investment, which to your point is a significant new investment, and the Commercial Corridors Program. So at this point, making a change to what was expected in 2026 is $90,000 less than what downtown was expecting in the budget. So I do recognize that $5,000,000 is wonderful.

Again, I think downtown needs every penny and more. And I think we've talked many times at this table about how downtown really affects all of our neighborhoods because of its tax base. And when downtown is not successful, all of us feel that in our neighborhood. So I think it's it's like every other neighborhood except it also has a significant impact that other neighborhoods don't.

Vice Chair Dros, and then Commissioner Yang, and Commissioner Kim.

Thank you. Thanks Chair Johnson. I also really appreciate these scenarios that our staff developed. They were really easy to follow and to think about kind of the framework of our discussion and our decision. I am supportive of, I guess, the first scenario that includes downtown.

I'm not supportive of a scenario that would remove downtown, and I'm not supportive of a scenario that would remove some of the corridors based on QCT and ACP because I think that, again, the commercial corridors program is supposed to invest in the corridors throughout our entire city. And that's really important to me with the money that we will be investing. And I also think that we should keep downtown in the program because I understand like this new $5,000,000 investment, a lot of it's for housing development which is not really which is fantastic but is really a very small investment relative to the amount of money needed to build housing downtown. So it's really just trying to provide a boost for more housing and then the other part of that is for economic development. And I see the money being used in different ways.

I also think that downtown, I agree that downtown is different than any other corridor or any other ward because of the amount of property taxes and economic development that generates for our entire city is just far beyond any other area. And so to me, that's why I think it's really important that we continue these investments. It's going to positively impact all of our wards, which I know we all care a lot about. Making sure that we are providing long term stability for property taxes for our city. And I also think about it honestly as in a way that downtown has a lot of the most need I think right now in terms of the potential impact for our entire city.

I think about it in terms of, you know, investing in our infrastructure and our roads just because we're going to invest in one one area. It doesn't mean that we need should be taking money away from something else when we know that our roads need all the investment that they can get. And I agree and feel that way about downtown as well. So that's why I'm supportive of the first option.

Thank you, Commissioner Jules, Commissioner Yang, and then Commissioner Kim.

Thanks, Chair Johnson. I do want to say a huge thanks to the staff who crunched the numbers and made all these scenarios happen. You all did it, I do not know. But you really are the experts here, so I commend you for it. You did it in such a short amount of time. So I really want to thank you because these are requests that came directly from the commissioners. And so, I got a chance to look at all of the scenarios. And, you know, I'll just name that last week when we had our HR meeting, I was the one who posed the question about downtown. I was asking all my colleagues here, do we want to, you know, give the it was $90,000 in that scenario that we looked at last week. Do we want to give that to downtown knowing that we do have those fatality funds coming into downtown, which is phenomenal.

And I would just want name I would love to see those dollars be granted to downtown on an ongoing basis. I know those are just one time dollars. And a win for downtown is a win for everybody. I do feel strongly about a scenario in which downtown is removed because of those one time vitality funds. I just wanted to share too that there are many corridors on this list here that have gone through very huge changes.

Like our case, you all have been hearing me talk about Mendoc's project on that for quite a bit now, where there were a lot of mishaps in that project. There are many businesses that right now are still needing the help. There was a little bit of a hate that came from the state. But they're still in a mode of recovery. And I know that they are definitely still in recovery as we still see this horrific operational operation metro surge happening here in our city.

And I know that that's something that, you know, all of the commercial quarters here still are feeling deeply too. And so with that being said, know, I just think that for this year, I'm comfortable with not having downtown be a part of this. But I would really love to see closer to the end of the year where I would say time around time for next year, where the funds are at for the Downtown Vitality Fund, what has been expended, and what have the dollars been used for. Same thing for the Commercial Corridor Fund, too. It'd be great to get just, I would say, quarterly at minimum, I would say quarterly reports on that so we also understand what's happening within the commercial corridors in our wards, too.

And then that being said, if there are, let's say like the vitality funds are exhausted and we feel like it's a good move to have downtown be included in the commercial corridor funds for next year, I'd be very supportive of that. So I just wanted to share where I'm at with it. I think overall, like those scenarios that best fit what I am supportive of, it would be the one where it's listed commercial corridor fund using twenty twenty six index score with downtown corridor removed. And I'm open to hearing everybody's thoughts.

Thank you, commissioner Yang. I appreciate. And, again, I really want us to be able to have this discussion because I think it's super vital to decisions that we make regarding guidelines. So I welcome, like, all perspectives on it. So by all means, commissioner Kim, we'll go to you. Yep. Thank you.

I really appreciate the discussion as well. So for word five, we talk about this a lot and my predecessor talked about it a lot to you. You know, I'm really interested in looking at what the equitable distribution of resources, not just for sort of singular things look like. And so just regardless of how this turns out, I'm just really interested in looking at like, you know, how much investment is made across the city per ward and like in some of our programs. And because in the last meeting, brought up, you know, cultural star and that is mandated by state law. Right? Neighborhood star. But where are the grants going out to? And most importantly, think having more patient capital for some of the organizations that want to apply. You know, Council Member Bui, you hosted an information session in your ward.

It's something that I'm interested in. More so, there are some areas of the city that have more experience, right, applying and accessing city resources. And there are some that are not. And so I think for me, kind of bringing up the ACP question that Councilmember Rayyan brought up is an attempt to think about how we look more equitably at the resources that we provide. And, you know, that being said, I do think that I said it right before this.

I have a dream where I can live in a walkable city. I went down and got the best pad Thai in town at Ramit and I picked up a book at Subtext. And so I if if there is not support for sort of maybe more an equitable approach, which sounds like is, do we stay harmful for areas that are expecting this money to come through for them? I would be interested in then more of an equal approach. But with an overall focus on the fact that there are some areas of the city that are able, for whatever reasons, to draw down more money and just to have much more of a thoughtful approach agnostically and more broadly versus program specific.

