Housing & Redevelopment Authority - Regular Meeting

... ... Bye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Redevelopment authority to order. Roll call, please. Bowie?

Coleman? Here. Jost? Here. Kim? Here. Naker? Here. Yang? Here. Chair Johnson? Here. There are six present and one absent. That being Commissioner Bowie. Item number one is for discussion, Resolution 26-941, Resolution Approving the Acquisition of Real Property Located at 259 University Avenue West, District 7, Ward 1.

All right, so we had introductions to this item last week. I will just simply share that. I think that this is an acquisition that makes sense, especially with the HRA owning several other parcels on the site. I'm really looking forward to progress on this site. I think we have had a couple of properties in the cities where we would love to see movement, especially with ones that we've owned for almost 20 years. And so this acquisition, I hope, is the final piece of what will soon be a redevelopment in this area. And so I hope that... You know, we will see progress. I'm looking forward to what will come in the future for this area. And I am thrilled to work with Commissioner Bowie on this and also just in general really excited to see what the future holds for the site itself. With that, I'll take a motion from Commissioner Bowie to approve. Is there any discussion or questions? Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. And I just want to say thank you again for all the conversations that we have had about the acquisition and the briefing that we had last week. I also want to just appreciate the staff for briefing me well in advance about this location. I was just even really excited thinking about my time with former director Nicole, particularly around the multiple attempts to work with different developers over the course of time and really seeing this as a solution to really help this site and get this site the density that it deserves. And we had a phenomenal policy meeting about just urban development and I really see this as a great opportunity and a model for not only affordable housing but higher density and more retail the things that create for a productive development. I also wanted to make mention that there's a lot of community engagement and support around this site. I actually just live just a few blocks away, and when I think about the excitement I have for it, I'm really wanting to highlight the work of not only our district councils, but we have some amazing community partners in terms of NDC right there as well, who are all invested in driving a community-driven process, which is really essential. So with that, I just want to say thank you again. This is just one step. with the acquisition, and we'll be seeing more actions in the future when it comes to the demolition. We'll make sure to share the timeline with the public, but we also just want to just make sure we're letting people know, hey, here's the opportunity to invest in St. Paul, and this is an amazing opportunity to invest on the University Corridor as well.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Commissioner Bowie. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Seven in favor, zero opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item number two, staff report SR26-117, Inspiring Communities, 1087 Ross Avenue. All right. I'll hand this over to Director McMahon.

Yes, Chair, Commissioners. I'm excited to have Claire Petrie up here to present for you. She's going to provide information on this item. It's another HRA-owned property that we have an opportunity to move forward with development, return to the tax rules, while also providing affordable wealth-building ownership housing with an emerging developer. So it's a really exciting opportunity here. The information and presentation will be today with the action before you for consideration on June 24th.

Wonderful. Welcome, Ms. Petri. Thank you, Chair Johnson, commissioners. Good afternoon. As mentioned, my name is Claire Petri, and I'm a project manager in the PD Economic Development Team. I am excited to be here today to give you an overview of the proposed development project involving HRI-owned property. I'm also excited that there's a fan. Section 3B of the HRA disposition policy, titled Other Proposals, outlines the process by which PED staff evaluates proposals to redevelop HRA-owned land outside of an RFP or an RFP release cycle. Per HRA disposition policy guidelines, the PED development team reviewed a proposal from Eminem Real Estate Development LLC to develop a duplex on vacant HRA-owned land at 1087 Ross Avenue. The proposed development will offer an affordable housing wealth building ownership opportunity for two families with income up to 120% AMI. 1087 Ross was acquired in 2005 from Ramsey County as vacant land with HRA general fund dollars for $1. The site was originally acquired with the intention for it to be developed and returned to the tax roll. The vacant lot dimensions are 50 feet wide by 127 feet long. It's around 6,500 square feet. This lot size and the H2 zoning designation is ideal for the gentle density development proposal I'm describing today. Development of the properties acquired with federal funds located in the same area was prioritized ahead of this non-federal acquisition, which is why this is still in the inventory. 1087 Ross is located in District 4 within Ward 6. It is near three bus lines, including Route 74, which, fun fact, is also my favorite bus line from Ward 3 to downtown. There are several parks nearby, including Margaret and Eastside Heritage Park. This next slide just highlights the property location within a larger community context. The proposed development design includes a side-by-side two-story duplex with a separate one-stall garage for each three-bedroom, two-bath unit. The design adheres to Dayton's Bluff District 4 plan for residential areas, which includes an elevated housing design matching existing neighborhood characteristics. The design also promotes reasonable density and livability paired with the latest construction standards. The total development cost for this project is $906,800. The per unit subsidy plus land cost is $195,900 for a total development gap of $391,800. This project is utilizing existing Inspiring Communities program guidelines, which currently cap total development gap subsidy at $200,000 per unit unless a waiver is authorized. The estimated sale price is $235,000 per unit for a total estimated price of both combined of $470,000. This project is using similar deal structure to pass in upcoming Inspiring Communities program projects. Under the loan terms, the HRA will finance the cost of the land and issue a note in mortgage for the total development gap at 0% interest. The mortgage is forgiven upon future sale to eligible end buyers. The funding sources for this development is also typical for other Inspiring Communities projects and will utilize residual Inspiring Communities program funds as part of PED's annual spending plan. Mahmoud with M&M Real Estate Development LLC is in attendance today and is available to answer questions as needed after I complete this presentation. The developer is a recent participant in Ramsey County's Emerging and Diverse Developer Program. The Ramsey County EDD program empowers new voices in local real estate and fosters growth and expanding affordable housing options for our community. 1087 Ross will be M&M Real Estate's first development project and PD is excited to partner with this developer. One of the developer's missions is to provide affordable housing ownership opportunities for multiple St. Paul families. During an upcoming HRA board meeting, commissioners will be requested to authorize the following board action. Approval of the sale of HRA-owned 1087 Ross Avenue to M&M Real Estate Development LLC, authorization to enter into a development agreement, and authorization of a development gap expenditure in the amount of $400,000. Thank you for listening to this project overview. This brings us to the end of the presentation. Please let me know if you'd like to have the developer come up and to meet, or if you have any other questions, I can try and answer now or afterward.

