Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. Hey. All right. I am calling to order the Tuesday, October 28th, 2025 HA board meeting. Um, just a note that Commissioner Wooten is listening, but he is not participating in voting. Uh, first item is the approval of the agenda. Any changes to the agenda? Commissioner Hooim. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I would like to make a motion to pull item 3.3 from the consent agenda as I would like to ex um abstain from voting on this item due to a personal connection in relation to Shady Lane Court. Okay. Thank you. And then I would also like to move item 5.2 earlier in the agenda following the consent item consent items. Are there any other changes? No. Okay. So here I move uh to approve the agenda with the edit of removing 3.33 from the consent agenda and moving item 5.2 to follow the consent agenda. Is there a second >> question chair? Um are we just uh holding 3.3 to vote it on it individually and then she's stepping out? Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> Okay. So second by Commissioner Mua. Uh all in favor >> I motion passes 6. >> Okay. >> So we are move on to the consent items. All right. So the um following consent items. >> Okay. So, looking for a motion to approve that. >> Okay. >> I'd move to approve items 3.1 and 3.2. >> Okay. Sorry. I am looking for a motion to approve consent items 3.1 and 3.2. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Commissioner Carter and second by Commissioner Mua. All right. All in favor? >> I. Motion passes 6. Okay. So now item three. point here. So, let's take up item 3.3 now. Can I get the staff presentation? >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. So, this is a request from the current owner of Portland Commons, which is doing business as Hayden Grove. This is a senior living uh multif family residential apartment in Bloomington. And the current owner is selling the property. So the HA has an existing agreement that requires the approval of the authority for this for any property transfer. Uh and that transfer will also require the assumption of the requirements under that current agree agreement by the new buyer. So all of the requirements related to affordability and there are additional requirements outlined in the um contract for development between the HRA and the current owner those will be assumed by the new buyer. So the um new buyer will assume those requirements. They will also assume the financial benefits of the tiff note which will last until fe at the latest February 1st of 2047. So that tiff note will be assumed by the new buyer as well. And then I'll also note from the staff report that this um agreement included a public assistance repayment agreement which established a calculation um that if this project had an internal rate of return over a certain percentage uh at this sale this date of sale that there would be a repayment from the net proceeds to the authority. So the HA staff and the HA's municipal adviser reviewed project financial documentation pursuant to that calculation and found that the internal rate of return was below that threshold. So there is no repayment under the public assistance repayment agreement. And so part of the action on this item is to terminate that public assistance repayment agreement. And so I can answer any additional questions that you might have. >> Anyone have questions? No. Okay. So, can I get a motion to approve the assignment and assumption of development agreement and tiff note for Portland Commons? >> So moved. >> Moved by Commissioner Mua and and Okay. So, just do the vote. Okay. May we have >> all in favor? my brain. >> I >> I >> Okay. Um, >> pardon. Do I have to say that? >> Okay. The motion uh passes 5 to zero with Commissioner Hooim abstaining. All right. Now we are on to 5.2. All right. May we get the staff report? Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. Uh, I'm here today to talk about um our community development block grant, our public services selection. So, as you may recall, community development block grant is an annual allocation we get from the federal government, from the department of housing, urban development. Um, in 2025, we were allocated 465,000. Um, and as part of that, we have different activities that we can address. Um, and we have kind of a bucket of money that we call for public services. Uh, they cap that at 15% of that allocation. Um, but it you'll see it's pretty flexible in what we can use that money for. Um, so knowing that that has that flexibility, we put an RFP out to the community for different organizations. Um, that came in on July 15th and we had four responses. Uh, we scored and reviewed those based on project feasibility, organizational capacity, are they able to do the work that they set out to do? Will it be in a timely manner? um knowing that this is an annual allocation, their time constraints on it. Um and then their experience and their uh uh references and their team that they put together and the most important part is that they're addressing a need in our consolidated plan and our annual action plan. Uh so like I said, public services can be pretty broad. Um but it does have to kind of address one of those needs that we outlined in those plans that we had approved earlier in the year. Um it another constraint on the funding is that it must serve at least 70% of people uh or 70% of the people it serves must be low or moderate income. So 80% area median income or below. So after reviewing uh the applications um we ranked them and in order um we are recommending approval of three um as as much uh that the funding allowed us to uh fund. So the first one would be for VEP volunteers enlisted to assist people. Uh we also have housing link and senior community services. So VEP uh had proposed on providing emergency rental assistance. Um, this would uh primarily be used for eviction prevention for people are experiencing some sort of housing crisis. They need just a one uh time or short intervention to keep that um them in their housing. It's not meant to be long-term. In fact, there are stipulations in the funding that it can't be for more than three consecutive months. uh with uh we did say in the RFP that we uh anticipated a maximum cap of $30,000 per award hoping to make multiple awards. So you'll see there VEP we are recommending a full funding of their proposal. Uh and with that they would be able to assist they uh about 17 households. They are also will be prioritizing 30% area median income. So the lowest income housing link also proposed a interesting proposal. Uh they requested $10,30 um but they uh really focused on uh fair housing and they have an interactive chat box that they are working on. They have other funding sources including Henipin County. Um and it really would assist people who are uh potentially facing discrimination and it would explain what protected classes are, what is an illegal discrimination and if it is something that needs to be filed in complaint on how to do those steps. Uh and really refining this tool to be interactive and reduce barriers and provide that support. Um that is low barrier when you're able to access it through the internet. And then finally, we have senior community services. We have funded them in the past with this uh pot of money. Um this would be for their household and outdoor maintenance program or home they like to call it. Uh you can see the award is only for $9,970. This is the remaining funds after those two uh higher scoring applications were funded. Um this is a little bit lower than they typically get. Last year they received the full 50,000. Um, but this program does support uh low and moderate income seniors in our community to help them keep them in their home and kind of age in place. Uh, and with household maintenance or chores or just activities around the house in general. Um, but recognizing that that is uh a sharp decline from last year, we are also recommending that we'd come back in the near future with an amendment uh to increase our budget uh by $10,000. um that's still under our 15% cap. Um but we're not able to initiate that amendment process now with the government shutdown. Um and there's just uh timely issues here going on with the funding that doesn't allow us to do that. So we'll come back following our citizen participation plan to do that at a later date. Um, so kind of jumped the gun there, but that's our next steps. Assuming approval of these uh contracts, we would look to execute them and start uh those activities. And then we would when uh appropriate start that amendment process to increase our public services budget by that 10,000 to uh future award the senior community services an additional 10,000. With that, I can answer any questions. Commissioner Double here. Oh, sorry. Uh the chatbot that they're designing, um who is who's working on that project? And also what uh what steps are they taking to make sure that the information is correct to somebody who may not be able to discern AI from real. >> Yep. Uh uh chair uh commissioner Dolinger I'm not sure all the specifics of the program. Um there is a human who is reviewing everything in the background. Um part of this money is to pay for that salary so that they can kind of continue to test and maintain that uh expectation. I believe there is a scenario though where it does kick into a human if the basic information is not beating meeting their needs. Um, Housing Link in general operates online. Um they we refer to them uh primarily because they house uh uh they're a great referral service for different affordable housing options that are available, but because they're assisting renters on this broad scale, they want to expand their repertoire of what they're providing beyond just here's a unit, but here's other services that you can connect with as well through their so that they they they operate uh primarily online already. So, um, this is still in that kind of pilot phase a little bit. >> Another question. Commissioner Mua. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, can you talk through what we did to vet these organizations, any history we have with them? Um, I know anytime we're we're dealing with grants, there's there's people looking to make sure that this money is going to be used properly with the right organizations that have the reach um that can make a difference and that we don't um support um scrup unscrupulous organizations. >> Yep. Uh chair commissioner Mua, that that's a great question. So, be beyond just um putting out the RFP that was available to all organizations um that would be operating this their program for Bloomington. Um it just so happens that these organizations we have worked for or worked with in the past. Um they have, like I said, we refer to housing link and have funded them in the past for other activities. Similar with FEP, we have funded um emergency rental assistance through other funding sources that we've had and do have ongoing um professional services contract with them for um other activities. So, we're very familiar with all three organizations and how they operate. But as part of this federal funding too, um they will provide to us uh documentation of what they're uh that they're fulfilling their contract. So, when they're working with a client and they're doing income verification, we'll have that information of how many people they're serve, what those incomes are, and then we'll likely do on-site monitoring at the end of the contract to make verify and make sure that they're documenting because this is federal funding, so there's extra uh monitoring that we want to do to make sure that we're in compliance and that they're fulfilling what they actually said they're going to do. >> Commissioner Carter. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Um can you talk a little bit more about just the reduced funding for housing link and is this the do we typically do a competitive process? >> Uh chair commissioner Carter um we we haven't in the past um given the dollar amount that being you know typically 50,000 is kind of that direct uh contracting that we can do. So we some years we've done an RFP and some years we haven't. Um but I think it's best practice to have that RFP out there. um so we don't get complacent and continue just to fund the same program every year. This way we're making sure we're addressing multiple needs out there which was the benefit of that. Um so in the past um senior community services previously had was awarded $50,000 and that was the entirety of the public services uh budget in the prior years. I'm trying to remember how many years in the past we funded them, but it it's been several years that we have funded them to that maximum amount. Um, but we uh like we said, we we were in the consolidated plan process. We're in the annual action plan and we've identified a broad range of needs. So, we just wanted to make sure especially this year starting out this new five-year plan that we are addressing a wide range of needs that we're doing that due diligence. So, uh, moving forward, we'll likely continue to do an RFP process just to make sure that as environments change and markets change, needs change, we are addressing that, uh, ever evolving needs in Bloomington. >> Yeah. Um, I do agree with the competitive process. I think that's a good practice, and I, yeah, I just 100% agree that it's easy to get complacent or just kind of get into a a pattern, right? And so um I would say you know if we do hear of increasing demand or needs and especially in the senior space like I I guess I would be really curious to hear about that and you know if necessary find resources in other buckets of money. I do think that this is I have heard in the community like anecdotally this is a very valuable program that the H provides you know through the contract and so I just want to make sure that we're not leaving seniors hanging especially as the senior population continues to grow in Bloomington. So >> thank you >> commissioner Huli. >> Thank you chair. um kind of piggybacking off of what Commissioner Carter said. Um I know in the past um home um senior community services has come and presented to us kind of a summary of what they've done throughout the year and maybe that might be a good um idea to kind of get a little summary of what they what this past year has has provided. Um I think it's really beneficial. Um, and then same I I would say maybe going forward kind of a summary from housing, you know, if we if we approve these, like kind of get some summaries back of what worked, how it worked, maybe what didn't work, you know, just kind of so we have that feedback going forward of what's really been successful, what's the feedback um, from the community as well. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments, questions? All right. Then I need a motion to adopt a resolution approving entering into agreements for program year 2025, community development block grant public services. >> So moved. >> Moved by Commissioner Hooim. >> Second, >> and second by Commissioner Dolinger. All in favor? >> I. >> I. Motion passes. 6. Now we are on to organizational business. Okay. Um, so may we have the for it's the approve agreement and appointment for general and special counsel termination of interm agreement. May we have a staff report? Yes, chair and commissioners. I will give a brief report here. So, um, if y'all recall a couple months ago, our longtime HA attorney moved law firms, which, um, so following that move, we essentially executed a short-term temporary agreement with, um, the new law firm. And since then, we have worked on issuing another request for proposals, another RFP to competitively um, bid out legal services. And we received a number of strong applicants back. Um, this went through a typical review process where we evaluated experience, went through an interview panel, um, and you know, evaluated costs and different things like that through the process. Um, but we're recommending going forward with two contracts tonight. Um, one is for the general council selection, which is Kennedy and Graven, and the other is for special counsel, which would be for projects as assigned through uh, QEC Rock, who is also our uh, bond council. So, it makes sense to have some collaboration there. Um, and I'll also note um there is some information that is confidential that has been provided to the board on at your um place. There's a print out there that's confidential until contracting is arranged. Um, but yeah, that is the staff report for this item. Happy to answer any questions. >> So, just read that one. Need a motion to approve that. All right. So I need a motion to approve the agreement and appointment for general and special counsel and for the termination of interimm agreement. >> So moved. >> Moved by commissioner Eay. >> Second >> and second by commissioner Hooim. All in favor? >> I. Motion passes 6. And now we are moving on to new business. The Bloomington family town homes loan forbearance. May we have a staff report? >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. So, this is Bloomington Family Town Homes and we're tonight considering a request for loan forbearance. So, I'll give a background of the property here and get us situated. So, this is a SCA two scattered site locations, but we consider it all part of one property known as Bloomington Family Town Homes. There are um there are 14 units at Nord Drive. So you can see that's the south western area and then there are uh six units at West 90th Street. Um so it's worth noting here I think visual um geographically this is providing some of the few affordable units in the more westerly parts of Bloomington. So just to get us situated and so more background on Bloomington family town homes. So, this is a 20, as I mentioned, 20-unit town home development. They're um providing larger household sizes. So, you can see it on the bottom table on the bottom left. There are three two bed units and 17 three bed units. Um, and I think it's worth noting this is providing some larger household types that are typically pretty difficult to come across uh within affordable rents in the metro area. And they've also been renting to larger household sizes. So, we we received information from Common Bond, which is the um owner operator of these units, that the average or the median household size for these uh units at Bloomington Family Town Homes is four people, and these households are ranging in size from 2 to 7 per unit. So, they are serving larger households. The average household income for those families is around 26,760. And just for your reference, the the in median income for a household earning 