So I'm interested in kind of hearing more comments from my colleagues, but I think I'm sitting in those two buckets right now, but more so if we don't have the support to think more equitably and there isn't support, and then I'm just hearing like if I were one of the businesses that supplied these funds to organizations or if I was one of the organizations that were supplying the support to businesses and have made those connections and have been telling folks that this money is coming, I also want to be thoughtful about how we weigh sort of the anticipation of those funds and the projects that could be in the queue. And then I have one kind of clarifying question then, and I think Councilmember or Vice Chair Josie mentioned it, but I'm wondering, Director McMahon, are you willing to just say like four things about how these are clearly flavors of money? I heard like a preview from Vice Chair Jose, but it's something that was brought up last time and I think just on the record it would be good to kind of hear. Like what's kind of the different flavors of money at work here in comparison to the corridor funding and the vitality zone funding?

Go ahead, Dora. Sure. Chair commissioner. So this commercial corridor funding, right, is really intended for that corridor, right, to really boost everything within the corridor. And that's why the organizations are able to do corridor wide things, whether it be marketing for the corridor to bring people to the corridor on the whole.

Yes, some individual business outreach, but really within that corridor and to draw people. A lot of non capital expenses could be eligible uses within the commercial corridor funding. I think that's really key. Sometimes those non capital expenses really to boost the economic development of the corridor versus the Downtown Vitality Fund is really intended, the economic development component, for those capital expenditures for street level retail geared towards increasing the strength and the vibrancy of downtown and those individual entities and recipients.

Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Coleman and then Commissioner Bui.

Thank you. And I will echo all the things. I know that this was a big lift for the PED staff to get this done in a week, so I really appreciate it and appreciate the conversation today. I apologize in advance for the metaphor that I'm about to use. As you can probably hear, I'm a little sick, so this is why aspirin is on my mind. But I've been thinking a lot about, do we make, you know, how are we thinking about the downtime question, which seems like one of the biggest questions kind of that we are weighing at this moment. And I'm thinking about it like when you are sick, you take one aspirin, and like three hours later, you're like, that wasn't enough. I should take another aspirin. And it's still not enough because you've not taken them at the same time and you don't end up getting as much relief as you might get. And that's a little bit of how I'm thinking about downtown right now. Again, I really apologize for saying that all out loud. But

It created a great It's the best way say great visual. Yes.

But I I think, know, we've we've at this table and out in the community, you know, at least certainly this is a conversation I know we're having a word for. People are talking about really the crisis that is Downtown Saint Paul right now and how much is needed and how it falls on everybody in our city when we don't have a vibrant, thriving downtown and we don't have that iconic development, when we don't have the growth, when we don't have the tax base, and how that really ends up hitting hitting communities throughout the city. And I think that we all share the deep commitment to revitalizing downtown and to growing our tax base and taking some of the burden off of our off of our community members throughout the city. And to my mind, I think that that is why keeping the commercial corridor funding for downtown is so essential this year to make the big investment with the Downtown Vitality Fund, but not to then say, okay, we're making this big investment, but now we're going to tweak our investments elsewhere. I sort of see this as a, foot on the gas.

Let's do everything we can for downtown right now. It is a trade off. These are real dollars. If we give money to downtown, it means we are not giving additional funding elsewhere. It is a hard choice, but I do think that it is the right choice in this moment to give downtown everything we've got to get ourselves to a position where we have the thriving downtown, where we have the tax base growth, and then in future years might think about how do we change up what our investments look like. But at this point, I'm I'm also supportive of option number one, the commercial corridor fund using twenty twenty six index score with downtown corridor included. And yeah. But appreciate continuing to

hear from these perspectives. Thank you, commissioner Coleman. Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, chair Johnson. I just wanted to just add to the conversation. I'm I mean, to be honest with you, I'm truly just undecided here. You know, my my first response, just looking through equity lens and just also representing Ward 1, which has about six or five or six of these corridors in my in my ward, I really wanted to go with the area of concentrated poverty because when I think about just the compounding issues that many of these corridors face, I was just in a series of meetings last week with some of the businesses on University Avenue, which was facilitated by Neighborhood Development Center, which is one of the recipients for the University Commercial Corridor. And many of the things I was taking into consideration was some of these, like was mentioned earlier, some of these corridors are more experienced and have the institutions and have organizations and have business associations while other organizations are literally bootstrapping and you know they may not have the capacity or staff to really help drive and continue you know, economic activity on those corridors.

So that's why, you know, if I was to vote on this today, which I I I don't know if I'm in a clear position to feel comfortable to vote for anything else just because, you know, I really wanna have more more clarity around how these use of funds will actually be like considered across the board because I I do know organizations are applying, you know, many of them have, know, uses of funds. Right? And I think a lot of those to be taken consideration is gonna need some more time. And then also to the conversation around downtown, you know, perception is, like, I don't look at downtown as a corridor. I truly look at it as a district.

And I know when when we're making decisions about downtowns, we have layers of districts and layers of definitions on how we are investing in downtown whether it's the cultural star district, that's what generates our star program or drives our star program. We have the vitality fund which you know, I'm so excited and I'm so thankful that our staff has really worked hard to, you know, build out that program that we're gonna all review. And then there's also just downtown as a hub. Like, when I think about just there's sectors in downtown, like lower town. Right?

I do think, you know, not to create more work, but I do think when we're considering giving, you know, funding to downtown, there's just a lot of there's a lot of nuance in terms of, like, what is the downtown? Because there's lower town. There's different there's, like, the stadium. There's even I would consider West Saint West 7th Street downtown as well. And, you know, I know I'm just kinda, like, thinking out loud here, but when we take into consideration of, like which corridors to actually invest in, I want us to really just make make sure that all of these corridors are not treated equal if we're talking about downtown.

Downtown's truly a hub. Like it's a it's a large like jurisdiction. It doesn't even have an index total on it and I think that's because it would have been skewed if we were to gauge it to all the corridors which is why, you know, I don't don't know if it's, like, I don't know if it's accurate to say that if we were to if this commercial corridor wasn't applied to downtown that that would be underfunding downtown just because I think we should treat downtown with you know more attention which is what the vitality fund is designed to do and what like the STAR grant is designed to do or you know come back to the drawing board around you know looking in the downtown area to see if there's something more surgical, right, like a lower town. And I'm just throwing that out there. You know, I have no bone in this fight, but throwing it out there in terms of is there an area or a actual corridor or a avenue business hub, you know, in downtown that we can focus on just so we make sure that this money is being well spent.

Commissioner Meeker. Thanks, Chair. Commissioner Bui, I think that's actually a really good point and it's something that I've noticed as well with downtown. I think there are a number of commercial corridors in downtown that could be called out. And from Wabashat to St.