Thank you, Ms. Petri. I saw Commissioner Ying's hand, and then I may welcome up Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Miri as well this time.

Commissioner Yang. Thank you, Chair Johnson. Well, I always love these proposals that come our way, so I want to say thank you to the PED and housing staff for your work on inspiring communities. For the slide six, it says three-bed and two-bath units with an S. I was wondering, can you clarify how many units is it that's being proposed on the lot?

Yeah, sorry. It's a little bit hard for me to hear with the fan, but also I'm going to keep it on because it's just nice. Chair, commissioners, it's a three-bedroom, two-bath unit. Each unit is three bedrooms and two baths.

Okay. And how many units did you say? There are two units. Oh, two, two. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And I know the developer's here, so I just wanted to first say thank you so much for your interest and commitment in building homes here in St. Paul. From what I've seen here, it's definitely very aligned with what I know Eastsiders want. And so this is a very exciting proposal. And so, again, thank you for your work here in St. Paul.

First of all, thank you so much for having me here representing M&M Real Estate Development, and we are very excited about this project, so I appreciate that.

Thank you so much, and I'm sorry, are you Mr. Muhammad or Mr. Miri? Say that again? Your name.

MOHAMMOUD MIRI.

MIRI, OK. Yeah.

Welcome. Thank you. Commissioner Naker. Thanks, Chair Johnson. Yes, and I know with the fan, it's hard to hear all of us, but it is an important attribute of our chambers right now. First of all, just thank you, also. I echo the Chair's thanks. This is really exciting, and Vice President Yang's thanks. I'm curious, just to connect the dots a little bit, I noticed on the very first slide it mentioned that this was a development proposal that we received via the other proposal section of the disposition policy, which I think is when we are not putting a parcel out ourselves asking for proposals, but we receive a request from a developer with interest in a parcel. And I know that one of our priorities in the past couple of years has been to try to get more of our HRA owned land back onto the tax rolls. One of the strategies for that was marketing the parcels that we have and making sure they were all listed online. And director, I know that's something that your team worked hard on. So I'm just curious, and it's possible that I said all that and that's not how it happened. But is there a connection between us having made it more visible that we have these parcels available and the interest that we then received in this parcel?

Sure. Chair, Commissioner, I'll let Ms. Petri talk a little more about the specifics for this particular parcel. But yes, that is the process by which it came through in that we've made it more publicly known and available information about HRA-owned parcels and gives the opportunity for developers, for emerging developers, for individuals, for people who have an interest to reach out specifically about a property or even to reach out and say, this is the type of thing I'd like to develop. What sort of HRA properties... could this be a good fit for? And then can work with them on, okay, here are two or three that could be a good fit, or this one. And then it goes through, to your point, that process where we give public notice so that the public has noticed that you might be pursuing a development opportunity on the parcel. So if they want to make a proposal themselves, they can come in, public notice, and then go through the process here. But Ms. Petri, anything about this specific parcel that might be good to add? Okay.

