Housing & Redevelopment Authority - Regular Meeting

Roll call please.

Bowie? Coleman? Here. Jost? Here. Kim? Naker? Here. Yang? Here. Chair Johnson? Here. There are five present, two absent being Commissioners Bui and Commissioner Kim.

Alright, well it feels good to be back with us on our, on my first week post maternity leave chairing this meeting. I just want to say thank you so much to Vice Chair Jost for holding it down while I have been gone. I have genuinely appreciated that and allowed me to attend virtually when I had to and then also just being able to spend time with my son Isaiah. It means a lot to me to know that this body was still in good hands and that and to see the meeting still go successfully. So thank you so much for being able to do that.

We got one more meeting. Yes. Give it up for vice chair, Joe. For the sake of the flow of today's meeting, we are actually gonna take this agenda out of order. The resolution discussion item pertains to the emergency rental assistance guideline updates, and so I want us to get through the staff reports first. So our folks are okay with that, I'll I'll actually start with the staff report and then do the discussion last today. Alright.

Starting with item number two, staff report SR 26 dash 21, update on citywide and inheritance fund down payment assistance program and the 2026 program guideline updates. Alright. So you will notice that over the the next several meetings into between now, genuinely, and and April this year, there

will be many intentional presentations that have been given based off of the commissioner's priorities, where we'll be able to provide updates and plans for this body. And so different programs that we have either funded either through local affordable housing aid or through the Housing Trust Fund or through the HRA. And one way, shape, or form will come in front of this body for updates, guideline changes, and or just general plans for 2026. And so we're starting that out first with the down payment assistance and the inheritance fund. I've heard a lot of support for this throughout the different awards, but also just generally wanting to bring this back.

So they won't be going into depth about exactly what something is. We had that last year. This will be really pertaining to the work in 2025 and the work plan for 2026. We started with these early because I wanted to make sure that we were able to hear from Rachel and the housing team directly and just wanted to be able to have a start somewhere. So we're starting with the down payment assistance fund and the inheritance fund here. And I'll hand it over to Director McMahon, who will hand it over to Rachel. So thank

you very much. Rachel Fanazo Bell is here to be providing us update on the Down Payment Assistance Program. And she'll also note a suggested 2026 program guideline update, and that would then be before you for consideration next week.

Thank you. And can you say your last name for me so I can get it correct? Because that's why I say Rachel, but you know I should say your last name.

The second one is easier, right? First Rachel Finazzo doll is Yes. My

Thank you. I was like, I'm gonna say her first name.

You got it.

But yes, miss Finazzo doll, thank you so much for being here with us today.

Absolutely. I am very excited to be here, actually doing two presentations for you today, and the first one will be on down payment assistance, and the second one will be on the emergency rent assistance program. Those are both programs that fall under my purview as a housing program and policy manager here at the city. So just to start us off, we're gonna do a little bit of what the program goals are for each of these programs. A little bit of intention setting where we were in 2025, and where we plan on going in 2026.

And I want to say that the down payment assistance program was something started in 2019, and as of today, the down payment assistance and Westside Flats Inheritance Fund are not currently open for applications, but the Rondo Inheritance Fund program is still accepting applications on a rolling basis, but we'll talk about why that is. So, kicking us off, just reminding this body, and as commissioner Nacre likes to say, million viewers at home. The program goals that we have for here is deepening and expanding our home ownership opportunities to people with lower incomes, building wealth, help address the racial home ownership gap in Saint Paul, and the inheritance fund specifically offers additional down payment assistance to property owners directly impacted by the construction of I 94 and the Riverview Industrial Park, helping rebuild lost community and household wealth.

An over Ms. Fadunzal, we actually have our first question from Commissioner Oh, great.

Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to ask this ahead of time before we get to the end and you're, you know, wondering why I'm asking a question for the first or second slide. No worries. But if you can just provide some clarity around the requirements for the inheritance fund being someone who has been impacted where their relative has owned their homes, would that requirement, is that something that is city policy in terms of requirement or is that something like can you speak to like what the reasoning behind that type of framework?

Yeah. So the entirety of the inheritance fund guidelines is something created and managed by the city of St. Paul. The reason why we hone in on property ownership is because it is really the main way that we have to verify that somebody was displaced from either of these either the current construction of I 94 or the Riverview Industrial Plaza.

So in both of those cases, the senate has to have owned their home. Is there anything like state statute that's requiring us to, you know, have it as ownership particularly, you know, I know we've I'm asking this question because myself and Chair Johnson both have kind of brought into question around you know, those who are renters were also equally displaced. And if if there's any, like, state statute that's requiring us to not only classify those who've been impacted by homeownership, or can we also include renters?

So I will first clarify to say we say that it is related to property ownership, so that could be if somebody like owned their business, owned the physical structure of a business, they would be potentially eligible for descendancy under this program. In addition to that, the again, the main reason that we focus on property ownership is because it provides us a paper trail so that we can verify that a resident was displaced by these situations. Because as we're all aware, were also many urban renewal projects going around at the same time.

Mhmm. One last question just because I wanna just make sure crystal clear. It sounds like this is an administrative led guideline. This isn't a policy or ordinance or a state statute that requires that. It's more so administrative. What's the best administrative approach I'm hearing from you?

Yeah. So chair, commissioner, it is something that we are running in house. It is not something as I am aware far as I am aware, it is not a state regulation restricting us from this. It is a decision that we have made internally on how to conduct best practices.

Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions?

Feel free to continue. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. I also want to just cover the overview of the down payment assistance programs, since I'm gonna refer to them as the umbrella that they are. I know oftentimes it can get confusing when we're referring to one program or the other, but in reality, our down payment assistance programs are an umbrella. Under that umbrella lives our citywide down payment assistance program, as well as our inheritance fund programs. And those inheritance fund programs can offer a layer of citywide down payment assistance depending on income levels.

So just wanting to clear that up. In addition to that, as a reminder for this body and the public that may be watching that in 2023 is when mayor Carter had shared his vision for rebuilding family wealth in the that was lost through the Rondo the displacement of Rondo residents through the construction of I 94 in 1956, and the inheritance fund was expanded in 2025 to include the West Side community because of the work that they had done on their Flats to the Future report. In some of the general terms that we have for this program, and when I say program again, we're going full umbrella this time. The uses can be used on down payments, closing costs, home inspections, and interest rate buy downs. The interest rate that we offer is 0%, and it is fifteen years forgiven at an amortized rate of onefifteenth annually.

So, once you live in your home, your rate goes down a little bit every single year of what you would owe back to the city. There is no monthly repayment of this loan that is due until the borrower sells, transfers title, or no longer lives in the home. It's fully forgiven if the homeowner remains in the home for that full fifteen years. I also want to take a moment to talk about the layers that we offer with the inheritance fund, because I have found through my time here at the city of Saint Paul and getting to work with this wonderful team, that there's oftentimes some confusion about the way that we talk about the layers that the inheritance fund has to offer. So just trying out a new graphic here.