30% of the area median income, excuse me, let me say that again. The um 30% of the area median income for a household of four is 39,700. So we often talk here about how important it is to bring those 30% AMI units online. These households are actually earning um below that 30% AMI level if if we're thinking of a household of four. And so currently there is a restriction for these units to be rented with rents affordable to households earning 60% AMI, but the reality the actual rents that are being charged for households at this property are closer to 30 to 40% AMI. So Common Bond is um setting those rents and they're far lower than what they could charge for the maximum. So I'll go on here and talk through property history. So uh this project or the property was constructed back in 1991. The HA did provide financial assistance for that development of the 20 units and the the agreement has been in place then to provide those units. Um initially it was to provide them at 50% AMI uh rent levels affordable for households earning 50% AMI. That was amended in 2006 up to 60% AMI. So that's where it is now. But as I already mentioned, the actual rents um in recent years have been much much lower. So Common Bond, I mentioned before, they've they acquired and rehabbed the property in 2008. They made both external and internal improvements to the property at that in that year. And uh as a result of that rehab, um there are additional affordability restrictions put into place resulting from low-inccome housing tax credits. And those restrictions do currently last until December of 2039. So, in this table, you'll see the other financial um subsidies that have supported this project besides the HA's financial assistance. The HA is listed first. The HRA has the most senior lending for this property. And I'll I'll just go through these terms briefly, but um the the HA's loan size is 46 $46,000 and it has been acuring interest at 3% since 1991. So you'll see that interest balance as of December of last year was even above the initial principal balance of the loan and then that maturity date for that loan is this December 1st 2025. So this year the other loans of note uh the other debts debt of note here are from Minnesota Housing. So that's MHFA Minnesota Housing uh excuse me um Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. So that's MHFA. They have two loans currently. one is the lowincome large family loan and that came in at that 2008 rehab. Um so that's 360,000 with a lower interest rate and then the the loan that they that MHFA provided in 2025 is actually from the state housing tax credit program. So that's a new program that was authorized um recently by the legislature that allows for a state level tax credit program. And so Common Bond was successful in raising a little over half a million from that program which they utilized to pay down their first mortgage um which was with US Bank. And so that you can see that debt is not reflected on this table but there is that new debt from MHFA. Um and that doesn't carry an interest rate and it is deferred until the maturity date. Uh, and what we've heard is that the expectation is that that assistance is actually most likely to be forgiven if it's requested from MHFA. And then the other loan on this table here is from Common Bond from the nonprofit organization to the property which is a separate entity and that's the loan for 474,470 also in 2008 which does have a higher interest rate. Um, so the HA deferred loan and and MHFA loans both mature on December 1st, 2025. MHFA purposefully set that maturity date to concur with the HRA's date. So I'll move on here to um the current request. So Common Bond came to HR staff and um have detailed a rehab and recapitalization plan for Bloomington family town homes. We're currently in phase one of that plan which is requesting new subsidy to fund a substantial rehabilitation of the property and they have been successful already in securing 1.4 million and the the sources are uh external it's external subsidies uh including MHFA the state housing tax credit that I already went through and also Henipin County and metropolitan council funds. They are also awaiting decision on an additional grant of 620,000 from the state from MHFA. So that's phase one. Um proceeds subsidy raised during this phase would address substantial uh rehabilitation needs and the phase two then would be positioning the property long-term for improved cash flow. And so the way that that uh that common bond is approaching that is looking at those existing um sources of debt. So I'm going back a slide. The HA loan, the MHFA LF loan, and Common Bond loan and repositioning those um or seeking forgiveness or partial reduction of those loans to position the property for better cash flow. Um, one way that they've already achieved this improved cash flow is through the repayment of that first mortgage, the US bank loan, which did have a debt, a recurring debt service. And so, because they've repaid that through the state housing tax credit, the property now has a better cash flow. They've reduced their debt service. Um, so within this phase, they'll also look to reduce operating expenses, which we've heard from a lot of nonprofit housing providers that those have been rising precipitously in recent years. So, Commonbond is looking to reduce those costs and all of this uh improved cash flow. The intent is to allow a buildup of the capital repairs reserve fund for Bloomington Family Town Home. So, that reserve fund would be built up and then would be able to address additional capital needs at the property. So, additional rehab. And then finally, phase three would be seeking additional new subsidy for remaining repairs. and they've uh done a capital needs assessment on the property and found 2.1 million in unfunded um repair needs that they would seek additional subsidy for to to proceed with those repairs. So, the request tonight for the HRA um is for a 12-month forbearance of the the loan between the HA and Bloomington Family Town Homes. Um the as I mentioned, the maturity date is currently December 1st of 2025. So, this 12-month forbearance would push that maturity date out to next year. This action aligns with the action that Minnesota Housing, MHFA, just took on that um lowinccome large family loan that had that same maturity date. So, on October 22nd, their um MHFA's it's the mortgage credit committee um took an action to make that forbbearance for 12 months. So, this action would align with that other lender. Uh, and I'll also mention here that HR staff and our municipal adviser were provided a good amount of documentation on the project's financials and have found that the there's immense financial constraint for this property. And so um there would be a difficulty in repaying the loan if there wasn't this forbbearance uh on December 1st of this year. So the goal of this forbearance would be to allow for flexibility for an additional year to continue assessing the project uh and begin improvements resulting from this first round of sub subsidy this phase one and other outcomes from this forbearance period would be deepened affordability and extend an extension of the affordability restriction period. Um so currently the affordability as I mentioned is um across the board at 60% AMI. As a result of the external subsidy that the project is receiving they will be restricting four units at 30% AMI and then the balance of units at 50% AMI and then they will be negotiating the termination of those restrictions past the current 2039 date. So and that's with external funders to be clear. Um, the other outcomes from this forbearance period would be for the HRA and common bond to have additional time to look into how to position this best position this property for cash flow outcomes as well as outcomes for those existing tenants and future tenants, helping those people stay in place. Part of the work that we already know will occur in 2026 is a transition of property management for this property as well as all of Common Bond's properties. Uh they'll be having the community builders um take over property management in January of next year. And I believe they already have had some properties um taken from them by the community builders um the property management taken. And uh we've also been communicating with Common Bond on additional funding opportunities that we know will be opening in 2026 and partnering with them to pursue those opportunities as we've done for uh at least one of the external sources that they secured this year. Uh and then I we do want to note to that that the that common bond is still likely uh even if this forbbearance is approved to return with a request for debt reduction or forgiveness at the conclusion of the forbbearance period. So, there is a recommended motion to approve that 12-month forbearance. And I will remain for questions. And I'll also say um we have a representative from Common Bond, Caitlyn, here who can also take questions and provide background on the project. >> Questions, comments? Commissioner Moola. >> Thank you, Chair. Um yeah, I definitely have questions on this. Um, help me understand uh how the loan in 1991 continues to have uh a full balance. Uh is it because there is no debt service required during this time? That's why they continue to carry not only the the principal but the