Peter to 7th to 5th to Robert, etcetera. And I think actually if we did that and applied the same matrix that we're using for other corridors, downtown would then end up getting probably four or five times what's proposed here according to the same metrics. So I think actually the fact that we're lumping downtown altogether, all of the commercial corridors in downtown actually under privileges downtown compared to other corridors because we're doing it that way. It sounds like there is some desire for more time on this. And I think that this question about downtown being included or not, I really think requires the time for people to consider that.

I would hate for us to make that decision hastily. And I also think we need to think a little bit about the optics of that decision as well. I mean, for the this HRA and our council has been really consistent in support for downtown. It's something that I talk about a lot with pride whenever folks ask, is the council united behind supporting downtown? And it's something that I'm proud to say we always are.

I worry a bit about the optics of basically for a few thousand dollars change to each other corridor, making this decision, the headline of which will be that we took away close to $100,000 from downtown. Regardless of whether we like it or not, I think that's what the frame will be. And so if we're going to do that, I would rather that we have time. I think that there are downtown stakeholders who didn't know we were making this decision today. I think there's a lot of folks who would like to be able to weigh in on that. And I also think it behooves us to take the time to really make sure we're thinking it through, especially if some of us today are not prepared to make that decision. So if I would move that we lay this over for at least a week in order to have time to consider that.

Okay. There's a motion on the table to move it over for a week by commissioner Nacre. Any discussion?

Sure. Johnson, sergeant. Next week, you're not meeting, it'd be from the twenty fifth.

Oh, yep. Because because

Correct? Oh,

we have a third. Yes. Have a cancellation. Tab. So we did cancel the meeting for the eighteenth. I signed the cancellation now. Friendly amendment. Would you you be willing to do it for two weeks? Okay. Commissioner Decatur has made a motion to lay it over for two weeks. Any discussion? Commissioner Kim.

Yeah. I'd be supportive of

that motion. I think for me, it's as you know, it's been like the word it's the word five song. It's like, how does this look just more agnostically and holistically around the resources of the city? And so I would support the layover for two weeks and would do my part to make sure that I start that conversation with folks. I know, like, the East Side, we talk a lot about, like, fighting for east siders and what does that look like.

And so I'm not saying that I will get that context to be grounded in this vote, but as a starting point for that conversation, it's one thing to kind of raise it up. It's another thing to do something about it. So looking forward to kind of, like, asking for data. Like, director McMahon, I think you'll see, some requests from data from us, but much more as a starting point than, than anything for the conversation that I'm I'm hoping to have that this one certainly sparks for me. So I'll support the two week layover.

I'm also supportive of a two week layover in part, though, not necessarily because I feel like in my role that I need further clarity or understanding of what the magnitude of the situation is. And I'll just simply share that I think I'm fully understanding the magnitude of the situation. I think that's been a lot of some of the discussion, especially surrounding eSight businesses. That's why we had a conversation surrounding whether or not operational costs could be used as a tool for economic development in circumstances, because that's what actually we've heard about. And I think unlike some of the commissioners, I've been a little bit more in on several of the conversations.

And so wanted to bring that here because I agree that I think some stakeholders haven't been necessarily brought in for their input. But similarly to when we pursued Cultural Star changes, we intentionally wanted to change it so it could be a citywide discussion. But some stakeholders weren't brought into that discussion at the state legislature either. And so there was changes of just wanting to see more than star dollars just go to one designated area. And right now, 80% of the cultural star funding goes to one designated area.

And so there's some questions around, I think, equity that we will have to wrestle with as a body sometimes when we choose to do funding that equally or equality and bringing it through every corridor is not necessarily equitable. And so when we do have conversations around ACP and QCT, I think that's a really valid conversation to have. And it does happen to really fall on places that are in certain wards and not others. And I think that's symbolic to the overall alignment that we have as a body here. The one thing I will say is in the meantime of that layover, I would like to see the actual spending from the 2025 investments from each corridor, which corridors right now have been successful when it comes to moving the dollars for 2025.

These guidelines don't need to be in place for that because the agreements have been already signed, the money has already been dispersed. So really gain a chance to see what has been spent. I think that really goes into the conversation that we're aiming to have. So because we have an additional week, I love giving us some chance to have the additional week in the sense of additional two weeks. Thanks, Commissioner. Let's do that in real numbers to budget to actuals, because I think that that helps inform the conversation moving forward. At least from me, does. And so any other discussion points for the layover motion? Commissioner Nacre. Sorry, madam Cho.

Just one additional one. I think we had gone back and forth a little bit. Know commissioner Yang and I were even just talking today about QCT versus ACP and just how that would affect who's how much overlap there is between those two designations. And so it was a little bit too soon for staff to be able to do that for today. But I think if we can in the next couple weeks see the the boundaries of QCT areas versus ACP areas, that would also, I think, be helpful for the other part of the conversation that we're having.

Absolutely. And I will just simply share that for corridors that did not fall underneath the QCT or ACP, actually, the actual one that kind of hints at that in the scenarios, there are scenarios that removed has removed scenarios where they answered no to both. So if you see an n next to them, that actually is scenario is one of the scenarios that is here. I'm trying to going through my sheets. But there is a scenario actually that outlines if there's a corridor without a QCT or a ACP overlap, they are given an n for no, and they were removed.

So that is a scenario that isn't that we do have as far as, like, ones that are not in them. You might wanna review that. It does it's more than just downtown in that scenario that is not a part of the QCT or or ACP. And I think that accomplishes some of that as well. Commissioner Joe's Vice Chair Joe's. Excuse me. Vice Chair.

I just have a couple comments before we lay this over. I think that the with this program, which I'm really excited about, I am also just a little hesitant to make significant changes year over year. Because if we're looking at being able to track outcomes and see how the program is working, just changing anything too much, I'm just going to be a little bit hesitant too also for and for the other reasons in addition to the other reasons that I mentioned. And then I think too that we need to be cognizant of it's my understanding the commercial corridors through sales taxes. Is that right?

And so just thinking about that if we're we are going to be discussing removing any corridor from the section and thinking about, you know, how they contribute to sales taxes and then are we choosing to reinvest that money or potentially not invest it at all I think is an important thing to consider.

Thank you, Commissioner Dose. All right.