With the inheritance fund, we offer four different layers of funding. Not every individual is going to receive every single layer of funding. Some might receive every layer. Others may receive a mix of those layers for a potential of funding up to $110,000 So for example, if I am someone who earns 100% AMI and I am a West Side resident who chooses to buy on the West Side again, I would be eligible for the first layer at $50,000 as well as the $10,000 community wealth layer. So, just wanted to discuss that a little bit further and remind everybody, the body of what layers that we have to offer with the inheritance fund.

On to 2025. So I wanna state upfront that between this presentation that you're seeing from me and the next one, we're going to have some difference in the ways that I'm going to do reporting and talking about how we did in 2025. This is large part due to two different reasons. The first being is that down payment assistance has been a long standing program that's running pretty effectively and smoothly, and the second being that with emergency rental assistance, we had the opportunity to use a robust software system. This program is operated through Excel spreadsheets, so it is a little bit more difficult to get some of the same data that we are going to be showing with ERA.

All of this work, I also want to add, is carried out by what is currently now two full time employees, FTEs. One loan specialist too, John, and the project manager Chris, and one loan specialist assistant. But the project manager and loan specialist assistant also work on emergency rent assistance. Over the course of the year, we opened three time for forms. Interest forms are when somebody applies and says, yes, I am pre qualified for a mortgage.

And then we send them an application. We opened up in June 2025 for about two and a half weeks. September 2025 for a week, as well as November for one week. And during that time, we had seen, in total, 162 applications come in. We have closed on 49 loans, with 12 additional people shopping for a home right now, and two closings that are scheduled.

And you can see the additional breakdown here of 44 of those being citywide loans, five going to Westside Flats Inheritance Fund recipients, and we do have one Rondo Inheritance Fund borrower scheduled for a closing and one additional person shopping right now. The reason why you're seeing a discrepancy between the 162 applications I mentioned and the 49 loans has more to do with the fact that if someone doesn't reply to us, that would be seen as a denial. It is far more common that we have denials because someone just doesn't get paperwork back to us than it is that someone is unqualified for our programs.

And then Ms. Fadazidal, we actually have two questions. Let Commissioner Nacre first.

Thanks Chair Johnson. Ms. Fadazidal, you actually just answered one of my questions, but I would like to see, it would be helpful to see a little bit more breakdown between the 162

and the

49. So how many of those were just they didn't apply versus were denied because they weren't eligible? What were the different brackets that that fell into? I'm curious the amount of spend is $2,300,000 How much is left if anything? And also I know we had originally when we created the Westside Flats inheritance fund we had created sort of a cap on the Westside Flats and a cap on Rondo so that they each were guaranteed some. And I think we had said that if I can't remember what we said about what would happen if applications for one exceeded that cap. But can you tell us a little bit about where that those numbers are at?

So in terms of the cap, I'll actually start with your first question. So thank you, commissioner. There is I can absolutely get you a bigger breakdown. I will have to consult with staff. As I mentioned, Excel spreadsheets might take me a second to be able to produce that. In addition to that, with the expenditures for the Westside Flats, we actually had more people buy than we had funding for, and we tapped into a latent funding source that we had available to us to be able to close on some additional

loans. Can you remind me, sorry, what the Westside Flats cap and Rondo caps were?

Yeah, 500 each. Okay. 500,000 each.

And the Westside Flats is now gone and has been Yes. Tapped into from other sources?

Yep. And it will be opening when we open up the program again. Yes.

Yes. And so I guess among that being too. So the 500,000 that was for Westside Flats was fully expended in 2025?

I'm sorry. Can you say it again?

Yeah. The 500,000 for Westside Flats was fully expended, if I'm understanding, and then you pulled from other sources. And then can you remind us also of the down payment assistance allocation for 2025?

Yep, so we were allocated in total $2,000,000.1000000 was for citywide, and the other million was for the inheritance fund program split evenly across the two. We also gained access to some additional resources known as the impact funds from Minnesota Housing, and actually due to the cyber security incident, we focused on spending state dollars as much as possible. So we have collectively spent about $1,200,000 in LHA, and then 1,025,000.000 in CHIF or impact funds. And then we also had some remaining housing trust fund dollars that we expended for when certain situations arise that made sense to utilize that pot of money.

And so just a Yeah. So would we be able to have the follow-up? I think this is really important when it comes to just money moving that we're glad that that was able to be used as a solve. I don't believe it came to this body in any way that that was happening. So it'd be nice to know just kind of what it was for, what kind of where we pulled from, and what we were able to successfully already do for 2025, and what that does to any sort of state funding that we have in the future, those things, balances. That would be really helpful.

Okay.

Which might be more of a financial thing. So I think I saw deputy director Grain as well. But that is just I think it'll be a helpful picture for that of, like, where we pulled from and what that did to the balances. Okay. So that sounds great. I'm glad that the Westside Flats inheritance fund piece is moving. And it's actually great to hear that that is I know that one of the conversations we had about that was around whether how we can make the inheritance fund move. And so to see that there in Westside Flats is great. Looking forward to hearing and seeing that same scenario happen in the Rondo Inheritance Fund, Commissioner Kim, I saw your hand.

Thank you, Chair. Just a question around sort of like the definition of denial. Right? It's not a credit denial. It's just they didn't like submit all their documentation maybe within a specific window of time. And then I'm assuming that doesn't change their eligibility to like reapply. Yeah, what's the communication that's sent out to the folks that were denied but just based on sort of paperwork and maybe not meeting kind of those maybe thirty day timelines? And Sure. You just talk through what that

Chair Johnson, Commissioner Kim, thank you for that question. So I believe it is a little bit different between the way that people might be denied. So if somebody is denied because they are not qualified, it is usually coming with a description of why that is. Oftentimes it is over income, may be an example that is most common for us. Then when it comes to folks who may not be moving forward because they just haven't received, or we have not received documentation from them, we are giving them a warning of, hey, we need your documentation here. And once they don't have it, we let them know, your time has lapsed and we need to keep moving on. Because oftentimes, and when I say often, I mean always, we end up with a little bit of a wait list. So we want to make sure we're touching everybody that we can.

That sounds good. And then is there any sort of follow-up I'm sorry. Is there any sort of follow-up with those folks where there's clearly interest and they've met sort of the eligibility criteria, even recognizing we have a waiting list. But assuming there's sort of then a built in extra waiting list, do we ever go back and say, hey, we're going to approve more money. You attempted this the first time or

because it doesn't sound like there's a

need necessarily for us to do more recruitment. But recognizing that they at least made a good faith attempt, is there any sort of additional outreach to those families?

Yes. So we do have an email listserv that we utilize to be able to say this program is opening up. Yep.