Chair, commissioners, I believe that you actually referred to the HRA through the Ramsey County EDD program. Is that correct? Right. So Ramsey County EDD program, sorry, Ramsey County EDD program referred you to us as part of the process that you went through in the program and let you know that we had potentially had some parcels available that you should review for potential development opportunity. So in this case... It's via the partnership we have with Ramsey County. But we also have built out a much more robust system and process for commercializing these properties and getting them out to the public. And we actually, Daniela and I, are actually working through an updated process that you'll see soon for that.

Great. Great. That's great to see. And then just one quick question. The two, it's a duplex. Is the idea, because I know it says here for two families, are both of the duplexes for sale to separate families? Is each one an ownership opportunity or is it one together that they might then rent out to the other side?

It will be two different family.

So two, you'd buy, sell them separately?

Yeah, it will be sold separately.

Which is also just another credit to you, because we talk often about how it's so important to have ownership opportunities that aren't just single family homes. And this is exactly that kind of housing that we're talking about. So thank you for doing this particular model. Thank you.

Yeah, no, we really appreciate any time that we have our developers actually come to the chambers to talk about their project. And so really just wanted to say thank you for making the time to actually come out and share. Thank you for your interest, especially on developing on the east side. represent Ward 7, which is just south of this project, just south of Minnehaha. But the investment on the east side, too, is really important. I'm glad to see that there is an emerging and diverse developer program recipient actually developing in our community, too. And so that's just really awesome that we are seeing that as well. Is there anything else that you wanted to share about the project at all, or just a little bit about your interest in the site? Is there anything that you feel like would be better for the greater good since you're here?

We're really excited about the project. We believe that ownership is very important, home ownership. With the city's help, selling these two units to two different families with AMI of 80 to 120% is very important. So that's why we are very grateful to be here and very excited about the project.

Thank you so much, Mr. Murray, for being here. Quick question for staff, just so we also know, can you just remind us again of where the $400 comes from on the budget cycle, and then also just like what's left in our Inspiring Community and Small Scale Development piece?

Sure, Chair and Commissioners. It is residual budget that is left over from a few more recent HRA Inspiring Communities projects. that had some overage, so they had some funds left over on the projects. They sold for higher than originally anticipated. or just didn't need all the funds in the project originally, and so they rolled back in, and that's really what we're spending here. For the specifics on the exact budget line item, I will refer to either Director or Daniela if needed. Otherwise, that's kind of the quick overview, that we're just spending this down, which is a great use of it.

Yeah, I think one of the reasons, and we can have a follow-up of just the balance itself, but I think one of the things that's really important is kind of what you touched on, is being able to repurpose dollars that we had designated for these funds and any opportunity that we have to do that, especially when it sparks development, gets back on the tax roll, is exactly what we should be doing with these funds. So thank you for your work on that, and thank you for being here. We sincerely appreciate it, and this item will be back in front of us in two weeks.

Thank you.

Item number three, staff report 26-118, emergency rental assistance program updates.

Alrighty, so folks know that we had launched a program for emergency rental assistance, and we actually got these dollars starting to get out the door this year. I think it's really important to periodically, especially with programs that are launching, with the purpose of really informing the process in which we do something, but also the frequency, get back in front of the body. And so I asked for an emergency rental assistance update here as well, and really excited to see this come forward. So I'll hand it over to Director McMahon.

Sure. Chair, commissioners, thanks so much. Chris Bridson is here before us to provide additional information. This is an update, and as you said, Chair, an informational item. There's no accompanying action on the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. And just really appreciate the depth of information and data that you're about to see provided by the housing team as we continue to work to always refine, improve, and continue to work on this program to provide the resource for residents. So appreciate it.

Chair and commissioners, my name is Chris Princeton. I am a project manager on the program and policy team. I am here to provide an update on the emergency rental assistance program.

Sorry, just a second. No worries.

Control L will get it full screen. Control L will get it full screen. Thank you. We got it. We got it. Thank you.

We got it. Woo! Welcome, welcome. It's OK. We all got to listen to the fan. So back in.