Commissioner Yeh. Thanks, Chair Johnson. Just something to add to the request for the reporting on budget to actuals last year is if there was a commercial quarter that maybe like they didn't exhaust their funds because they ran into some sort of challenges, would you be able to maybe add that as a side note too? Because I know sometimes the numbers don't tell the whole story, so I'd be very curious to know that as I look

at the numbers. Chair, commissioner, we can add context.

Okay. Thank you.

And I think, Director McMahon, the reports that

we

received in October were at a point in time so there might be changes to that that happened between then and the end of the year. So very valid. Thank you. All those in well, for the sake of just I'm not necessarily sure how the vote will go out. I'll just call for a roll call vote.

Bowie? Aye. Coleman? Aye. Jost? Aye. Yes. Kim? Yes. Naker? Aye. Yang? Aye. Chair Johnson? Aye. Seven in favor zero opposed. This item will be laid over for two weeks hearing again on 03/25/2026.

Thank

you. Item number two is resolution RES 20 Six-four07. Resolution Amending the Down Payment Assistance Program Guidelines Citywide.

Okay. On the plus side, I didn't actually receive a lot of feedback on this particular guideline, but I wanted to do the same thing as we did before, which is if there was any room for discussion on it. I will take a motion in this case from commissioner Coleman to approve, but are there any discussion? Commissioner Bowie.

I just had a question. I wasn't able to see it in the attachment for here, but, you know, I know there was a lot of discussion particularly around the eligibility from those who have lost their property versus those who are displaced. And just even doing some more research with the West Side program. They actually have a report that they produce which bases off of the definition of displacement. And I'm just wondering, you know, has there been any changes or any adjustments for those guidelines?

That's the only thing that, you know, I had raised issue with just because there's been tedious conversations particularly around how this program is interpreted and who's actually eligible and and it's a much narrow scope of you know proving ownership especially during a time where you know institutional systematic racism did not allow for people to have their documentations or even you know, the wealth gap being impacted by being displaced whether you own a property or not. But I I would I mean, that's the only discussion that I have and that's in I guess if I can make a motion, I don't know if it's gonna be able to be voted on today, but I would love to have our staff give a report on what a scenario will look like to amend that guideline from loss of property to displacement. And that's I'm referring directly to the inheritance fund for Rondo.

Okay. I want to be able to make sure that I'm following the procedure. Usually for I didn't didn't get a chance to hear from some of the discussion for that, so I did put a motion on the the table from Commissioner Coleman if you wanted to withdraw. I just want to make sure. I think it has to be done, actually. Withdraw. Okay. So, your can you clarify your motion?

So it was my understanding that when we received the presentation, we got a we were you know, we reviewed the guidelines and the eligibilities, and this been probably like a year long conversation around those who are eligible isn't just only who were descendants of property owners.

Okay. So this is getting into the renter conversation as Yes. Is so the quick guideline change, I just want to be specific on that.

Yeah, that's the only thing. Yeah, the changes to the guidelines for the Rondo inheritance fund.

Okay, when there are changes, and just so folks know that any vote that we have today, the actual guidelines themselves, we we vote on the change. And per the city attorney's guide guidance, then we would actually vote on approving the guidelines next week the next meeting. And so that has been the advice that's been given to me by the city attorney's office. And so that's the protocol.

Yeah. No. That's fine. I'm not saying that we have to make a vote right now. I'm calling the question if if one of the staff members want to come and present about that changes because we've talked about it exhaustively. I mean, we've had several meetings about this. Sure. And I'm just, you know, requesting that they have some level of report or response to a commissioner's desire to make changes on those guidelines.

Okay. So you're just asking for some question for clarity. There's not a motion on the table.

Well, that was my question was, is that do we have to change those guidelines via vote or is that something that can be adjusted with the staff report?

Okay. I'm gonna take a question from Commissioner Kim and then Commissioner Nieker and I will also confer with John just because the city attorney's office specifically told me that if we do make changes to the guidelines, even if it's a small change, we would vote on the change versus what's in front of us because the language that's presented in front of us would be changing. And then we would lay the matter over until the twenty fifth for a final adoption.

Appreciate that.

Was going to just add, I think I was going to procedurally regurgitate that, but that was also my understanding. So it's just a clarification of process if that's your intent. Council member Bui? Mhmm. My question is, I'm I'm interested in also hearing from staff, like, where do you mind sharing, like, where in the guideline that language sits? Just for our reference that's looking at the like, I am looking at the guidelines. I just would like to be directed to the correct location.

So the guidelines, it says who's eligible and and, you know, also to, you know, for the director who actually, you know, oversees and the staff, I welcome them to come and explain this as well. But how it is written, it says who are directly descended from an ancestor Yeah. I e a grandparent or a grand grandparent or a great grandparent who were displaced due to the construction of I 94 through the Ronald community. So are you what, sorry. So the What changed change are you would be who lost property due to the construction.

So the lost property is requiring the or those who are eligible would have to show proof of losing property. And that is where and I believe that verification is through the Randall Community Land Trust.

Okay. And just I'm so sorry. So what page are you on? Like, where where like, I'm I'm supportive of hearing this out, but just can you direct me to the correct section that you're looking at so I can follow along?

Director McMahon, if you can share in terms of, like, the page for the guidelines.

Chair commissioners, it's up in front of me and I have to scroll to get to the exact segment, but essentially right, it is with regards to home ownership and the reason is for verification and be able to show proof of being there. And so it's not currently open for those who are renting during the loss of that property. And it's for verification purposes. If housing staff wanted to come up and provide some more context and information about that. That's the reason before it. I know it's been something that's been a point of discussion. Again, it's been utilized in that way in order to ensure that we're able to show that proof of ownership.

Hello Chair Johnson, Commissioner Rui. Thank you for your question again. So as mentioned in the presentation given, I definitely think this is something that we can continue to explore. I had done some light touches with the folks that operate and utilize the data, or have given our partners the data for this program. I think it would be something, because we have so many interested parties in especially continuing in the Westside Flats of the inheritance fund. We would encourage the passage of the guidelines as they are today, and then if we want to continue to expand the inheritance fund, we can do that with another alteration of the guidelines is what I would say to that.

Okay. Commissioner. Speaker.