Commissioner Bouley. Thank you, Chair Johnson, and thank you so much, Rachel. Picking it back off the question, particularly around the denial and time lapse, can you share what is the time lapse? You know, what is the duration of that time? And has that is that like made visible on the website or when people apply that they have x amount of days because I can imagine particularly for the down payment assistance, one of the challenges is the timing, you know, to find that house and then go through the underwriting. I mean, for someone who went through the home buying process, the timing is always can fluctuate. So can you share if there's anything made public, particularly around what that time lapse time is? Or the duration, excuse me,

of the time Yeah, how long it takes between the two? Mhmm. Yes. So I will actually briefly glance to my staff here. How much time, can you remind me?

Okay.

My staff, Chris tell them that. Yeah. My staff, Chris, just said that they communicate thirty days from the time of application to the to be able to return documentation.

Got it. I definitely wanna just, you know, put out there for someone who, you know, and I'm sure there's homeowners, and we've all been through the process. The thirty days is really such a short window of that thirty days of getting all of your paperwork in, in terms of you secured a house, you've been approved for a loan, Can you talk about what is expected of the applicant and what documents that they need to have within those thirty days?

Yeah, Chair Johnson Commissioner Rububui. So, yes, that is only for the paperwork side. In order to even start working with this program, they need to be pre qualified for a mortgage. So they are oftentimes ready to go and just need this down payment assistance as the last thing to get them over into home ownership. So it is only the paperwork side. They are not having to, actually we encourage them not to have a purchase agreement before working with our program. We qualify them and then they go shop. So that is different timeline. The thirty days that we are offering is really more of a the initial paperwork that we need from them.

Got it. Thank you for that clarity. So it sounds like this is a pre qualified down payment assistance loan. They're not expected to have found that house when they apply? No. Okay. Thank you.

No. In fact, we prefer that they don't.

Thank you. Yes.

Any other questions that I can fill? Okay. On to some additional successes that we have from this program in 2025. As I mentioned, one of the major goals that we have for this program is deepening and expanding homeownership. And we are seeing a lot of success here with that.

Our average purchase price is $265,000 and one metric I am incredibly proud of is that our household size has expanded to 2.45 people, and we are seeing a lot more families applying for this program and receiving benefit from this program. The average income of households is $67,000 and the average percent or the percentage of households that were renters that purchased purchased is 88%. That other 22% may be somebody who was living with their family or things like that. We also have a really good breakdown across the AMI spectrum, where we see about an even halfway split of folks that earn more than 60% AMI and less than 60% AMI purchasing and utilizing this program. In addition to that, when it comes to addressing the racial homeownership gap, I do want to state that we, in order to collect racial data, utilize the lender's loan application.

We do not collect that ourselves personally. So, we are utilizing oftentimes the way that the federal government likes to report. So not totally broken down by race and ethnicity in a perfect way. But we do offer, or work primarily with, and have lended to primarily with BIPOC folks. And in addition to that, many of the people who identified as white also actually identified as Hispanic and Latino, we found. So, doing good work there.

Commissioner Bui. Thank you,

Chair Johnson. So, these are our data this is our data in terms of how many loans close in a racial demographics, particularly?

Yes. Or, okay. Folks I know you referenced that closed on a loan with us, and we got this information from a lender.

This isn't our data, you got this information from a lender. Can you speak to that?

Yeah. It's infer it's data that we are collecting from a lender's application.

Our lender application or

Nope. The primary lender's application.

Got it. Okay.

That's Do

we have data from how many people and what's the racial demographics of how many people are actually approved and closed?

So this would be just for people who have closed on a loan with us.

So, this is the I'm just trying to understand. So, this is the information that's from the primary lender that received a loan from us. Yes. But, I guess I'm trying to understand because they may have different lenders, right? It seems like Yep. Can you speak to like how many lenders that you actually receive this data from?

Yes. So all lenders are using the same form. I believe what it was called is a 1,003. So we're receiving the same form from various different lenders, and that's a requirement of our program to know what the first mortgage is and have some of those documentation.

Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, because we get those because we can see those and we access those forms, we're able to take the demographic off

of Yes, exactly. Thank you.

Commissioner Kemp. Just to add on to it, it's an optional one as well, if I'm correct. Yes. Yeah. So it's an optional form that, applicants will fill out. From across the board, it's a uniform form that all lenders use to capture this data. Can you say a little bit why we don't collect that ourselves? Is it just because the access to this data? Or is it just I mean, I think we all know it's like one of the fair housing laws is like you don't lend based on a person's like race. But can you speak a little bit to maybe why we don't collect that data for our purposes but we want to access it from the lender besides obviously the outcomes that we can see?

Sure. Chair Johnson, Commissioner Kim. I that's a great question that I actually think I need to do a historical look back on. That was not a decision that I necessarily made. So I that is something I'm going to write down and get back to you on.

Yeah, I would assume and I do think this is a safe assumption, I would assume that we collect this information or if we haven't it's because we don't collect it because there's no reason for us to not to like lend to someone that is credit worthy for our programs as long as they fit our income levels. But I think what we're really interested in is this slide. How are we utilizing the scarce resources that we have to help close the racial gap for homeownership for our communities? So I think intentionality on the front end and back end could be an interesting conversation around like what we collect and why.

Yeah, I appreciate you and Chair Johnson, I appreciate you raising that question. I only just asked just because I know we usually collect data in other aspects. And I was just curious particularly if we have our own internal process, not collecting the data in the front end of the application. But if someone closes, they're successful, we have as an option for them to collect that data just like we do in other applications, even for our hiring practices, you know, there it's an option for them to share their racial data. So but it sounds like we don't have internal collecting practice.

I'm sure that we

getting that information from Sorry. Providers.

So Oh, thank you.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank Thanks, John. Yeah. That's why they're Yeah.

So, like, do for everything else.

Yeah. Sounds

good. Okay.

Thank

you. Alright. Commissioner Baker?

Thanks, Chair. Just a slightly different tack. I want to just not go past the slide without acknowledging the main point here, which is I think that we are and staff in particular are doing a phenomenal job with the program goals. It looks like more than half. And I'm not sure what other I don't know if others more than one race or what, but even if you just look at what's in front of us, more than half of the loans that are closed are people of color and the purpose of this is to address the racial homeownership gap. So I think taking us back to our goals, showing the results, and seeing that the program is meeting its goals is really important. And I I want to acknowledge that.

Thank you. Yeah. And a rough number of say 71%, I believe was the calculation that we made that was identified as people of color either through race or ethnicity data.

Alright. And I see commissioner Kim, and then I see commissioner Bowie again. And then I will also have a question for you. So commissioner Kim.