So the purpose of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program is to provide funding to individuals and families renting in St. Paul with a verifiable pending eviction to halt an eviction action Assistance is capped at $3,500 for renters earning 80% of the area median income or lower. The eligible expenses include rent, late fees, and court fees, and payments are made directly to landlords, and landlords must agree to halt the eviction proceeding upon receiving payment. Some demographic information of the verified applications that we received for April and May of this year, there were 257 total. About 45% of those self-identified as black or African-American alone. Almost 25% self-identified as white alone. Just over 11% chose not to identify. About 9% chose two or more races or ethnicities. All of the other selections were less than 5%. So how 2026 is going for April and May. Our current staffing for May was .5 PM, that is me. We were open for applications for the first two days of April and the first two days of May. the average processing time per application is about three and a half hours. So for those 257 applications, they requested $687,924. We processed 47 applications with a requested amount of $134,652. I do have a little bit of updated for, because May is now done, we did approve and pay 31 total applications for $87,226. The average amount paid per application was $2,766. The average request was $3,033. 16% of households were paid exactly $3,500. And 13% requested more than $3,500. The average request for those who had received a housing court summons was $3,547.

Commissioner Baker has a question, so we'll pause probably at the previous slide.

Thanks, Chair Johnson. Just looking at the numbers that you were sharing, so total applications, 257, total processed, 47, and then I see total in process, five. Where are the other applications?

So Chair Johnson and commissioners, the ones that we didn't process, is that the question?

Yes. I guess I'm not sure what's the other category out of 257, 47 have been processed, five are in process. What's the other category?

Yes. Chair Johnson and commissioners, we processed 47 because those were the ones that were selected in the random lottery. All of the other applications that we received were not processed, and everyone was notified.

And got it. And what does in process mean then?

I'm sorry, I didn't. What is in process? Chair Johnson and commissioners, in process were the ones that at the time we submitted this, we hadn't made a final decision on. We have since made a final decision on all of those. So the five in process have been decided since then.

Okay, and then just as a follow-up, Chair, on the previous page, I noticed under the race and ethnicity distribution, you had breakdown of 2026 non-fraudulent applications. Did we receive fraudulent applications?

Chair Johnson and Commissioners, we did have some applications we received that appeared to be AI-generated. Those were screened out before we ran the lottery.

Do you know about how many of those we got? Was it a large number or just a couple?

I do not have the exact number, but I can get it for you if you would like. Thank you.

And I guess going forward, too, also, can you touch base on just the current staffing? So we've put resources into staffing. Also, in addition to that, it does differ from the last presentation that we had. So can you share a little bit about why we're at... part-time capacity versus having full-time staff and where we are in the hiring process for the other additional staffing.

Chair, commissioners, our housing director is here as well to provide additional information.

I will share with you that I was actually surprised Director Antogna wasn't presenting, so I'll welcome you up at this time to also provide that information.

Noting that So those months would be higher. Ms. who I know has been before you before on the program went on parental leave a little earlier than anticipated. So down a little earlier than had anticipated for that. And coming out of the hiring freeze, really, we've been prioritizing these specific positions. And they were the first in PED to be posted so that we can move forward as quickly as possible with them. If you wanted to provide additional.

So Chair Johnson, commissioners, back February, when we gave you the last update on this program, we made the promise that we'll have the full staffing as allocated by the HRA sometime this May. That was a little bit too optimistic. Fortunately, we have to go through city processes and HR processes, so it takes some time. Right now, we are in the process of scheduling the interviews that will happen in the next few weeks. And then we've got the first time interview, then the second round in July, and then we make offers. And also there are other steps with HR that we need to follow. So hopefully by August we'll have the full staffing for this program.

And Chair Commissioners, one other thing to add, we have hired in our accounting team that position to help with the processing end of things. So that position has been hired and is in place. The other positions, as I said, they're the first to post coming out of the hiring freeze. They've been posted. That period is closed. We've received the applications. And so we're in, as Mr. Antonga said, the processing of interviews and offers and all of that.

And to clarify, the full capacity for the program will be the 2.5 FTE and the PED supervisor? Like that's the anticipated staffing that would be at full capacity?

Chair Johnson, commissioners, could you please?

Is the staffing that we see here on the going forward slide, the anticipated staffing, the 2.5 FTEs, so the two project managers and the PED supervisor plus the accounting tech, that that would be considered the full staffing?

Correct. So only working on processing these applications, we have the 2.5 full-time equivalent. In addition, we have the accounting tech that's already in place and working on this program.

Okay, and then just for clarity, for the months of June and July, the numbers of anticipated processing, would it be safe to assume that the numbers will kind of be the same for total numbers of processed applications for June and July?

Yeah, Chair Johnson, Commissioners, so our goal is to process up to 50 applications. Again, that's the goal, because we reassigned some staffing, current staffing, to help with this program in the past few weeks. staff that was working on the DPA program, and that program is kind of winding down for now until we launch again the next opening for people to submit the application. So that staff has been reassigned to help with this program. That's the reason for this month we plan to process double what we've been processing for the last couple of months, like up to 15 applications.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We actually have another question from Commissioner Kim.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. My question was around, so based on this, it looks like we still have to process 176 applications. Is that correct? So total applications, 47 processed, then approved, and then five in process. That leaves about 176. Is that generally correct?