Thanks, madam chair. I just wanna follow-up on miss Bui's questions, are which I share. And I think just to contextualize this a little bit, chair, we had this conversation where the guidelines were shared, I can't remember how many weeks ago now. Commissioner Bowie and I had some extensive questioning and back and forth about this particular topic. Also, I had asked about the ability to decide when the displacement from the flats happened because there's some questions about that.

I think what I'm hearing from staff is we don't have answers to those things right now. We want to move ahead with the guidelines we have and we'll figure that out later. But the problem is, as Commissioner Bui said, we've been talking about these issues for over a year. And so I don't have confidence. I'd like to have better confidence in understanding how those issues will be resolved because I don't want to be here next year being asked to sort of just approve the guidelines because we can't figure this part out yet. And it's also difficult to go back, I think, to our constituents and say without a sense of how exactly and when we're gonna answer those questions. I I don't know if you can give us a little bit more. This is when we'll come back and talk about this. I'm I'm I understand not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I also don't wanna just kind of continuously let this stretch on into the future.

Yes. Chair Johnson, Commissioner Nacre. I think the best path forward would be probably providing a timeline of when we think we can accomplish, like the first initial, here's some possible changes we could be making, and then in addition to that, how do the which path do commissioners want to be taking? I could say I'm trying to be realistic just understanding that the team that is operating these is small and mighty and also operating ERA at the same time. I would imagine probably within six to eight months we could have like, I can have a timeline to you more quickly than that obviously. But for the entire scope of pulling together something like a data set, I would imagine it would probably be like six to eight months.

And do you have a sense follow-up, Madam Chair?

Go ahead, Commissioner Nieker.

Thank you. As to how long it would take to get us a timeline?

Oh, I can do that by the end of the week for you guys.

And I think that that would be really helpful when it comes to this because I am, as I shared last the last time we talked about this as well, I think that there's an appetite be supportive of that change. Mhmm. Like, if we were to take a a vote to that today, if that would be my assumption Mhmm. Based off of the feedback that I've heard from commissioners as well. And so I'm also gonna make just to move us along as well, I'm gonna make a motion to lay this over as well to the twenty fifth pending the the actual requested material.

So by that time, what would be great to hear from staff on is a suggested timeline for when that discussion can happen. For context, we also had this discussion last year with Rondo Community Land Trust, and it was brought up then. And I think it is a pretty significant point of whether or not we can do something and if we have the ability and the tools within our current capacity to be able to look at if an individual is renting at the time and displaced, would they be still eligible for it? And I think that that's a valid question. And we've heard it reiterated several times. Yes.

Yep. Agreed.

All right. So that is my motion. And I am going to ask if there's any further discussion. Commissioner Ng. Chair Johnson, I just want

some clarification. So if we're laying over the item for two weeks, does that mean that we're just keeping the guidelines that were adopted from last time for this?

Yes, Commissioner Johnson or excuse me, Chair Johnson, Commissioner Yang. Yes. So, I would say, again, small and mighty team also operating ERA, we're planning on launching that April 1. So, this program was going to probably be April. So, we do have some time to be able to make alterations to the guidelines or waiting on a timeline to be able to vote those in. So, I don't think we're adopting them today does not mean that we're not opening the program.

Okay, great. That question was just a matter of trying to understand what's the status of the program right now. It sounds like April is when you're hoping to get it launched again.

Yes.

Great, thank you.

And I think what I would like to see though coming in from commissioners as well, to be helpful to this conversation and so commissioners are not looking through the guidelines, is to have the guideline change language that you would like to have in time for this next conversation in partnership with the planning and economic development team that's leading the programs. I don't necessarily think it's it doesn't set that amendment or change up for success if they aren't able to have the direct language for commissioners here to review and vote on. Makes it slightly difficult to do that and Photoshop it right at or Word Shop it right here. And so that would be something that I would also ask for some of the staff spaces just because these four programs are very significant. And so if we know that there's potentially some guideline changes, which is what I'm hearing in this particular situation from come from commissioner Bui, it might be that commissioner Bui may want to have language that she can present to this body for an official vote next the next meeting that we have.

And I would say the same would probably be echoed for the commercial corridor fund previously. Thank you. And not to speak for you, but I think it would be great to have the actual language so people aren't asking you directly. So commissioner

Bouley. Chair Johnson. Yeah. And I can speak for myself, but I do appreciate, you know, make setting up the expectation particularly around what will be useful for this time. And I know it was my impression that when they presented the guidelines that we were giving feedback, I gave that feedback on record.

We've had extensive feedback conversations. I the question that I have particularly around the process, so when we do come back on the twenty fifth, because I do have an intention to bring forth this guideline change. And I I definitely can bring forth that language. But the question I have is with this guideline change, is this a is this a leak like, is this considered, I guess, a legal question? Because you had mentioned particularly having the legal authority to make changes to these guidelines is under my impression that we do have that authority.

Is this something that, you know, I would have to work directly with PED's attorney on or is this something working directly with the team on just because I think the the proposal or the changes that I wanna propose for the twenty fifth, I just wanna make sure that I am directed to the proper staff, you know, so we can make sure that it is in alignment with the the program's function.

I'm sorry. Was the question who you would be working with, commissioner?

Is like, if I if we're proposing a change to the guideline, is this a legal change? Should I be working with CAO, or am I working with the operation operational staff?

Chair and commissioner. You'd be working with both of us, actually. I'm the attorney assigned to this program, and Rachel is the PED staff assigned to it.

Okay. And then are you the author for this guideline change, or is that coming from our loan specialist?

I think that would be coming from PED, and it would have to be approved by CAO before it comes before this body.

Got it. Thank you. I just want to have clarity across the board in terms of who Thank I should be working you.

So we can most likely expect that. There is a motion on the table to lay this matter over to the twenty fifth. All of those in favor?

Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, zero opposed. This item will be laid over to 03/25/2026. Item number three is resolution res 20 six-four zero eight, resolution amending the emergency rental assistance prevention program guidelines citywide.

Great. So again with this program, the one conversation that we had was around whether or not we wanted to adjust the cap. So I appreciate commissioners being able to have that discussion with me. I heard very positive feedback as well around this issue. I wanted to be able to share or even just call for before there's a motion if there's any discussion on this item.

Alright. Seeing and seeing none. I'll take a motion from commissioner Kent to approve. All those in favor?

Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, zero opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item number four is resolution r ES26Dash409. Resolution approving updated guidelines for the HRA business assistance fund.

Alright. So this is the downtown vitality fund. I I know that when it's listed here, it appears as the HRA business assistance fund, but the guidelines and the program name and as well as all the things pertaining to the downtown vitality fund is this item. So I just wanted to make sure that folks know what we're referring to here and also for the public and then also just in general being able to discuss this. The one discussion point that I am aware of is the question around nonprofit eligibility. And so I wanted to be able to have folks, if there's any discussion on this overall in the fund, I will look to Commissioner Nacre as the sponsor if there's any comments you want to share before we make a vote.

Thanks, chair. I would just say I appreciate the discussion that's happened so far. I know I was one of the folks last week who was interested in the further conversation about the for profit versus nonprofit. After further due diligence, I I believe we should move forward with the guidelines as is. I think in particular, we have often nonprofits who are actually doing the redevelopment work.

And I don't want to be in the service of trying to make sure that we are developing economically and expanding our tax base, cutting off our nose to spite our face by keeping nonprofit entities who are doing that work from being able to do it. So I think that as it currently stands, I am comfortable with the guidelines as proposed. I also had some conversation back and forth with Director Lloyd about the reimbursement. I appreciate the clarification about that really being the best way with the most integrity to make sure that the funds are being accounted for. So at this point, I'm comfortable with the fund as

is and would move it as such.

Okay. There's a motion on the table to approve. I thank you for that clarification. Any discussion? Commissioner Bui.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. I just wanted to share because I think I was the one who brought it question around, should nonprofits be eligible. I did have a chance to talk with some of the, nonprofit stakeholders. I think it's really, important that I clarify profits that, you know, I do think would should, you know, benefit for these funds are downtown development corporations or any development corporations or CDCs that is activating retail and economic vitality. Vitality.

I just want to be clear it's not to exclude non profits, just want these these funds to actually generate more more revenue, right, and and generate to our tax base and attract more people here to to spend money downtown and I just don't see that to be the case in other scenarios with organizations that do great work, right, but aren't contributing to the retail amenities that we so desperately need. And I also just wanted to just share too the reason why, you know, I feel really strongly about wanting to just, you know, invest in our for profits and our development corporations is because on the doors you know having conversations with residents, many of them are wanting us as a council to adopt payment in lieu programs, We've always have heard or entertained the idea of how can we make agreements with our non profit organizations, government buildings, our universities, our educational buildings, our churches, right. How can they have clear indicators that they are contributing, right, instead of just the mission. So I I do wanna put on the table, and I know I haven't had a chance to talk with each of you all extensively, that if we could make a modification to where it's for profits and for development corporations, ours are actually carving out what exact type of nonprofits because I do think it would be important for us to be really surgical in terms of how we want these funds to go or how how we want these funds to be invested, particularly in downtown.

I just wanna open up for discussion if

this is possible.

Would accept that, Madam Chair, is a friendly amendment to add businesses and development corporations in the interest of getting this approved this week and out the door.

I think one of the things that I will say that I do agree with the sentiment around clarifying whether or not we mean government institutions or school institutions. And I remember asking for that to be added here. But I think it's really important for PD staff to get some clarity when they're hearing different things. But they did there there was a request to specifically have the government exclusions in this education institution exclusions in part because I think this funding is really important. I am gonna struggle to see if we see the state of Minnesota as a beneficiary of these funds because we've allowed nonprofits, you know, and not because I have an issue with funding some of our pieces, but because they do occupy a vast majority of of of they do occupy quite a bit of downtown property where they should be able to, you know, I would say, invest in their their vitality and not necessarily take these funds from places that might need them.

But I think that's just really an important distinction to have, but it's not currently codified in the guidelines right now as it reads. And so I don't know if that would be a question for when it comes to just a specific language. If there's any there isn't any opposition to that or anything that would be problematic around it, we can just change the guidelines and have a vote on that change if you're accepting it.

Oh. Well, chair, just to clarify it, I I think if we were to accept, I've accepted commissioner Bui's amendment as a friendly amendment. So the guidelines would then read businesses and development corporations and would exclude government and c schools. Any other uses is how I understand that your amendment would read. So to to your point.

I'm gonna allow for John as well to concur because my understanding was any changes to the amendments had to be laid over. But I just wanna make sure we get the distinction, and that was given to me. So I just want make sure we're following the procedures.

I would agree. Yeah. If you've got guidelines on the table and you want to amend them now, we don't do wordsmithing at the table. We'd have to lay it over to make those changes.

Commissioner Kim, is there a question that you had for clarity?

Yes. Go ahead.

Sorry. So is it specific is it specific to the type of nonprofits they are? Because just I'm just asking the question because if it's about for profit versus then development corporations, development corporations can be nonprofit. And so I just I think having that distinction is important because I think a lot are non profits. And so I think having that clarity of distinction is important because if it's to not include non profits but my understanding is that most CDCs are non profits.

Okay. So it's both for profit and any development corporation for profit or nonprofit and to exclude than the other ones. Is that the language that I'm hearing? I would be supportive of that, but I just I wanna make sure that I heard that correctly.

Sure. Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Bowie?

Thank you. I think, you know, just hearing from our attorney, like, even this conversation, I think would I mean it will be helpful if we can actually land on the vote, but it sounds like we have to lay over. I do think it's important to really, know, if we take a step back here just because this is like another item that we have heard, you know, we've been, we've reviewed the guidelines, we have expressed on record the guidelines changes that we wanted to make, we actually requested information. I have not received any of those informations. I, you know, recall the day of the meeting that we had council or chair Johnson sharing with you, you know, here's just some of the the changes that I wanted to make, and then the information that was requested that has not came to us.

I do think it's really important as commissioners when we are requesting for more information to make informed votes so we aren't just treating this time as wordsmithing, but we're treating this time with tangible language to bring forth. You know, I think we just need to be clear around the procedures, and if the expectation is for us to have that language ready to adopt, then that should be something that you know PED is coming and prepared and ready to actually support us in as commissioners as we are you know looking to make these changes to ensure that there's improvements and we have like the outcomes we want to see. So I I do want to support having it for profit businesses within only or maybe like prohibiting nonprofits exempt from development corporations. I think that might be the cleanest way, but I just wanted I don't want us to waste time here because whatever we come up with, we're gonna have to end up having to lay it over.