Yeah. I appreciate. Just just an offering. Rachel and have been in, I guess, housing. Well, haven't. You've been in it longer than I have. But is that, you know, we can close gaps and educate folks and get them into homeownership. But ultimately, the thing that helps close the gap is sustaining those levels. We see these same communities exit homeownership and not reenter them. And so we also have to put a plug in the back end.

And so one thing that I'm really interested in is seeing the successes of this program is in tandem with this is there a small but meaningful conversation that we have around emergency mortgage assistance like we saw during the homeownership crisis, the foreclosure crisis when I was working at Habitat for Humanity. That was one of the ways that we maintained homeownership for these communities. So it's just to name like these are incredible successes and then how do we in our own way measure how we're impacting the sustained level of homeownership over time since we have this fund now. It'd be super interested even in twenty years from now and none of us will be here maybe. But like what does that sustained look for the borrowers that now we've assisted?

Because I think that's really this is meaningful. And I think the end goal is to get them to stay in that home.

And I think along that vein, one of the data points that I hope that we eventually do collect with this data point and most likely with the program next that we hear about as well is really just around if this has been in place since 2019, that's a good seven years going on seven years. I am curious as to how many loans the resident still lives in the home that they were able to get. And I think that that's an important piece to just have a check-in for those residents that we have been able to support. Because again, one of the reasons why our office is so passionate about the down payment assistance program that we have here at the city is because these residents cannot get down payment assistance from Ramsey County. Because we do have our own down payment assistance, we do have our own program.

And so I'm always just going to be really supportive of making sure that we're able to get this program up and running and to expend the resources that we have because it keeps St. Paulites St. Paulites. And so I'm looking forward to that data point, I think, eventually of seeing just with our seven years of time and plus and counting that that's there. Just for folks' awareness, in 2026, we did put $2,000,000 towards down payment assistance and an additional $1,000,000 again for the inheritance fund for both Westside Flats and Rondo. So a $3,000,000 total, which isn't a $1,000,000 allocation more than last year and kind of on par with some of the numbers that you're seeing. Commissioner Bowie, did you have a follow-up question?

Yeah. Well, not really a question, but just another feedback and response particularly to the slide. I do think it does paint the picture particularly around like where the impact is and where outcomes and matching our goals that this down payment assistance is designed for. I would say just across the board expanding those data sets to have disaggregated data particularly we know that in the you know what classifies as a black and has an entire diaspora right of how we're able to track East African, Somali, or West African, or Black American, you know, all those things paint a different picture, right, but tells the same story in terms of who's actually benefiting you know from this program. And also I wanted to you know touch on you know also the same thing around Asian like we have a really large Hmong population and I don't know if that is being captured, you know, with when we just say Asian, you know, what does that mean for our Korean communities, our, know, other Asian American communities as well.

Ms. Fidelis at all, do you have a response to that or?

No. I was just going to say thank you all for your points. We absolutely that is something that we take into mind. So it's good to hear that we are thinking in a similar vein, for sure.

Yeah. I think since we collect this data and continue to evolve the data, think the know, especially with this program because we don't have a robust software in it, I think it'll just be really important to keep as much data on things as we can knowing that it informs future decisions that we make. So really appreciate that.

Okay. On for my last major slide here, twenty twenty six updates. Oh, and one thing I forgot to say. I know that it was requested to have a heat map of the places where people were purchasing. I do not have that right at the moment.

It is something I can follow -up with, but I will say that majority of the places that we are seeing people purchase a home, as you saw, 265,000 was our average purchase price. We're seeing it most commonly in your neighborhoods like Frogtown Frogtown, Payne Failin, Dayton's Bluff, some in Battle Creek, and then we did see an uptick in the West Side, thanks in large part to the west side flats inheritance fund. And some North End. I forgot that one. So, okay.

2026 updates. I, for the program guideline updates that I will be bringing to the board, there is not actually too big of one. I only have one thing really offered for a change. And that is something that we want in order to be able to extend and offer assistance for more people. So, that would be splitting the way that people in citywide down payment assistance program receive this benefit.

So, for folks that are up to 60% AMI, they would still continue to receive $40,000, which is what we offer for citywide assistance. Those who are 61 to 80% AMI, we would like to bring that down to 20,000 so that we can stretch our dollars further. The reason for this is in particular, I did a lot of research around other down payment assistance programs in surrounding communities, and 40,000 is actually a very unique number. Most common we are seeing is 20,000. So, we are just trying to find ways to do more with what we have.

Commissioner Baker. Thanks chair. There are I support this change and particularly note that it looks like that would sort of shift the balance looking at who is applying the slide you showed about income distribution probably away from the 61% to 80% and more towards the lower side of the income scale. So I think that's the more equitable thing to do. There were two ideas that were brought up for changes for guidelines this year that I want to see what the thinking has been on.

One of them is the one that Commissioner Bouie mentioned earlier, this idea that, and I agree with her entirely, so many of the folks that were displaced were renters. And I know you and others have raised the concern that it's harder to trace and figure out who those people were. The problem is that if what we're trying to do is rectify an inequity, the fact that you were renting your home is actually irrelevant to the amount of harm that you experienced. In fact, the people who owned the homes often did not live in them. They had moved up and out of the neighborhood and were renting to folks who had come in more recently.

And so the people who were really displaced were the renters, even if they didn't have the property law. So I'm really interested in digging in a little bit more to find out if there is a way to figure out that lineage. Obviously, we have to be able to verify it. But it seems like in terms of the goals of our program, we could verify, would be the people we would want to be helping. That's one question.

And the second one is a smaller change, but I know it had been suggested by the Westside community. And I wanted to just shout out to the Westside community organization and their help, especially Julia there, who has been instrumental in working with you. And that is part of the reason why I think that program has seen such success because of Wesco's work and Julia's work in particular. The question had been raised about the timeframe of the Westside Flats displacement. And I know there were a couple of properties that someone had been displaced slightly after the year that we say that was the displacement.

Kind of calling into question how we decided that that year was really the endpoint. I'm sure there's historical work that can go into this, but I guess I'm just I want to make sure that we've really fully explored the question of when do we really say that displacement ended so that we're not inadvertently cutting someone off who actually should be included. So those are my two update changes that I was hoping to see reflected here and would love to hear more about.

Yes, Chair Johnson, Commissioner Nacor. I appreciate those as well. That would be something that I think will take some more deep exploration just because we do need to find like formalized pathways to enable that access. So I think that we might take a little bit more time, but it is definitely something that we could look into and continue to explore. And I know that we've heard that from community that wanting to have that access for renters has been something that has been a continuous narrative beginning with the Rondo program and then continuing on into the Westside Flats.

And I will say that I think Rondo Community Land Trust currently has programs that do that address renters and the aspect of displacement. So they currently have active programs within Rondo Community Land Trust that they do separately. And as the stewarder of our funds when it comes to the Rondo community, maybe this is an area where they can be beneficial and helpful, at least on the line of how they actually do that. Because that's of interest of mine as well. I've heard many feedback about that, and especially during that time frame before the historical displacement came redlining in our communities and the hardship that involved, especially when black and brown folks were even trying to purchase a home.