interest over the time period. >> Chair and commissioners, that's right. There is no debt service requirement for this loan. And in my review of some of our other older HA loans from this this time period, that's quite common for our loans that we weren't requiring uh annual or by annual repayments of those loans. So it has just acred interest for that entire since 1991. >> So then I'm interested to understand how organizations plan to pay these back when we hit the the payback period. Do they set money aside every year to plan to pay these back? Do they just continue pretend these don't exist? Like that's that's a legitimate question. Um because if I personally had a loan and I didn't have to pay it back, I know it would have to get paid back. So I plan to pay it back when it was due. Um so how do organizations function and keep this uh knowing that this is due back eventually? >> Thank you. TR commissioners. Do you if you're Yeah, if you would be happy to provide it. Yeah. Thanks. This is a great question and a challenging one. In the affordable housing industry, the uh the plan always is to uh cash flow a property so it can afford its debt payments. for this particular property and for a lot of affordable housing properties, we have a first mortgage and that is the required debt repayment that we have to pay. And then when we can pay that off or when it comes due, like for the example in Bloomington, um when we paid off the first mortgage, then the next one in line, then we look at that one and we intend to pay it off with our cash flow. The unfortunate reality of most affordable housing right now is it does not cash flow, period. So, we don't have funds to put towards debt repayment. And then furthermore, we have a slew of deferred maintenance and required needs at the property that any cash flow that we do have, we're trying to put it back into the property to keep that that property livable. So uh to answer your question is yes we plan for it but the the conditions especially in the last like five to six years is our costs have greatly outstripped our ability to make money through our cash flow. Um there's a few ways that we can try to make more money. One would be by increasing rents. Again for Bloomington family town homes we know the demographics of the people that live there. We know they cannot afford to pay more money. So, we continue to keep the rents low because we don't want to put further burden on them. Um, so it's a little bit of a, you know, a push and pull of like, can we cash flow more so we can make more money, put more into the property or pay back debt, or do we stay aligned with our mission and try not to cost burden the folks that live here. Um, so normally since we're a nonprofit, we try to stay aligned with our mission and work with our partners on how we how can we deal with the debt that we have due on the property. Um, every property is different. These are like the circumstances for Bloomington, which um, for a property of this size, it's just not very competitive for other funding sources. So, uh, it's it's just a tough it's a tough uh, property type to try to get funds to. Does that answer your question? >> Yes. Thank you. Um, my next question for staff is I'm I'm wondering how many of these we have out there that are coming due that might potentially run into this because the Common Bond is having these issues. I'm guessing they all are. Uh, how many do we have out there remaining? Um, how many do we still expect to get back? And honestly, do we just work through forgiveness and be done with it and not have to deal with it again in another year? Um, especially these loans that we gave out in the 90s and you said that it was common for us to do this with no debt um service on it. Um, they're all coming due probably in the next 5 to 10 years here. So, we're going to see a lot of these come back. Where are we at? What is the risk we have with that? Chair and commissioners, I Oh, >> yeah. Chair and Commissioners, I can jump in here. Um, I will say we've actually started to dig into this analysis a little bit with finance more to kind of understand our long-term debt obligations and the status of those loans. Um, so we're currently in the process. This is one of the larger long-term very long-term like from the 90 like 90s or early 2000s loan that we have loans that we have currently still on the books. I think we have maybe three or four that are smaller that are in could be in a similar circumstance. I believe that those do not come due until more towards 2030 or 2035. So, we're starting right now to try to get a better sense of some of that long-term um outlook. Um you can expect more additional information on that, but this is one of the larger um outstanding loans that we have that we've had for a long period of time. And one more note is just that we do also have the affordable housing trust fund loans which are kind of in a separate bucket and so we have provided some updates on those over the past couple of months and you can expect to get provide continue updates on those. >> Other questions? Commissioner Hulim. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Um, I guess my question is we're doing it's a year that they're asking for. What do they see what do you see changing in a year to not necessarily come back here? I just I'm curious. What is our odds of of seeing this same item back here next year? >> Chair and commissioners. Yeah, a very good question. the one com some of the components that could change from now till 20 December 1st 2026 are some of these outstanding uh applications for new subsidy so one that I mentioned was community stabilization fund that's a state fund um it's not likely that those proceeds of those subsidies would be suitable to repay the HAS's loan it's more likely that those would go toward the rehabilitation of the property that's what the grant grtor is awarding those funds for But with the award of those subsidies and with the improvements beginning in 2026, it there may be an opportunity to reexamine the financial outlook of the project and identify um here are like theoretically the cash flow does look more positive. Um we had me Caitlyn mentioned if a project is cash flowing that is when it it's um possible to repay debt service for loan. So what may change would be the cash flow situation possibly and then one thing the HA could explore is implementing some sort of debt service from cash flow from positive cash flow. So the year allows more examination of the financials of the project after some of these changes take place. Um does that mean that common bond won't return for an ask for forgiveness? It certainly doesn't. so that they could come back and make that request. >> Continue. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, I I just want to be truthful that we've been in this before with AON and um I want to first state that I'm really I'm really happy to see rehab, you know, the rehab becoming a priority because that's what keeps these prop these Noah properties going and they're very vital and they're very important especially probably now more than ever. Um, so I guess with what happened previously, I just want to make sure that, you know, if that award happens, like I would like to make sure that the city is communicating and having those conversations and keeping, you know, keeping um, I don't want to say like an eye on the properties to make sure the rehabs are happening, but we kind of had to do that with an and we had to stay on them. And I know this is a different organization, but I just want to make sure that, you know, if this award happens and they do, I want to make sure that these rehabs are happening because that's really important and that's something that I think is key to my idea of passing this is that the rehab is the important piece in keeping these livable and sustainable for years to come. So, >> other questions? Commissioner Mua, >> I'll take one more last question. What is what happens if we don't approve this? What is the process after that? >> Chair and commissioners. So that if we didn't approve a forbearance or any other actions related to the loan, then on December 1st, the loan would be unpaid. There would be no um available proceeds from the entity uh the the Bloomington Family Town Homes entity for repayment of the loan. So that would be an event of default under the current agreement. So just to briefly talk on what an event of default confers in terms of power, it would allow the HA to take some pretty extreme actions such as taking control of the property forclosing selling the property, making repairs, charging those to the mortgager, or collecting rent directly from existing tenants. So those are some powers that get conferred in an event of default. Um that would be one situation if the if there was no repayment after December 1st. Um of detriment to common bond would be um basically they wouldn't they uh lenders would look very unfavorably on an existing debt in default and it would it's very likely that um like private lenders would not be willing to engage with the property in terms of financing and even some of the public lenders maybe would not engage. So we've been in very close contact with Minnesota housing uh during this process I mentioned aligning with their actions. Um so they have been talking to us to understand what our