So, Chair Johnson, Commissioners, we are only processing that specific number that we pull each month. The rest of them are not processed.

They're essentially denied for the sake of clarity. So the amounts that are not processed, they're denied.

Yeah, I think that's super helpful because my immediate sort of was like, oh, hey, because families are hoping to receive this assistance in order to stop the eviction proceedings. And so in my head I was like, oh, so there's a lot of families that are out there kind of waiting to waiting to get this notification from us. So these, the 176 that's not sort of listed in this grid essentially have been denied based on different qualifying factors. Is that correct or based on our capacity to process?

Yeah, I'm going to, I know the answer, but I will defer to staff just to get it in the sense of just like my understanding, I'll repeat back to you, we have a lottery system. So the total process category or the amount that's brought is the initial lottery poll. And folks that are not selected in the lottery are essentially a part of that 176 that are not processed, that are denied. At that time, those folks are notified that they're not moving forward in the process. So no one would be waiting at that time. And then when applications are processed, they are either... approved, so approved and paid or in process as well as being reviewed or essentially also not funded at that time for whatever reason. But the current staffing capacity would be 50 applications monthly starting in June for the amount that we would pull from whatever applicant pool we get.

OK. I really appreciate that. I really appreciate that reminder. And just for what it's worth, it might just be an offering to maybe change some of the language or having a clarifying note on it because I needed a reminder and maybe others will as well. So thank you.

Yeah, no, I think that would be really helpful. One of the things on the slide was just more so like maybe just capturing those numbers of like what's not there every month will be helpful for future updates, especially when it just comes to wrapping your head around the lottery system. With the kind of plan to do 50 applications monthly starting this month, I think just one of the things that would be also helpful is like when we're getting the numbers back is that kind of just – numbers of those that were not a part of the lottery system, numbers that, because I think one of the things we're also looking at in the future is if two days is enough. And so if we're seeing an influx of numbers, we have it open for the first and the second, but there were conversations about what that could look like, if that's the right amount of time. That seems to be where the pilot question is. That's the recommendation. And if we're tracking how much we're seeing, if we ever get to a place where we dip below the 50 applications, I would really want to then think about expanding the time. So not to say that we would, but if we ever had a situation where we weren't processing our full capacity monthly, that to me would be where then the solution would be to open the application for a longer period.

Commissioner Kim?

Oh, sorry. Oh, all right. All right.

Keep going. Chair Johnson, commissioners. So we did pull 50 applications for this month, and we will try to stick to at least that number moving forward. We did have the applications open the first two days of the month. All the applications were put into a random lottery. All of the applications that were valid were put into a random lottery, and everyone was notified whether they were selected for processing the lottery or whether they were not. And all of the applications that we receive have their final decisions by the end of that calendar month. So no one is left wondering if they're going to get money or not. The staffing question was, I believe, already addressed.

Wonderful. Thank you. Commissioner Meeker.

Thanks, Chair. And I know we're getting a little bit into the weeds, but this is a program we all care about. So just wanted to make sure I understand. So what are the criteria that make an application eligible to be in the lottery? And then what would make it not approved after it comes out of the lottery?

Chair Johnson and commissioners, so for someone to be entered into the lottery, the pre-screening at the beginning of the month, we're just looking to see is the application AI generated? And if it is not, then it goes into the lottery. We are also screening out people who do not live in the city of St. Paul. Those are the only two things we're looking for in the pre-screening of all of the applications that come in. Every application that is not AI that is in the city of St. Paul is entered into the lottery.

And after the lottery, you're then looking at?

Then they have to be at or below 80% of area median income. They have to have an active eviction action. They cannot have already passed their court date for housing court. And the landlord has to agree to the terms of the program, meaning once we pay them, they will not pursue eviction anymore.

And is there a reason why you don't do, I guess I'm wondering why we wouldn't do that screening prior to the lottery? Or maybe put another way, if you do the lottery and then you find that a number of applications weren't eligible based on your second screening, do we then include other applications that might have been eligible that were left out?

Chair Johnson and commissioners. We did run a second lottery in both April and May after the first one, a smaller one, because we did have some people that were not eligible. But you can see from the numbers, we are finding a good number of people are eligible. So we do end up approving more than we deny of the ones that we process.

I saw Commissioner Coleman's hand and then Commissioner Yang.