Okay, Commissioner Neeker and then Commissioner Kim.

Thanks, Chair. I just wanna ask a process question because I am also unclear as to whether these are guidelines that are ultimately up to staff to develop. I'm wondering if whether we are, what we are doing here is actually adopting the language of the guidelines, in which case I understand why things would need to wait to lay over a week. Or what we are doing here is approving the updated guidelines and giving, I don't think the resolution itself has the text of the guidelines in it. I believe that's an attachment.

So I'm wondering if we can approve this resolution with guidance to staff, if we agree, to update the guidelines, which are an attachment, as we've discussed today. And so what we're approving here is the resolution, not the text of the guidelines. Because in the past we haven't haven't written the guidelines and amended the guidelines themselves at this table. So I'm.

Commissioner, the guidelines as an attachment to the resolution is authorizing and approving the guidelines that are attached. And if you are to amend those you would have to come to this body for a second resolution to do that. That's my understanding.

And I think that we'll just say that this is some of the nuance that our office has been dealing with. And so welcome to the party commissioners. Part, because I think when we're looking at just the conversations surrounding the guidelines, I appreciate your question. We do approve guidelines, and we can change guidelines at any We just have not had the significant level of changes, at least not from my time as Chair. And so being able to do that, and not only the significant level of changes, but different messages coming to staff.

And so I do want to take a minute to just say, at least from and not to speak for Vice Chair Jones, but I would open the floor for you as well, as someone who's been a part of some of the ongoing conversations, the feedback that we all received as well from multiple and I see Director McMahon landing the plane. Thank you. Bear with me. Looking at these four different programs, we were receiving emails. We were receiving different directions from different bodies.

And so it was hard to find where the consensus lied to be able to give the directive to change these guidelines before they got here. And I think that that's really important, and I think will be imperative to moving forward in discussions. And something that I'm taking note of as well for future guideline conversations, because I understand the urgency of all of these things. And I think the more that we delay them, it's really hard to land the plane for them. And so Commissioner Anacker, I think the main question I have for you is with the motion on the table was to approve the guidelines as is. And that motion was not withdrawn. I'm asking you, do you want to proceed with that motion? And if so, then we would have a vote.

Yeah. I've accepted the friendly amendment to amend the guidelines to have development corporations specifically called out as opposed to all nonprofits. So if we need to lay it over for two weeks to do that, I'm willing to do that.

Okay. So there's the motion on the table to approve the guidelines with the friendly amendment to include the language around the change of the nonprofit language to include only the development Corporations. Corporations. Corporations floor. Thank you. I'm going to ask if there's any discussion on that item, then I will move for a vote on that. Commissioner Coleman and then well, Feister Jones and then Commissioner Coleman.

I just I just wanna clarify. I think the motion is delayed over for two weeks. It's

We have to take a vote on changing the guideline language. And then we lay it over.

But don't we have to have the language before us and the attachment? Right. So I think the motion is just to

lay over. That was not the motion that commission that the commissioner Okay.

Was my

Thank you, my shirt. I just wanna be clear that that's not the motion that the the commissioner made. So with respect to what she shared, it's my job to make sure that we do that.

Sure. Thank you, chair. I appreciate us navigating this. So just to be clear, then would the motion be to layover for two weeks, adopt new language in two weeks, and layover again? Or could we adopt the language in two weeks and vote on it and be done?

Yes. Okay. I

will move a two week layover.

Okay. Alright. Commissioner Anacker withdraws that motion and moves a two week layover. Commissioner Coleman, did you still have any discussion?

I do have a quick question. I think it's a CAO question. I know we are not going to vote on this today at this point, but just to understand where we're at with the current guidelines, specifically say that they include nonprofits, but that would refer specifically to a five zero one(three), so it wouldn't include a government entity or a school, like they would not be, right, because I don't think that that's the government's tax status, is that, or would a nonprofit go broader than just a five zero one(three)?

So five zero one(three)s are federally tax exempt. Not all nonprofits are five zero one c threes. So there is a distinction between the two. That's part of what we would have to work out in the language.

Okay. But as it would currently be interpreted by CAO, it would include government entities and schools would be eligible?

Cannot answer that. Thank

you for that clarifying question as well. Appreciate Commissioner Coleman, commissioner Kim.

Minor sort of moved now. I just I wanted to clarify the motion because when Chirbuli spoke, I got a little confused about what the motion was, but now I hear it. And the language does say guidelines are connected to this resolution. It says contemplated by the guidelines attached here too, so it is absolutely connected. And I would support the I would support the two week layover, but only to adopt adopt the next time this comes before the body. Mhmm. So with that intention, I would support the layover.

Thank you, commissioner Kim. Alright. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the layover to clarify for two weeks, it'll come back to us on the March 25. The March 25 timeline. Thank you. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, zero opposed, this item be brought to the board in two weeks on 03/25/2026. Item number five is the staff report twenty six dash thirty eight, update on familiar families pilot.

Director McMahon, I realize and I just want to acknowledge I did not go back to you for comment, so I do apologize for that. And it's related to the item, and so if there's comments that you wish to share, I just want to say I'm sorry for not going back to you.

Yeah, I was just going to talk a little more about the party you said everyone's welcome to for every week. Just to talk from the department perspective is that what's before you, right, is the board report and the guidelines, and that provides us staff recommendations. So the staff recommendation and the guidelines there. And we get a lot of feedback from commissioners, and we try our best to make sure that we're providing that additional information, for example, the scenarios and the different funding scenarios for commercial corridor guidelines. If there are specific proposals for changes, to your point, Chair, to be working with the city attorney's office to have that specific language ready at the next board meeting is what would be really helpful.

I think otherwise, you have PED getting all of the input and the request for information. And again, to provide that information, we try our best to do and ensure that we're doing to always be responsive. But for specific changes that deviate from the staff recommendations put before you, that's when it makes sense to reach out to the city attorney's office and draft the specific language to bring back to your colleagues to see where that consensus is instead of staff trying to reach that consensus with yourselves. That makes sense?

Yeah. And I think that one thing I will ask and on the record, and I know director Baker was walking up because we did read this item coming in through, so thank you for being patient with us as well. This will be a brief family of your families pilot update, so I'm I'm optimistic that we'll get through before the council meeting. And I wanna say that my hope is that council that commissioners don't have to ask more than once for there to be assistance on the language. And so it's not a matter of whether or not staff is in agreement with that change or that the recommendation is in alignment, but that there's interest in that change overall.