actions will be. Um so that back and forth would be um there would be challenges if there was an event of default for MHFA to be working with this property. So it could jeopardize for example their request for um that 600 and some thousand that I had mentioned earlier. So, those are some of the things that would occur if we took no action today and the loan wasn't able to be repaid on the first. Any other questions, discussion? No. Can you move to the screen that has the motion? So, I will need a motion to adopt resolution number 2025- Melissa or who has >> I can't understand what she said. >> She said it's okay. >> Okay. So, a resolution approving forbearance for the loan between Bloomington Family Town Homes Limited Partnership and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the city of Bloomington. So, may I have a motion? >> So, moved. >> Motion moved by Commissioner Oh my my brain. Um, Mua and second >> second by Commissioner Dolinger. Uh, all in favor? I >> I motion passes 6. Right. Now we are moving on to discussion items and any updates from our HR administrator. >> Yes, chair commissioners. I have a couple of updates. Um one is that in your packets on attached to this discussion item is um a report about the OHO, the opportunity housing ordinance. And uh uh the ordinance requires that there is a report provided to the city council by October 2nd of each year. And so this year we provided that update as a written memo instead of a presentation. So that memo was sent to the city council and is also attached to the HA uh packet for your reference. Um a couple of things to highlight there. one is um there are a number of examples of projects in there and I just want to recognize that the OO has been very effective especially in that 60 to 80% AMI range. We have met and exceeded our goals in that that range. So I think we're at like 164%. There continued to be gaps and we haven't quite met our goals in the 30 or 50% AMI which is very common as the gaps on those projects are really large. Um there is also a reference to the nexus study which this was approved at the joint port and HR meeting a few months ago. We are expecting um a a full report on that to come back either late this year or early next year. Um and then also as part of the ordinance there's a required compliance process and um so this year we're identified two issues that might need some more attention most likely through education and communication with the property owners. One of which um is just making sure we have a consistent income certification process. Um and also in making sure that they're addressing all the fees that they're charging as part of the leases. Um one is like junk fees and so just making sure that they're aware they have to communicate that out um to renters. Um, and then the last thing I'll just note is the affordable housing trust fund is also intricately tied to the affordable the opportunity housing ordinance and that it was a a method used to um provide funding to reach these goals. Um, and so we continue to explore funding opportunities for that. And um there's some numbers in there around the numbers of units that the affordable housing trust fund has supported and I'll just read them out because it's great to see this. um 303 units affordable at 60% AMI and 142 units affordable at 50% of the AMI or area median income and then 40 units affordable at 30% AMI. So that's quite a few units over the past five years. So um do you have I'll pause for any questions. Kenny is also here. He's been leading the work on the OO and the compliance process. We could answer any questions there. >> Any questions comments? Commissioner Mua, >> I'm talking a lot tonight. Um affordable housing trust fund. Um I my question comes from the the last item we just had. >> Are we including debt service in these now? Have we shifted change from what we did in the 90s and 2000s? Um because I would hate to kick this can down the road and in 30 years the next HA is dealing with this. Just want to make sure uh especially because I know that trust fund is emptied out to support all these projects and we're looking for more uh resources to continue to support housing in Bloomington. So just want to make sure that piece is being taken care of. Now >> training commissioners, the fun answer to your question is that all of the trust fund loan deals are slightly different, but I will say that they've all been structured quite differently than those like this example of this loan from 1991. So there are some loans that have um just a dollar amount that they have to repay by annually. So it's very clear. Some the amount is based off of their cash flow. So they demonstrate that they have or do not have cash flow and make a payment accordingly. Many of actually all of the loans um but one have tiff districts that provide revenue that go toward the repayment of our um obligations. Um so there are different ways that these loans get repaid. Um but I will say that they all have more robust um debt service requirements certainly than this loan that we've been talking about today. Any other questions or comments? >> I have a couple other updates. >> I do have a couple other updates to give. That was the longest one. These last ones are quite quick. Um uh there is a board and commission connect um celebration or event. Um it's an opportunity for all of the boards and commissions to get together. That is planned for Monday, December 1st at 6 p.m. And you should be see some additional event information coming your way soon. Um, but you can go ahead and mark your calendars for that date and event if you'd like to attend. Um, and then you know, Aan has come up a couple times in the discussion today and in their most recent item, one of the things they were requesting was support to apply for $2 million to the livable communities demonstration account from the Met Council. I'm happy to announce that they were recommended to receive that award. So, um, just another way that we're continuing to seek other funds to support some of the challenges these affordable properties are experiencing. Um, and then the last update is just that we only have one meeting each in November and December. So the November meeting is on the 25th, which is the week of Thanksgiving. So that will be our next meeting. So just a heads up that it's another month away and then we have one on December 9th and then that will be it for the year. Um, so less meetings here at the end of the year. That's all I have for updates. >> Great. Um and the second discussion item, the 2026 six budget and final levy discussion. >> Yes. I will get the can I get the presentation pulled up? >> Yeah. Yes. Oh yes. Okay. Um so I know this will be a difficult conversation. We've had a couple of difficult conversations about the budget um so far and then um the next action is to do a final approval uh in at our next meeting in November. So this is an other opportunity for the board to discuss the the final levy amount. So the preliminary levy was approved um in August by the HA and in September by the city council at the maximum amount which is that 3.2 million number. And a key part of the discussion was concern around loss of federal funding or um federal impacts. And so the the decision at that time was that it was most strategic to maximize the levy um because the preliminary levy allows you to decrease but not to increase. And so that was approved. Um so the discussion tonight will focus on where we are with the federal budget and what the board would like to uh to do for the final levy amount. I'll also include a little bit of information. We did a priority based budgeting process this year as the city. Um, and I'll include some some takeaways and learnings from that. And then this is just a quick I know we're all very familiar with the HA mission creating a stable and inclusive community through safe and dignified housing choices. And then there are a number of different ways that we use that supporting or ways that we accomplish that promoting housing stability, um, education and home ownership pathways, housing development, and also preserving existing housing. And then again another reminder, this is something we've been over quite a few times. This is the the budget cube that is often presented with the budget. I won't spend a lot of time on it since we've been over it a few times. Okay. And uh priority based budget. So this was a process that was conducted citywide for the first time in 2025. Essentially, it took city program programs citywide and he evaluated them based on community need, the cost of the program, the impact and the alignment with some of our community identified goals in Bloomington tomorrow together. And the idea was to generate use data to generate ideas for cost efficiencies. So, um, HA programs along using this spectrum and these criteria were generally scored as high impact. Some were there were kind of four quadrants. Um high higher low impact and higher low cost. And so the HA programs were mostly high impact. There was one that was low impact low cost in providing education for homeowners. Um and then they varied in terms of their cost impact, but I mean it it is very strategic work and housing is a critical element of some of those community needs and the strategic plans. And so our our programs did score very high in terms of impact. some