Thanks, Sharon. Thank you so much for the presentation, all the work that's going into getting this program back up and running. I have a question about the AI generation, because I could imagine that that is an important way to weed out some potentially fraudulent applications. And I could also imagine that we have residents who are relying on some AI tools to help complete the process, especially if they're not native English speakers or for other reasons. And if this is a question better taken offline, totally understand. But I'm just curious how we're gauging the differences between those two uses of AI. And if we're just screening out any signs of AI entirely, if there's some sort of notification so that people know, like, don't use ChatGPT to help you fill this out.

I'll say that, Chair, Commissioners, that is, I'm happy to talk more and follow up on that, because that really does get into a lot of, like, the detail and the weeds and what you're looking for, et cetera. It is not looking for people who might have used ChatGPT to help, you know, phrase some answers or that sort of thing. I mean, it really is sort of a blatant, clear thing. I'll use an example of a hundred applications for a duplex and trying to get the money. I mean something that's sort of a blatant clear these aren't valid applications. And the reason for not doing the other sort of more extensive AMI etc screening is the amount of time that that would take wanting to ensure that we sort of take the day, do the gut check, look at any sort of like clearly not valid applications, take them out of the pool so that we can really focus on those that are St. Paul residents and work on applications. And if we were to work through them so quickly or there was such a large amount that maybe was not within the AMI or something like that, we can go back and do a second draw out of those valid applications to make sure that we're not falling below that threshold of what we're able to process to make sure we're getting to as many as possible every single month and making sure that residents of St. Paul really have sort of a fair shot rather than If you were just to pull the lottery out of the entire, you would spend that extra time doing it. So happy to follow up about more of some of the very sort of in the weeds specifics. And in this form, it is this and that sort of thing offline. But hopefully that's a good general overview.

I think some of the things that are helpful, too, is just whenever there's a fraudulent application, it's actually a crime to do so. And so the severity level from someone using ChatGBT on an application level to someone actually going as far as lying or creating another identity for themselves to create a fraudulent application to sign an affidavit to do all of the stuff that is included there is actually something that... My understanding is that the staff are actually working with the city attorney's office, et cetera, on this because it's actually very serious to do. And so I also appreciate the diligence of that, too, especially around making sure that the folks that we are hoping this program reaches actually are the ones that are being reached. Commissioner Yang, and then I saw Commissioner Bowie's hand. We may wrap after that regarding this topic. The heat maps are what's left. So before we go to the questions, can you just go to the last two slides for us?

So this is the heat map showing all of the verified applications that we received in April and May of 2026. The pink and blue are the highest number of applications and the yellow and red and gray would be the lowest. And this heat map shows all of the approved applications for April and May of 2026 and the same legend.

All right, so going to Commissioner Gang and then going to Commissioner Bowie. Thank you, Chair Johnson. I appreciate that presentation, so I want to say thanks for really going into the details and even showing us the demographics here. I'm wondering, well, I have two questions. I'm wondering how often you all are seeing our renter households reapply. from those who have either received payment for us before or maybe were denied. And then also, I'm glad to see that the money is going, in terms of the dollars paid out, it is going to areas where we do tend to see more economic disparities. And so one thing that really stuck out to me is that one of the things Chair Johnson and I have been talking about based on information we've received from Homeland is that in the 55106 zip code, it is where we've seen the highest rates of eviction. And so I notice it's on the heat map, but then it's also not like a concentrated area too. So I'm wondering what sort of engagement we have, especially to landlords since we have that sort of data on hand already in the city and then also overall what's the engagement look like I would think that maybe there's some sort of partnership that we have with groups like HomeLine but if there are ways for us to strengthen that then we can definitely make sure that more renters know about this assistance and would actually take advantage of it so that's my hope

Chair Johnson, commissioners, yes, we do have some partnerships and we can certainly work on strengthening some of the areas where we don't see as high of an application rate as we do in others. And we do have specific data that we can gather for all of the applications if you would like it. I just don't have it right now.

Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. I also just want to say I appreciate having this visual, the heat map. It really looks like there's a high need, especially in Ward 1, particularly in Frogtown and the Rondo neighborhood, even in the North End as well. I am similar to Commissioner Yang. We like to get more data, particularly to understand where there's a need. i'll even say go beyond that in terms of if there is a public housing i would love to see you know a map where's the overlay of like the public housing to see if there's some correlation between the requests for the emergency assistance and our residents who live in public housing as well as any low-income housing providers i know you know there's like Common Bound, PPL, there's so many different housing providers, affordable housing providers in Ward 1. And I just want to see the correlation between a private property versus a large management facility. So thank you again for this hard work. And I'm happy to see that the money is going out the door. The question I did have earlier was not related to that, but I wanted to highlight it. But real quickly, just on the lines of Commissioner Coleman around the security clearance or screening for AI use, I'm just really curious with the software, at least the designing of the application, if going into the future, if we see that there's a lot of saturation of this AI tools being used or automatic generated software, tools being used for applications, if there could be some type of security screening or clearance. Well, clearance is probably a strong word, but a security screening where when you click on something, you have to identify, are you a robot? And I think those are really quirky, but for the point, it seems like there might be some robotic systems that's trying to get emergency rental assistance. I will be happy to just follow up to, I don't know if that's in-house or if that's with our software developers or however the application is designed, but I think that will be something that will be helpful in the future.