Because I think some of the things that happens with communication, and I know at least from my vantage point, there have been several times when I have also brought in language and recommended changes based off of what I hear. And it's a multiple back and forth communication, multiple back and forth step. And I'd like to alleviate that moving forward. And so part of the reason why I did want to bring this publicly and have a guideline conversation is so you can experience some of the nuances that we have experienced as chair and this role as well to be able to make sure that when we are looking at bringing forward some of your interests as commissioners, that we have that cooperation and and alleviate any back and forth to be able to do that in a way that I think is responsive to that. That would be my ask because especially over the next two weeks it's clear that there are three programs of the four that are going to have back and forth language that commissioners are interested in.

I support all of them being able to get the language they need to have an actual conversation surrounding changing the guidelines and approving them so our downtown community can be invested in, our commercial corridors can be funded, and as well as our folks that are wanting to receive funding in our homeowners assistance program. The only one in our city that we can provide from a government entity passes. And so I just want to make sure that we're in alignment there, and I would ask for your cooperation, for the city attorney's cooperation, and the full cooperation of all planning and economic development staff in order to be able to bring that language back and forth, knowing that that's the intent of this conversation. I do appreciate that, Director McMahon. Director Baker, thank you for being so patient with us and waiting, as well as just being able to talk to us about the update on familiar families.

The final item will be withdrawn, and this one is an item because of the investment that we placed initially in this program of $500,000. Director Baker, thank you for being here.

Thanks, Chair Johnson, members of the commission. My name is Cedric Baker. I'm the director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety. Happy to be here before you to provide an extremely brief presentation and update about the familiar families pilot. Just to provide some insight, the goal of this presentation will be to give you an overview of the familiar families pilot, the roles between the city and the county and then to talk a little bit about next steps and timeline.

The familiar families pilot was ultimately created to be an opportunity to move forward with a very different supportive and also empowering model for families experiencing homelessness. We understand that the families the family members really need to be the driver of those next steps in their success in life. And so the goal of this pilot is to really do everything we can to keep those families together and focus on intense wraparound services to support those successful outcomes and really tapping in on community resources. Just a tad bit about the pilot. It's a grant agreement between the HRA and Ramsey County.

The program is ultimately designed to really focus in supporting families at any given time and specifically for those who have not been successful in traditional shelters because of multiple complex and persistent needs. They have had issues, they've had concerns and ultimately this pilot is to support and come around and have wraparound services for them. The eligibility of participants include families with a history of four plus years experiencing homelessness, and this is the McKinney Vento definition. And then families who have been restricted or banned from at least one existing family shelter or a county funded hotel program. To delineate roles and responsibilities through the city of Saint Paul, The HRA is providing the funding in the amount of up to $500,000 to Ramsey County, and the city's responsibility is to monitor Ramsey County's performance of the pilot.

For Ramsey County, is to oversee the implementation of the Familiar Families pilot, the contract services for the pilot program, and then ultimately to provide all necessary

I

apologize. Thank you.

I have no screen. Thank you.

Apologize about that.

Thank you. Oh, the voice activated projector.

Yeah. Just came back. I apologize, chair.

That's okay.

What was that back?

The Internet wins the Internet connectivity wins again.

And then for Ramsey County, provide all necessary reporting documentation and updates to the HRA. So I had an opportunity to have some conversations with those individuals that are responsible for this pilot, ultimately would be responsible for this pilot at Ramsey County. And what we do understand now is that this agreement was fully executed and approved during yesterday's Ramsey County board meeting. That and also thank you to chair and those that signed off here within the city. That Ramsey County will move forward with a RFP for services to provide those wraparound services for those within the program.

And then June 2026 is the expected time frame for the start of the pilot program. I have also now been named as the representative to the Ramsey County, sorry, heading home Ramsey, Continuum Of Care. And because of that, this is one of the reasons why I'm coming before you to provide this update. And just to give you program contacts, Jatu McCoy is the planning specialist over at Ramsey County Housing Stability that's supporting this effort. Jamie Wilkins is director of housing stability over at the county.

Then Helder Adlin, who's the co chair of the family shelter work group, supporting the heading home Ramsey continuum care has been instrumental and vital to the overall kind of thinking of what this pilot would look like. Had extensive conversations with them recently and so they provided me with an update of next steps and plans and with that chair, I would entertain any questions.

Alright. We're at about 03:20. So, I'll take maybe a question or two. I just wanted to be able to share this update with you all, because I think it's an example of where a lot of collaboration went into it. It seems like it can't be quite captured in four slides. But as you all recall, we actually had Ms. McCoy come in front of us last year to talk about it at a time when we were like, oh, is it really going to take till June 2026 for implementation? And in fact, it will. And on top of that, we had a lot of county and citywide conversations and have landed here. So there was a lot of of collaboration in order to get this in front of the county board yesterday and approved and the contract agreement signed.

So shout out to the city of trade's office, the office of neighborhood safety, the planning and economic development team as well, and just the mayor's office for getting that in alignment with what we were originally looking at, making sure that we don't have a situation where at the end of the year, this money is not where it's supposed to be or not expended. So this is something that I think is just an example where we have these programs that potentially now I can go back to the Heading Home Ramsey continuum of care as the vice chair of the body and share the update for them as they were waiting for this. So it's really important for that, and I think it will also serve some of our most vulnerable families in this pilot. So appreciate that. Looking forward to the partnership.

Welcome to the city, and welcome to the HRB and your first presentation to us as well. And so we do appreciate you sitting and being willing for that update. So thank you so much. Thank you. Alright. I see no further business in front of us, and I do just wanna echo that please do with amendments, you know, reach out as quickly as possible as you know them, and I will do my best as chair to ensure we're able to get that language for you to actually be able to have a fair conversation for each one. Thank you. We are adjourned.

We need a vote to withdraw the last item. Oh, okay. Item number six is Staff Report 20 six-thirty nine, update on LAHA funding for emergency shelter providers.

Okay. Due to the guidance from the city attorney's office, I would make a motion to withdraw. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor. Item is withdrawn.

I see no further business in front of us. We are adjourned.