There's an inequity that there's multiple layers there. But just really taking it at face value if you were displaced by the construction of '94, that is what we're trying to rectify. And whether you're a homeowner or renter, it doesn't necessarily weigh heavy on me in either direction because I just became a homeowner. I would hate to be cut from a program that could potentially be a wealth builder for me and my family because I didn't own at that time. But I still had to relocate.

And so there's some of that that for me resonates for sure, Commissioner Bouie and Commissioner Nacre and myself. I think it's kind of a general sense of something that we would like to see. And if not by the time that this guideline change comes through, definitely as a guideline change to consider as we move forward. And then the piece about the year date, I just wanted to go back to that. Do you have any further clarification on Commissioner Nieker's question around the time period in which displacement is being quantified?

I do not at this time unfortunately.

I'm keeping a list here just of a few things that are coming from it so I'll be sure to send a follow-up. And if we miss anything, commissioners, please do respond back with a question or two because I'm trying to track that as well. I'm old fashioned. I write what write what's happening with my pen, so I'll be doing my best to collect the questions that come through as well, and we can cross consult that. I do want us to time check on getting through the materials in order to be able to have it. So Commissioner Bui, I'll have you take the last question on this. I'll have her get through the slides, and then we may have to transition for today.

Yeah. I just one, I want to say I appreciate Commissioner Neeker and also Chair Johnson for reiterating how I was hoping to see in the updates today there was going be a change to that verification process. The fact that last year we just had one person close on the Harrison's fund from the Rondo side was not the outcomes that I was really hoping to see. I want to see that increase. Know you all have heard that from me.

Whether that is updating of our policies or figuring out who's the best partner to actually administer that verification, I'm here to be a champion for that work. I also want to say as someone who is a descendant of Rondo and has family who lived in St. Paul for over one hundred years, we do know displacement has multiple factors. It's not just the building of I-ninety 4, it was the series of other displacements that went into play which is why the reason you know we have a 8,000,000,000 wealth gap particularly in Rondo between African American communities here in St. Paul and our white counterparts.

So I do see you know I do anticipate and want to also just urge that you know this is important for us. However, we need to formalize that pathway. Please let us know if that is policy. Of course, you're hearing from, you know, three commissioners that we want to see this. So, I really, you know, really want to urge that, you know, hopefully we get a chance to see that program update included into the program just because we have been hearing from people who've been denied or not qualified for it. So I just wanted to lean in on that point. So thank you so much, counsel or Chair Johnson, for reiterating that.

Chair Johnson, Commissioner Bui. Yes, thank you. I, again, agree with your points. It's a matter of, I think, just doubling down on some research of how that would be feasible for us and heard that Rondo does have a program on their end and I know that the Westside Flats has their own body of research. I it is something that I definitely will have us continue to dig down into for sure.

Thank you. Well, you on that. And just as a reminder, and I think you did go through some of these, but the can you just the timeline for opening and then also just the guideline changes that will come back before us.

Yes, super brief. On March 11, we will be bringing guideline changes to this body, and it will include the AMI changes. As I said, it will probably take us time to look further into adjusting the inheritance fund program, so expect just that guideline change at this moment. And then for the proposed launch, we anticipate that happening at the April, possibly late March. This is so that we can meet the housing market, which kicks off in April, typically for the state of Minnesota.

And then, we anticipate once we launch that first time, we are going to be opening at set times through 2026. So, when it comes to announcing, hey, we're opening down payment assistance, we will also communicate every other period of time we anticipate being open for applications for the remainder of the year. And I'm gonna skip this slide for the time, and lovely photo from the West Side Flats celebration in December. So, I can go on to the next presentation.

Item number three is Staff Report twenty six-twenty two, Emergency rental assistance eviction prevention program ERA and staffing review and 2026 program guideline updates.

Alright. So this is related to the as another program update but also obviously going to have really relevant parts to some of the decisions that we will make as a body today. The emergency rental assistance, as you all know, is something that I'm genuinely really invested in. I wanted to continue to see the strengthening of, and so being able to have this update and then also just to be able to see the planning for 2026, very important, very timely. So once again, Ms. Fazazadol, thank you for being here.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Yes, you get to continue to hear me. So, just kicking us off right away here. The purpose of the I'm just going to call it ERA. Purpose of ERA is to provide funding to individuals and families renting in St. Paul with a verifiable pending eviction to be paid directly to the landlord. And the purpose for that is to halt an eviction action. And we'll talk a little bit more about that down the line here. Assistance in our guidelines is capped at $2,500 for families and renters earning 80% AMI or lower.

Eligible expenses include rent, late fees, court fees, and the payments are supposed to be made directly to the landlord, but they must agree to halt the eviction proceedings upon the payment of rent. And we do provide everyone a letter of guarantee when they are approved. So, how 2025 went for us. Current staffing levels that we have for this program has been one PED supervisor, that is myself, PM ed using point five of their time, and one loan specialist assistant, and then we utilize all seven of PED's OAs to answer preliminary phone calls. I do wanna give them a brief shout out.

It was a lot of work, and I am so grateful for everything that they did for that program. The days open for application was twenty three, and the days open for processing was seventy six. And you can see some of the details in the numbers that we have here. So out of twenty three days of being open, we received six ten applications. Over being open for seventy six days, we had processed 190 applications, and I want to just clarify for this body what processed means for us.

For one, processed means that they could have been approved for funding or denied, because it takes time oftentimes for us to be able to also deny an application. Unprocessed does not mean that an application was untouched. It just means because I believe we went through everybody's application at some point or another, or looked at some component of their application. It just means that by the time that we put a pause on this program in processing what we had, that we did not complete their applications to get it to a point of approval. So additionally, the calls fielded by St.

Paul's staff, so that would be case managers like myself and the OAs, was over 2,200. And our average processing time per application was three point two hours. And I also wanna make that clear that for processing time, that is only including like case management time. That does not include time for payment. We have been seeing often times payment has been taking several weeks to be able to get to a landlord.

The other numbers that I want to bring to your attention, because it'll become relevant for the remainder of this presentation, is some of the averages that we were seeing. So, the average grant requested amount, so the amount average that we were paying out was about $2,000.20 14. The average total request or money that was asked for us in applications was about $3,000. The percent of people that we paid a flat $2,500 to was 46% of the people that we paid out. In our percentage of households that requested more than 2,500, was 53%.

And then, a part of what contributes to that, is that folks who are hit with a housing court summons date, their average need for assistance was $4,463 We really see a skyrocketing of assistance need once we have a housing court date, as I am sure all of you in this body are aware. Court fees are very expensive. I'm typically seeing like 700 to $900 for court fees. And that's just for the summons. That's once you're done with court, have Well, you have to pay for additional fees for being at court, and for the lawyers, and things like that.