opportunities that were identified through this process. There were a couple um broad buckets of areas to explore for cost efficiencies and savings in the future. Um technology and automation continues to be one like what can we automate and put online in order to reduce staff time and effort um and and smooth access for some of these um tools to the community. Also diversifying revenue. So some ideas were around re-examining fee structures. For example, what are we charging developers as a developer fee? What are we charging for tax increment financing fees? Our housing improvement area fee. These all have these applications all have fees associated. So we could look at different ways to um change those fees in order to bring in more income. And then the last one was seeking external funding sources through grants and partnerships. I will say that the HA already excels at this I do believe. So um here on the next slide uh that's the first bullet which is about 72% of our anticipated 2026 budget is from external sources. So we we really are very effective in terms of getting not only federal but also state and regional grants and and you know making the most use of the H levy dollars. Some other uh um examples of efficiencies that were the HA is already working on or already implementing is cross-training staff in order to implement housing choice voucher services. And we've already done this. Our staff are all um able to respond to basic inquiries about housing choice vouchers. We get a lot of walk-ins, a lot of people asking about how can they apply or what are those opportunities. And so making sure that we have um all staff who are available to answer those types of questions. Um also um centralizing various services like procurement, budgeting, onboarding, offboarding, that type of thing. Um um because the HRA is embedded into the city's community development department, there are a lot of efficiencies that we are already accomplishing in these categories because of our agreement with the city and there are various things especially like the budget is a great example of we do have an H funded accountant but that accountant always also works within the larger city system and so there are a lot of efficiencies that come along with that type of model. And then some areas that were identified for continuous improvements. Um some regional re resource sharing and coordinating was a recommendation. Um so we have started to explore this already. I think the priority based budgeting kind of um emphasized some more opportunities here. Some things that we're currently doing and are just implementing now or are still in the exploration stage are um I apologize for not writing that out a partnership with our building and inspections division within the city. So um for the housing choice vouchers, we have to do an inspection every other year. And so as uh an efficiency, we are collaborating with our inspections team to provide inspections over the winter, which helps with staffing. And we were also looking into um contract contracting that out, but having the ability to work within our own our our city um during their slow season is a good another good efficiency. Um we're also exploring some partnership opportunities. Right now, we we're doing some home buyer counseling um where we contract directly with some organizations, but we may have an opportunity to do a more regional partnership that would allow us to um work with more agencies um in a more um effective model for outreach. And then examining fee structures. Um I mentioned this briefly, but tiff fees. Um this is something we were looking at this year. Does do our tiff fees compare with other cities? They do. Are there other development fees that we could be charging? Um, that's under consideration. We also, um, are considering, we made some changes this year to our single family rehab loan processing, um, and making sure that some of the HA costs that are associated with processing those loans are covered through the loan, but there's opportunity to do a little bit more exploration here and just make sure that we're covering the administration of this program through fees. That could be that could be part of the total loan amount. So it wouldn't necessarily come out of the homeowner's pocket or it could if if that were an option we wanted to explore. Um and then fees associated with services on Howned single family rental homes. So because we own so many HA properties um there may be opportunity to explore some um like enhanced services that residents could opt into and pay for like movein services or things like that. Um this is something to explore. hasn't impacted the budget proposal for this year, but is something that we'll be looking into over the course of the next year. And then the last one is this um automation and process redesign bucket. And so we've been working on getting some forms and things like that online to increase efficiencies as well. Um this is just a note. I presented this slide previously just some more information about the things that we're doing in order to make sure that we're being effective with our H dollars. So some of the things that weren't covered in the slide before are you know things like um being very careful and thoughtful about our repair strategy for HR owned properties, developing a capital improvement long-term plan um you know pausing on processing loans when we had reached the maximum amount of funding and various other things along those categories. Okay. And then I'll get into the federal funding update. Um so as of last week and this week because it has not changed since last week um there are several pro proposals at the house and senate. So um the president's budget proposed really drastic cuts to our two largest federal federally funded pro programs housing choice vouchers and community development block grant funds. So the president's um budget proposal proposed cutting CDBG completely and reducing HCV funding from by like 26 billion out of about 32. Um the House and Senate and their app appropriations bills have not come anywhere close to that level of cuts. And so the current um this chart shows what was the level that was funded in 2025 and versus what is proposed to be funded for 2026 at both the House and the Senate. Um and so you can see CDBG is a little bit of an increase but still um fairly close to the 2025 levels and HCV also big differences in the HCV funding funding proposal at the House and the Senate. So, the House proposal um includes some reductions to admin, which is something that would increase not necessarily rent payments, but could fall on the HA budget because we are currently using all of our admin dollars. Um so, if th those dollars are less available, then the HA would have to cover the gap to do just to maintain our existing programming. The Senate proposal, um essentially with rising costs, it's pretty similar. we wouldn't be able to expand services, but it would allow us to um maintain the services that we have um provided this year and these are billions just to be clear. Um another key consideration I know with some concerns around the cuts because because our largest federally funded program is rental assistance. I've tried to identify here um what are some other funding sources that might be available for rental assistance if those bucket if that bucket of funding is cut. Um so these are these first two local affordable housing aid LAHA and CDBG are both um city like city grants and so um there is an approved framework the H's delegated ability to administer these funds within a framework. So we would have the opportunity to we could go back and suggest a different framework for rental assistance um if needed. And so this current use is where those dollars are currently allocated. So for LAAHA it would be um those that money is slotted to go towards home ownership initiatives and development and redevelopment projects. So it would be taking the money from that pot and moving it into rental assistance. for CDBG. It goes mostly into our rental rehab loan program, but we also fund the public services item that was before us today. Um, administration of various programs and some affordable housing activities. And so we could take the funding that's allocated for those programs and move it into a rental assistance uh program. Um, and then the last one is that with this is um not a city- funed grant. This is basically an an adjustment to how we could use dollars that are given to us through the voucher program. Um, basically we get paid for both the rental assistance payments and the administration of those dollars, but we can use admin dollars for rent payments. So, we could move our admin dollars over to make rent payments if the HR levy were used to fill that gap of admin. So, these are the main sources that I've identified as opportunities if um there were significant reductions or cuts to the federal budget. All right. And then, um just a quick note on next steps, the H board meeting to approve the final levy is our next meeting, November 25th. And then the council votes, we do have to make a um a final vote at that meeting. And the council votes to approve the levy and accept the budget on December 22nd. So those are the next steps and with that um here is the information about the numbers that we had discussed previously. The