Yes, Chair Johnson, Commissioners, absolutely we can look at doing that on the application, just that little bit of security, and get back to you on it.

Yeah, I think just operating from some solutions as well. I think folks really want to make sure that they continue to have this program being able to access families. And so some of the solutions and recommendations driven from the staff are welcomed, obviously, when it comes to ways that you kind of see in strengthening the security of the application process and the integrity of the program itself. We look forward to just kind of recommendations that staff will bring to us in those discussions. I don't see any more hands. I know that there'll be a couple follow-up items. We'll make sure to reach out with just what we heard today. But we do appreciate the work that you all are doing, especially just when it comes to maneuvering both the high need for this program, but also our wonderful welcome transitions as well when it comes into capacity and staff team. We know that it's a lot of work.

lot of the Process right now or the applications being processed or hand hours from staff that are literally going into it So manual hours, so we just want to acknowledge that and say thank you Thank you Item number four staff report 26-1 1 9 introduction to reservation of funds for certain st. Paul projects applying for funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency

All right, I see Mrs. Oren coming up. We'll leave the next few minutes for the presentation just because of the interest of time. We're at about 2.45, so I'll get through the presentation. Please hold your questions if you have additional ones, and we can do it once we get through the presentation itself. Director McMahon.

Sure. Chair, commissioners, I just noted this is an instructional informational presentation. The action before you will be on the 24th. We have Sarah Zorn here to provide information. I know she's been in contact with each of your offices. And again, if there's any follow-up questions, happy to follow up as well between now and the 24th.