We had 17% of people who applied. When they applied, they had a court date. And lastly, an interesting point that we were able to pull from our system, and relevant to a recent Pioneer Press article, was that the percentage of applicants that we were applied, almost 40% of them were applicants in protected affordable housing. So that could be that they lived with the PHA, they had a housing choice voucher, or they were in a lie tech unit. We coalesced data with HousingLink to see which units might be that.

In addition, I have some demographic data. This is data that we were collecting on our own. So, again, a little bit different than the way that we were asking because it's not as connected to the way the federal government wants us to ask about race. So as you can see, our numbers pretty well line up with the anticipated impacts of eviction by race that we see around us, which is primarily affecting BIPOC households.

And just so I think I can see the distinction, but I just wanted to make it for the record, because the dark green and the light green category look pretty similar in color. Can you confirm the 66% is for black or African American? Correct. On this slide.

Yes. The light green, I can walk through the colors very briefly. The dark green is black or African American. The pinkish color is native Hawaiian Pacific Islander. There is a blackish color that is other. Asian is a very slim 1% orange. Hispanic or Latino is 4%. White is 17%. And prefer not to say was 5%.

Thank you so much. Yeah, you're welcome. I just, I'm training my eye again

to color. Just wanted to test everyone's vision today, So, including my I have two maps here too for you to be able to see where all of the applications were coming from, as well as who we processed. So we are seeing heat where we anticipate seeing the most renters in the cities, as well as who we approved and paid, which matches up pretty well. We're pretty close to having a good match here. On for our proposed amendments for 2026.

So my first one is, again, bringing us back to the data that I was discussing. We are proposing to increase our grant amount from $2,500 to $3,500 As you might recall, I did say our average was $3,000 but the reason that staff made the decision to ask for 3,500 is because if we think about this in a bell curve, I really wanna push us past the crest of the bell curve to expedite the way that we can process people. Frankly, having a cap at 2,500 that was not meeting the average need slowed us down tremendously because we needed tenants to be able to find additional resources to be made whole in order for us to pay. We also are looking for proof of income changes, some adjustments to be made. For one is allowing PHA subsidies like the housing choice voucher or RAD to count towards proof of income because these tenants oftentimes are, or have to be, under 60% AMI.

It would just be another thing that can help expedite our approval. And lastly, would be reducing the proof of income through pay stubs from sixty days to thirty days. The reason for this is because we found 53% of people who applied for this program were actually ended up using pay stubs, is something we did not anticipate. We genuinely thought most people would be providing us other resource like letters of other resources they receive to help us expedite things. We were getting pay stubs.

Pay stubs were something that was really slowing down the process because I will say I could probably count on one hand the amount of people out of the 600 that I saw receive sixty days worth of pay stubs. It was more common that we got like two if we were lucky. So reducing that amount from thirty days to sixty days is something that can help expedite that process and keep us from having to go back and forth with someone. Lastly, is an introduction of eviction timeline restrictions. Just to give a very brief, very incredibly high level view of how eviction court works.

I have a little bit of a graphic down here of how the process flows for tenants most often. Tenants

will

be served with a thirty day notice of intent to evict, which is the starting point where we can help tenants in this program. If they do not cure their late rent, the tenant would be served with an eviction summons. If they continue to not cure their rent, then they would have to attend housing court. And often times, what we see is that people will receive like a payment plan after they've been to housing court. So it might be anywhere between, you know, a couple weeks to several months that that payment plan can last.

And if someone falls off their payment plan, that is typically when someone is served with a writ. A writ is that final document that actually is requesting a person to leave the premises where they live. So some of the introduction that we want to have for restrictions on the timeline is not working with any cases that have a writ. And the reason for this is that it is the very unfortunate truth that once you have a writ, oftentimes those are anywhere from like one day to three days, and a landlord demands to have payment in hand in order to stay that eviction at that point. So we simply just cannot operate that quickly and find that it leads to a lot of issues and creating more trouble for the tenant at that point if we are continuing to work with someone that has a red.

In addition to that, also saying that applicants must apply prior to their eviction court, prior to their summons date. The reason for that is very similar, where at that point, landlords are oftentimes like, don't care about a letter of guarantee, don't want to continue to move forward with a tenant after that point. In addition, their needs are often so high that we are having to sit and wait and try to have other parties come in and be involved in the process. I was finding that typically somebody who went to housing court varied between having one additional source and attention to us to three. So it would be like me partnering with three different community providers and having to make sure all of us agree we are going to pay.

So that is the reason for those proposed amendments.

Thank you so much. And I'm actually going pose a question to this body. So we will operate under the same guideline timelines for both the down payment assistance and rental assistance. So this too will be coming back and forth back to this body on the March 11. I'm very inclined to to discuss the grant amount. This is something that we named, and we have jurisdiction over deciding what it is. The $2,500 cap was something that was brought up for a pilot for the purposes of to assess. It was never because we couldn't go higher or lower, but because this was what we wanted to test out in the first year. Upon hearing what you're sharing, I have an appetite for the 3,500. I am supportive of that.

I also have an appetite for making to pay what is remaining to keep an individual housed. So I am open to both. I wanted to pose it to this body really in terms of something to think about, especially because we have a couple weeks, and to welcome your feedback and really on all of this. But in particular, when it comes to the grant amount, we are increasing the funding hopefully today. And something to think about is whether or not we want to keep someone in their actual unit.

And if we do, that sometimes also means that we may want to explore what that actually means and what that actually looks like so an individual doesn't have to use multiple different sources. So that is just something that I'm putting out there because the cap, the minimum, the max, all that is set within the city and is up to us. And so that's just something that I'm throwing out there as a question. If that 3,500 sits well with you, we can move forward with that. I'm pretty supportive of that change. But if the goal is to prevent the eviction and if folks want to do that in totality, that's my question to this body. But, yes, we can continue. I do want us to get to the process and the staffing and then to make sure we do the vote within the next fifteen minutes of the next item, too.

Okay, on to the next slide. So for the process of continuing, we are proposing to go to a more limited system so that we can make sure that we are serving people who get into our system rather than having a really difficult to cover wait list of folks the way that we had it this first go around. So this would mean processing approximately 50 to 60 applications monthly. Applications would be open for two days a month. We anticipate it being at the beginning of the month.

Few reasons for this. First of all, we received 150 applications in just two days with minimal advertising for this program. So we feel like we would have more than enough applications just being open for a very brief window of time. In addition to that, the choice of doing the first days rather than doing it further into the month is because we have, number one, the thirty day notice of intent to evict does buy the tenant and us some additional time on working with tenants on their cases. And what typically happens or what I have been seeing happen is somebody maybe like on the third of the month will get the warning saying, hey, you owe me money from their landlord, and it's typically towards closer to the end of the month where they are actually served with their thirty day notice of intent to evict.