current recommendation and preliminary levy amount is that 3.2 million which would allow us to maximize our our flexibility to respond to federal cuts and also do some of those long-term strategic investments in things like housing development and things like that. And the other option that the board could consider is this um $2.7 million amount that we discussed previously. That's all I have for uh presentation. Happy to answer questions. And this is a discussion item. It's no voting. Um but the goal would be to get um some uh clarity in terms of what the board would like to approve at the next meeting. >> Open for questions. Commissioner Carter. >> Thank you, Chair. Um so I just wanted to be clear. So with the alternative option that would be kind of keeping things steady state and then we would have the option if federal funding decreased of tapping into those other three sources that you laid out in that table. >> Yes, that's correct. >> All right. Thank you. >> Other questions, comments, commissioner? >> Yeah, I just like to follow up. I know when we had discussed this before, there had been um kind of a conversation on the port and what they were going to be doing with their levy. Is there any feedback on where they were at because I know we had kind of talked about the possibility of them pulling back a little bit to allow us to pull forward a little bit. So, just kind of getting an idea of where that might be. >> Yeah. Chair and commissioners, um, I would have to check on the current status of those discussions. I know that they proposed an increase, but they did not propose maximizing their levy. Um, so I could I could find the the number for you, >> Commissioner Carter. >> Thank you. the 2.769 is that um a slight increase or is that really just staying >> uh chair commissioners that our current levy this year was 1.9 so this is still a pretty significant increase. Yes. >> Okay. So it's still a significant increase but it's not maxing it out at 2.298. Yes. Okay. Correct. >> Thank you. >> Other questions, comments? Commissioner who came? >> I don't really have a question. And I just want to kind of make the this, you know, this is just t it's tough and we don't know where things are going. And I just want to remind everybody that that this is not just about this year. This is about building for the future as well. This is about, you know, setting the HA board up for the future. And I understand this may not be the time to talk about it, but 20 years ago was the time to talk about it. Nobody wanted to talk about it. And here we are with infrastructure issues without within the city just in general um all buildings besides really civic plaza but you so I just and I'm not saying that we should m I just want it to be something that we're considering and we have that conversation of the fact that I just want to set the h up for the future. I don't want to see us backtracking and I don't want to see a board five years from now struggling because we, you know, didn't set it up for that. And I I'm not saying that this year is the year to do it. I'm just saying I I want to be very honest in the fact that with the way things are sitting right now, federally, I don't see it getting better. So, I think this is a hard conversation to have, but it's also a conversation that we have to think about that it's not just necessarily going to impact this year. It potentially could impact, you know, this not just this coming up year, but years in advance or years ahead of what we could be seeing. Um, I think we already know SNAP benefits are being cut. We already know that that's going to also impact rental assistance. It's going to impact home buyers. That's going to affect mortgages. I mean, it's it's got a huge impact and that's a big concern for me. I'm I'm worried for our community. Um, so just something I I just wanted to get that state that of that's where my heart is right now. It's really hard. It's it's a hard place to be, but I just really want to make sure especially these next few years we're we're preparing ourselves for anything and anything that could happen. So, >> thank you. Commissioner Carter. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, I agree with you on that. I mean, I think it's just a really tough position to be in to understand that um, there are already great needs now and it's probably just going to get worse. Um, and, uh, you know, we want to be good stewards of the dollars and maximize them as much as possible. Um I also do think just from the council perspective like a council member perspective uh you know we are looking at levy increase like tax levy increase um not all utilities are going up but there are utility increases. Uh we have our franchise fees. I mean like we just have all of these things which most of them on an annual basis go up a little bit. Um, but we do have some pretty we we've had and we will continue to have some pretty substantial levy increases as we build out a new fire department and, you know, make a lot of those investments that quite frankly had been put off by previous city councils. >> Um, and so we're doing that hard work now in a time that is difficult. Um, and so I do think we just have this really big challenge in front of us to do our best as the HR to meet needs and um really consider that with every increase in a levy that's an a dollar out of somebody's pocket, right? And people, it's seniors, it's people living with disabilities, it's people with young kids who are going to feel the tax levy increases, too. And so it's just it's a balance, right? And we've talked about this before. Um, so I personally I do think we actually need I think we need to make some we might need to make some tough decisions in the next year or two. We might need to push pause on some things. Um, it's not something that, you know, I we I would want to do. Um, but if it comes down to, you know, needing to make sure that people are staying in their homes in the immediate future, I think that's what we should prioritize. Um, so I I personally am leaning toward the alternative option. So increasing the levy but not maxing it out. Um, I think we have room in buckets of other buckets where we can leverage those dollars in the chance that we need to. Um, whether it's LA or, you know, and it might mean that we're not investing in a new development in the next year or two. But I think that that might just have to be a sacrifice that we make um to to manage co like costs in the levy increase. But so that's kind of where my thinking is. Um obviously looking forward to hearing other people's opinions. >> Commissioner E. >> Yeah. I just wanted to commend Sarah and the rest of the staff on finding alternative potential sources that we might pull out of, especially with so much unpredictability. Me personally, I'm more comfortable with the higher amount just because you can always go down, but then you can't go up. Um, yeah, I'd say that. >> Commissioner Mua, let's go with you. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I'm also leaning towards the alternative option. Um I think on the the city council we have made it very clear that we're asking the whole city to make some hard choices, make some hard decisions and uh I don't think it would be fair or meet what we've asked if the H doesn't do our part as well. um knowing there's a huge need that there is going to continue to be a huge need, but the alternative option continues to be an increase from what we've had before. There's going to continue to allow us to do the work that we have to do. Um but it it does make us have to do those hard hard choices. And what I would ask the staff and how I see is when we send our tax income tax off to the federal government, that's our money. And so I'm going to ask staff to do everything we can to bring our money back to Bloomington. Uh because those are our dollars and when we bring them back to our city, uh that helps us and we can see the impact of the federal government shutdown. Now it's local government who is bearing the brunt of the issue. We are the ones that have to then reach into even more of our levy to do the work that the federal government had promised that they would do, but now we're saying they can't do. And so, um, I'm leaning towards alternative option and requesting staff to dig like crazy to bring our dollars back to Bloomington. >> Thank you, Commissioner Hulim. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a quick question. um thinking in the future here um with the developments that we have to do. we have that um grant with the state uh to build so many affordable homes and I just want to put a question out there with tariffs and things like is there any projection of what we're figuring this gap could be um that the city could be that could be coming back to the H to make this I just want to put that into perspective as well that we do have this commitment and that I know with the tariffs and with manufacturing costs and the costs of production right now it's Not great. >> Yeah. Chair and commissioners. Um as you've said, we have seen costs on these projects continue to rise. I think right now the H contribution towards um the this project is around 2 to three million. Although if costs continue to rise, we might see some um impact to that project. We do have some development fund uh set aside to be able to support that project. So that is funding that we already have fund balance. um the the maximum levy would allow us to continue to build that fund for other strategic projects like 9030 park or like some of those other strategic um investments. But in the short term, yes, we do have fund balance available. >> Commissioner Carter, >> thank you. Uh good question. So um in a lot of our different um areas and different funds, we have reserves. Does the H have a reserve? Yeah, chair and commissioners, I would say it's really that development fund. That's our that's where most of our fund balance sits. Uh the rest of our our funds are generally used on an annual basis, but that's the the money that we have available for strategic projects. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Can you tell how much is in there? Sorry. >> Um I it's around 9 to 10 million. The number is like flex because of interest and various other factors. And so to just to be clear, so that 9 to10 million is unobligated at this point. >> There are a number of upcoming projects that are slated to come out of that fund. For example, the affordable home ownership project. Um some down payment assistance is likely going to come out of that fund. Some other like the other smallcale development projects like the Ralph lots that we are working on with Habitat is slated to come out of that fund. So it's not entirely unobligated. There are a number of larger projects coming out of that pot already. So, do you have a projection like in the next one to three years what that fund will look what it will be sitting at? >> I believe let me see if I put it on the slides here. Um, it looks like I didn't note that here, but I I believe we have um it depends on how quickly the the projects advance and how quickly that money flows, I think. think in the next 1 to 3 years you're probably looking at around 2 to 5 million of spending. That's a very rough number, but that's my best. >> It does sound like we have a little bit of cushion though if project costs are a little higher or you know or if something happens and we're like we just want to make strategic use of $1 million for emergency rent assistance or something like that. Like we could make those decisions. Okay. >> Commissioner Dolinger. I just want to agree with Commissioner Eay on the higher amount. Um I've always been one to plan for the worst but hope for the best. Uh I have zero confidence in the Fed uh coming through with desirable numbers. So I plan to opt for the higher amount in that case. >> Thank you. I think I'm the only one that hasn't commented. Um, when this was first brought to us, I was all about the alternative option and then the preliminary vote. I went with a higher amount and I I am still wavering. Um, I believe that we took less of a levy the past year, so that makes me lean towards the higher amount. Um, while I have almost no confidence in in the federal government, I was um clear hopeful to see that maybe the cuts won't be as draconian as we thought. And uh if we can get some more information on that, I know things change quickly, but that would have me leaning towards maybe the alternative option might be the one. I I'm not going to commit right now, but I I see both sides of it because I want to set us up for the future and for all all these great things that we want to do. So, I'm I'm torn. Um, I'm conflicted, but this is, you know, our tax money and we have to be responsible to the citizens of Bloomington. So, I don't know if going with the higher levy is more responsible, ensuring projects get done or the alternative option. Um, but it's I I couldn't even say which way I'd go right now and that's the honest truth. Commissioner Dolinger, >> I just have one quick question. What is the difference between the two levies and the burden to the taxpayer? >> Yeah, chair and commissioners, I believe the maximum amount is uh the projected is around $4.96 per household per month. So about $60 a year total. Right now we're at $2.84. The $2.7 million amount is around maybe it's like 3.84 somewhere in the upper 3s. So the difference between the 2.7 million and the 3.2 is about a dollar per household per month. I believe just under a dollar. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Mua. >> Thank you, Chair. And how I look at that is um I look at the the full levy increase. It's not just HR who has a levy. It's the port that has levy. It's the city that has levy. It's the county that has levy. It's the school board that has levy. It's the water district that has a levy. So after two or three dollars everywhere, every month it becomes a big burden. And right now we know like SNAP is getting cut if we don't get funding by the first. And those five $10 make a difference. It's either you're going to eat or you're going to pay for your electric to keep your heat on. And so although for us $1 seems really small, when you add it up with everyone, it gets really big. And a dollar is a difference between eating or not. >> Thank you, Commissioner Hooim. >> And I and I want to say that I respect that and I think that's what makes this so hard, right? Um is because we see all sides of it. I mean, we're here because we care about the community and we care about affordable housing, right? And so, but I also do want to reiterate the fact that the HR did we did sacrifice our levy um with a a conversation with the port. And that's why I'm really really really want to push that conversation with the port. And as I had told administrator Abe before, I think in the future it would be nice if all three entities, the city council, the H, and the port all sat down and had a conversation regarding budgets and levies and we kind of could have that conversation. Um, I understand that's why we have, you know, council members on, but I think it means something too when we all bring pieces together and we all hear the sides that have had the communications. And like I said, I just I'd really I really do want the feedback of where the port's at on their levy because we did sit back so they could max out. And so I kind of feel like there was that kind of conversation and there was kind of an agreement there. And so I kind of I kind of feel like we did we did do, you know, kind of what we were asked to do. And now we're in a point of now probably more than ever, people are going to need as much assistance as possible. And and I'm just I just want that clear that it was a hard decision to make to cut our levy and we did it. So >> yes, Commissioner Carter. >> Thank you. It's so interesting because I think that there were different narratives and different um uh perspectives on what happened because my perspective was that what we were told was economic development was moving out of the HRA into the port and that is why HR reduced the levy and port increase because we didn't want to have this big impact on taxpayers right um what was that >> number >> yeah so so I I don't I don't and I think I've said this before like I really don't want it to be a them and us like uh the port did this so we get to do that and you know it's like we're all in this together and um we didn't um we didn't to my knowledge we didn't decrease the work or the overall spending on housing and I and maybe that maybe I'm wrong on that but >> yeah chair and commissioners I would say it has not decreased based um and in fact the port expanded uh their activities from just the south loop to the whole city recently. um there's a lot of internal collaboration amongst staff but the work has not >> is also doing the 20 plus housing right so so it's not like a it's a I think it's just more complicated right and um so uh the other I did have another question um if we were to increase the levy this year because we were afraid of what's going to happen at the federal government could we then decrease it again next year. >> Yeah, chair and commissioners, I would I would say it would depend on the circumstances at that time, but it would be the similar process. We would bring a budget proposal and the board could make decisions around increasing, holding steady, or decreasing at that time. >> Okay, >> Commissioner Mulla. >> Thank you, Chair. The last thing I'll say is um I I respect all the opinions up here and no matter what the the board um chooses to do um when we get to that discussion at the the city council level even though uh I might choose a different option. I would voice and support the decision that the board makes given the um the background, the concerns, the the work that we want to accomplish here on this board. And so, um, if that helps ease your mind at all and to to help make a choice so that, uh, the administrator can put something together so we can move forward and bring something to council. Um, just know that that that will happen at city council. What happens at city council will be what happens. Um, but as the voices for this body and the council, we will make sure that what we've talked about here is heard there. All right. Um, thank you everyone for the good discussion, insight, respect. Um, this is not an easy topic. So, now we have reached the end of our agenda. So, could I have a motion to adjourn the Tuesday, October 28th, 2025 HA board meeting? >> So, moved. >> Moved by Commissioner Dolinger. Second >> and second by Commissioner Hooim. All in favor? >> I. Motion passes 6. Thank you.