Thank you. Good afternoon. So I'm here to introduce the reservations of funds for projects applying to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Consolidated RFP. The Consolidated RFP is an annual funding solicitation where MHFA awards tax credits, loans, and deferred funding. And these awards are often the deciding factor as to whether or not a project can move forward. Developers of projects in this presentation have reviewed the MHFA RFP, the scoring criteria, and determined that they need points in either the financial readiness to proceed or leveraged funds category or the other contributions category. In the financial readiness to proceed slash leveraged funds category, projects can receive points based on the percentage of funding sources secured relative to the total development costs. And then in the other contributions category, that covers non-capital contributions such as land write-downs, and developers can score points in that category, and that's based on the value of the non-capital contribution relative to the total development cost. So the action that will come before you in two weeks on the 24th will allow the reservations and land write downs contained in this presentation to count toward points in those two categories. I'll note that not all projects applying to MHFA will need a funding reservation. To maximize points in these categories, So there might be other funding or other commitments that have been made to the project that can earn these points as well. So there's ways to do it other than the funding reservation. This is not a final approval of funding. If a project is selected through MHFA's process, housing staff will still go through the underwriting process to determine the needed gap amount and then bring the project to the HRA and or city council for approval such as entrance into a development or loan agreement issuance of bonds, approval of land sales, and approval of a final subsidy amount. For those projects that are not selected, the reservation will be released. MHFA starts with an initial evaluation of responses and will usually issue some projects an early no around September, and the remaining projects are subject to further analysis with results presented to the MHFA Board in December. There are six projects that we're recommending move forward with a reservation. The Hams West End Apartments project on HRA owned land with a reservation of four million and a purchase price of one dollar. The Gloryville project on HRA owned land with a reservation of 2.5 million and a purchase price of 57,820. face-to-face on HRA-owned land with a reservation of about $5.7 million and a purchase price of $1, the Westminster Vista Project with a reservation of $1 million, the Aragon with a reservation of $1.35 million, and Ramsey Hill with a reservation of $1.4 million. These reservations are intended to leverage funding through MHFA and don't mean that each project has been assigned a specific source. We've reviewed the projects and determined which sources could be used on each project, but matching the project and source will have to come later once MHFA makes their decisions and they determine what source they're going to use. For example, last year MHFA had a lot of federal home dollars, and if they assigned deferred funding to a project in the amount of, say, $10 million in home dollars, we're going to want to layer our home dollars on top of it because then the project will be complying with federal home regulations for both sources, for both funders, rather than using some more flexible dollars. In addition, there's a bill moving through the House and Senate that may expand the way we're able to use CDBG dollars in the future. And since we don't know what the MHFA decisions will be until December, not assigning a specific source allows us to adapt to any possible changes. These are renderings and images of the projects that I just listed. And a map where the projects are located. We've got Gloryville and face-to-face in Ward 6. PAMS in the Aragon in Ward 7, Ramsey Hill in Ward 1, and the Westminster Vista Project is actually two different sites, one site in Ward 2 and one in Ward 5. I'll give a brief overview of each project. I won't go over everything since you've got the slides. Starting with the Hams West End Apartments where the developer, JB Vang, currently has tentative developer status. This will be an adaptive reuse of brewery buildings to create 70 units of affordable housing between 30% and 60% of AMI in one to four bedroom units with about half the units as a three or four bedroom size. This project will complement the East End Apartments building that was selected for funding by MHFA last year. The project has already secured about $2.9 million from other funders and will be continuing to secure additional funding and work toward remaining approvals. The Gloryville project is located on HRA-owned land at 1570 White Bear Avenue. The developer, Gloria Wong, currently has tentative developer status and plans to construct 69 units of housing affordable between 30% and 60% of AMI in one to four bedrooms, with about 40% of the units being three and four bedrooms. In addition, the developer plans to construct an approximately 20,000 square foot grocery immediately adjacent to the housing building. Gloryville has already secured almost $4 million in funding and will continue to finalize their designs and pursue remaining approvals. Face to Face is also on HRA owned land at 1170 Arcade and will be developed by the Face to Face organization. The plan is for 24 units of permanent supportive housing focusing on youth and that project will consist of efficiencies to two bedroom units, Face-to-Face has already secured over $5 million in funding and will continue to focus on a capital campaign and completing some pre-development activities. The Westminster Place and Vista Village projects are an apartment and townhome community. They were combined in one tax credit deal some time ago with Torrey to San Miguel. And together they represented almost 300 units of very low income housing. Due to the number of units and the cost to rehabilitate and re-syndicate that project, Common Bond Communities has decided to pull the deal apart. separating out the Westminster and Vista projects from the Torrey to San Miguel project, which was funded by MHFA last year, and we're expecting that one to close this fall. So Westminster and Vista combined have 147 one- and two-bedroom units between the two projects, and all the units are supported by project-based Section 8 vouchers from the PHA or housing supports from the county. The project has raised $4.6 million in state housing tax credits to pay off some existing debt, and Vista was awarded $3.8 million from HUD's Green and Resilient Retrofit Program. And the developer will continue to work to secure funding and through their approval processes. The Aragon project by Beacon Interfaith is located at 470 White Bear Avenue and will be a new building consisting of 53 units serving households between 30% and 50% of AMI, and approximately 25% of those units will be three and four bedrooms. Beacon has secured 21 project-based Section 8 vouchers, and they were awarded the city's 9% tax credits in 2025. But because the amount of credits we have to allocate isn't sufficient to fully fund a project, they'll continue to pursue additional credits and sources as well as work on the property purchase and their approvals. The last project is Ramsey Hill, and this consists of six different buildings, a total of 54 units, ranging from efficiencies to three bedrooms and serving households between 30% and 50% of AMI. The project was awarded $600,000 from the county and will continue to seek additional funding and finalize their rehab plans in the coming months. I mentioned these two earlier, but the rehabilitation of Torrey to San Miguel and the new construction of the Hams East End Apartments were the two projects that MHFA funded last year. This year's funding round closes on July 9th. and all of these projects will be submitting applications. So the action on the 24th will be just approving these reservations, and I'm happy to answer questions if there are any.

Well, when you don't see any questions, I presume that just means you knocked it out of the park. So thank you for being here, Ms. Norton. And I think it's also because of the proactiveness that you've taken just to ensure that all of us know about the projects. Several of these are repeats as well from previous cycles. And so it's just really important that we continue to see our projects funded at the state level as well. And so I just. I would urge staff as well to let us know if there's any way that we can be supportive to that, whether that be in letters or whatever is needed. But overall, just really excited to see some of the projects continuing to pursue these funding options. And I don't think there's any questions because of the work and because of the collaboration and the conversations that have happened and taken place. So thank you. Thank you. All right, so the HRA board will recess after this last staff report now that it's completed, and we're going to convene during the city council meeting that'll be held today, June 10th at 3.30, right here in the council chambers. So with that, we are recessed.