So those are some of the reasons. I will also add, we really would like to stick towards the beginning of the month, so that we can process that 50 to 60 within a month, and not carry them over to the following month. When we carry over to a following month, it becomes incredibly administratively burdensome for us and for the tenant. Because we're asking for new rent ledgers. We may need updated information on certain things.

We wanna just maintain make this as easy as possible for tenants and staff. In addition to that, I mentioned a lottery system that we'd be using with no preference to where somebody is within the system of being evicted. This lottery system is something that would function like, let's say a 100 people apply within two days. Our system would randomly assign a batch of 50 to 60 applications to staff, and the other ones would be notified that they were not selected within that lottery, but it's something we could keep information for. So if in the first few days we see like some easy denials because they just don't live in Saint Paul or whatever.

We could bring in some of the people that weren't initially selected. So that is how anticipating the lottery system to work. We had a moment of thinking like, well we could wait list the other folks, but in reality, we want them to be looking for other sources and not have to rely on us if we don't think we can get to them. So that's the reason why it's not necessarily a wait list. As for staffing updates, we have 2.5 FTEs.

This is across PMs, and again myself, a PED supervisor working on ERA. We look to adding one PM from the 2026 budget, and we were working on a waiver for that position, as well as one PM from remaining Families First housing pilot program in the housing trust fund balance. And in addition, we'd be adding one accounting tech from that same source. And then I know there was some additional information about the housing trust fund. And lastly, for the timeline, We have the March 11 adoption of the guideline changes.

And, I do have something in here that states opening June, and I want to clarify that. That is if we are waiting for full staff to be able to launch. There is a possibility that we could launch prior to having full staff and working with the staff that we have. But I just wanna maintain expectations that this would mean less output and less communications to people who are applying for this program because we are understaffed. So for 2.5 FTEs, we processed about 200 applications in a little over two months.

On average, we see one full time employee can approve about one application a day. You know, it ebbs and flows. Some days I was like getting through 10, and then other days it's zero. Obviously, so we have One FTE can process about 21 applications in a month because of the amount of working days. So I would say if you're like, we need to launch right now, that would maybe look more like 25 to 40 with the current staffing capacity that we have.

And the last thing I also want to mention is potential collaboration with the county and other partners, and that is something that we've been exploring for this program as well.

And just so folks are aware, I've asked for an April first start, and shared that with staff as well. I think the urgency of the program just does not match a launch in June. And so I did share that with staff and the director yesterday, and so would be expecting to see that change to April.

Commissioner Nacre. Thanks, Chair. Usual, thinking along the same lines, just want to say I do feel like we need to launch right now or as soon as possible. It seems like better to get 25 to 30 applications out in a month than than none while we wait to get to full staffing. And the model that worked last year may not have been ideal, but it it worked to some extent.

I think we we do need to operate with that sense of urgency. Also just wanted to thank you for the point about potential collaboration with the county going forward. It does strike me. And I we created this program on our own because the county's emergency rent assistance program does not meet the needs of people in Saint Paul. But that said, as moves into more away from pilot and into more of a full program with staffing and with the capacity challenges you're talking about and the software challenges you're talking about, it does seem to me like it behooves us to talk to the county about ways in which these dollars could flow with their dollars to do exactly what we want them to do, but perhaps in a way that's more efficient.

Yep. And I agree, Commissioner Nikker, with the piece of the county piece. I just, you know, I kind of shared with them too like the points that you raised just around the importance of ensuring that the guidelines that were created here, it is unique and it is different than how the current rental assistance program operates at the county, especially on that time of which on the continuum of when they can actually seek assistance, you know, at the county, you do actually have to have the court summons, think, as well.

Yes. And I will say in in Chair Johnson, in collab when we're talking about collaborating with the county or any other partners, we make it explicitly clear that this is the city's program. You would have to follow the city guidelines. I would say between you and me, but I am in public. Between you and me, they actually have expressed many different things that they are jealous of for our program and the way that it operates.

I They are welcome. That they are welcome. No. I think it's really great. You know, I will just touch on what we may hear today, and I shared that with some commissioners I got a chance to talk to about this.

Community members who are looking inside trying to make sure that they're following this as well. This is an internal city program and because we were intentional about the guidelines. And so even if there are nonprofit partners, philanthropic partners, individuals who have interest in collaborating with the city on this program, the guidelines are some of the most important and I think crucial of who we're serving. A lot of the numbers that you're seeing and probably even the I would go as far as saying some of the applications that were processed and approved may or may not have been applicable or even eligible for funding under the Ramsey County's current process. And so even though there are rental assistance programs that exist now, the guidelines often throw us into a different category when it comes to when we can help.

Not how, but what we can do and how fast, I think, going to be really crucial for the next couple of months. But yes, I think the whole reason why we're bringing forth the 926,000 that we'll be voting on next is because of the urgency. It's because there's been an expressed staffing need. It's because we wanna make sure to see to give it a full year, and starting in June doesn't allow us to do that once again this year, and that's just not something that we wanna see happen. So I think I saw a hand but I don't remember whose hand it was. Commissioner Bouie. Thank you. I'll be

short because I know we're coming to a close here but Chair Johnson particularly from you know the conversations I've been hearing particularly with the urgency even in our public hearings that we've had related to the grievances to federal immigration policy. A lot of people have been sharing that you know in the community, they've been raising mutual aid and we've been seeing success amongst nonprofits like for example Neighborhood House. Many of these community based nonprofits have administered rental assistance or emergency rental assistance. Have we explored a pathway to where we can just allocate or you know allocate the funds to an organization that does not have some of the staffing issues that we have? I think, you know, we're time and time again always trying to solve for staffing capacity and, you know, understanding the urgency, like, is there an appetite particularly from like department or other colleagues particularly around outsourcing this program just for the immediate need that we've all been hearing from.

As of this year?

Correct.

Yeah. Yeah. This year that's been mostly focused on making sure that our internal structure can get up and running. I think the urgency that we have, like, externally, I think there's been a couple of casual interests, I think, from my office that we've received. But, again, the guidelines has been most important. And also just in general, my interest lies with ensuring that we have what we would see here, which would be almost over $3,000,000 in total that we need to continue to move on now. And that that is an option to be explored. That's an option that can continue to be explored. The guidelines for me are non negotiable. But then I think when we're looking at just like the speed that we're working in, we're looking at an April 1 timeline for this.

I'm not sure what would be much quicker. Outsourcing would be months in advance, even now. Did you have anything

to add, Director McVeighan? Sure, Johnson. It's Malaria.

Was just going add the process of collaboration and working with partnerships partnerships also also takes takes time time to to establish establish

to to your your point. Point. But I hear your point, Commissioner Bouley, I definitely have had different conversations with folks who have expressed interest, that's why I shared just with folks who are listening to and who may have an interest. It's an appetite for it, And just knowing that they'd have to have both the capacity and the guideline abilities to operate that successfully. Thank you so much for both of those presentations and kind of walking us through that. I wanna move to the action item.

Returning to the top of the agenda, discussion item one, RES 26 dash three three one, resolution amending the housing trust fund project budget to provide funding for staffing in the Department of Planning and Economic Development for the emergency rental assistance program citywide. Wonderful. And you'll hear about

this more at council, and I'll save my remarks for that time. But as you all were I shared a moment with you guys earlier, which involved both a $500,000 that was done by administrative order, thanks to the mayor's office, as well as their collaboration, which is an additional funding for rental assistance. And then we have a housing trust fund program that was initiated in 2020 that has since sunsetted, where this is where the funding has come from from that. So we have an opportunity to add to the staffing capacity because as you know, Laha cannot support staffing for programs. It can support program funding, but not for staffing.

And I want to just be able to bring this up. I've asked Deputy Director Green to just give an update on the logistics when it comes to the budget amendment itself, but that is the overview. Director McMahon.

Note just knowing similarly that the Families First pilot program in the HRA Housing Trust Fund has a remaining balance of $926,222 and this item transfers those funds into PED operations for staffing. And CFO Deputy Director Green is here as well with and answer any questions and overview.

Thank you.

Welcome Deputy Director Green.

Good afternoon. It's good to see you, Chair Johnson and Commissioners. Glad to be here this afternoon. I'm going to ask for technical assistance. Is that PowerPoint loaded or no? If it's not, it's okay. So I did do a presentation, but that's okay. I will speak to the resolution. So where we and I'll back up and just talk about a little bit about where we started in 2025, dollars 1,000,000. We had some delay.

Thank you to our staff and Rachel and our accounting staff that worked through some of our payment work, so we're hoping to reduce that time as we move forward. But we started with a million dollars and launched the program in November 2025. Our April start or June start, whatever day we reopen the program, we'll have access to the balance of that million dollar allocation. And then in 2025 at the 2025, we authorized $1,380,000 in MAHA funding for the program. In December or January 2026,

we

identified a $500,000 budget allocation in Laha for the Families First program and that program is already funded through our housing trust fund multi years. We did not need to put that allocation in Laha. So we informed the body, informed the HRA Board that allocation was not needed and a determination was made to reallocate it, adjust the allocation and move it over to our ERA program. So that moves the allocation from 1,380,000.00 to 1,880,000.00 if you approve this resolution. And the Laha approval will happen at the City Council in the public hearing, but I just want to make sure we're tracking the total amount that's available for the program.

Providing that level of funding for the program, as our housing team has indicated, puts a strain on our staffing, so identified an additional source of funding in our housing trust fund. I think that's for the familiar families program. I know we all love to be confused by these programs, so familiar faces versus familiar families, and that $926,000 will be reallocated for staffing. And that is in the housing trust fund. It needs to be moved over to the city side on our PED operations because it will be used for staffing.

Internally, our leadership has determined that we'll hire two staff and allow that funding to go on for multiple years so that we do not have to disrupt funding or we do not have to hire terminal staff short term provisional staffing.

Thank you, Deputy Director Green. And we will actually ensure that every commissioner gets your presentation. We'll have it sent out after this meeting as well, just because there's a subsequent action at the Council, and the presentation just simply goes through what she shared in graphic form. And if you're like me and you like to visualize it, it will be sent out after this from Kelly. So I just want to make sure we got that. And Commissioner Nieker.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Deputy Director Green. So just to be clear and high level, we're moving roughly $1,400,000 out of two programs that are not currently in need of those funds, because the programs are either defunct or whatever, into the emergency rent assistance budget. And when we do that, what will be the total amount of dollars in the rent assistance budget compared to what we have now?

For 2026, there's $1,380,000.001380000 dollars in addition to the $500,000 add on of Laha. So that $1,800,000 is coming from LAHA, and that's the 2026 allocation. The 2025 allocation unspent balance, I assume it's around $700,000 is also available. So at the time that you open up, it is quick math, 3.5. There we go.

3,500,000.0 in the ERA program available distribution and in addition to the staffing. And our current staffing program allows for staffing for as many as the next three years, maybe a little bit more than that. I'm being conservative.

Sorry. So 1,800,000.0 is 26,700 thousand is carried over from last year. So 2,500,000.0. 2.5. Sorry. 2,500,000 total available for twenty twenty six emergency room.

3.5 because I'm clear. I'm including the staffing. You said program.

Plus the staffing. Sorry. Thank you. So just because I think folks will ask. So $2,500,000 that can go out the door in emergency rent assistance in 2026 due to the shift. Yep. Otherwise we would have had some amount less.

That amount minus 5,400,000.0. Yes.

Not as much.

Yes. Not as Thank you.

It's echoing.

Any other questions?

I just wanted to clarify the rationale for the I know you mentioned it briefly, but just to echo that point, the two staffing pieces and something that you see echoed in the resolution includes that this is for emergency rental assistance. So even though it's an allocation with the intent to allocate for to support the staffing for multiple years to ensure that people are not displaced, that that is echoed and reflected both in the resolution and also in the Board report.

Correct. Thank you, Chair Johnson. Yes, we understand the intent of the Board is to ensure that the funding is utilized for this program. When it moves out of the housing trust fund and into PED operations, all PED operations staff is included in that same budget. So all of our staffing and then internally we designate allocate our staffing according to the programs as designed.

Thank you. That helped. Thank you. Alright. And just with with attention to time, I will move approval of this item. Any discussion? We have that. Wonderful.

All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. I appreciate you.

Seven in favor, zero opposed. The resolution is adopted. Yay.

We will do this again like we never left at the city council meeting earlier. And I will save my remarks for then. Thank you so much for that comment. Also, the presentation will be followed up afterwards. We appreciate your time in compiling that. I just want to say a huge thank you and gratitude to the housing staff and the housing team, who I'm sure you've been sick of me in the last few weeks, especially related to getting these presentations up and running. They were our first guinea pigs to an ongoing cycle of programs and presentations. So thank you for being willing to go first. And then also thank you for your partnership on both of these programs. I'm sure that a lot of commissioners will be able to reach out.

If in the next two weeks you have a guideline change or a question related to it, the only reason I ask that you include our office in that correspondence is because we are tracking the feedback that we get so we can ask each other where we land on them. Because we'll be working on trying to ensure that the guidelines that do come in front of us are likely to pass. And so if there are certain things that you want to see added to either program, it allows us to be able to at least ask other colleagues how they feel about that guideline change. So thank you and with that we are adjourned.

Congratulations on this one.

Yes, thanks. Yeah. And thanks Molly. Thanks John.

Hey Molly.