I will not now call the meeting to order. Welcome to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Commission will now. Rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Again, welcome to the HRA Commission meeting. The HRA commissioners, our Plymouth Citizen volunteers who serve at the pleasure of the mayor and the City Council. The map shows where we live and what wards of the city we represent, any actions we take this evening will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, who makes the final decision on all of these matters. I will now introduce the staff with us this evening. Mr. Grant Cornelius, Executive Director, Mr. Stephen Smith, housing manager. Mrs. Emily von hand, um, um, permit technician. And we have the honorable mayor of the City of Plymouth, Mr. Jeff Washy. Thank you all for joining us this evening. Again, anyone in the artist wishing to address the Commission on any matter on the agenda this evening, we ask that you fill out a blue card to be found on the back table of the room. First item on our agenda is the public forum will take a maximum of 15 minutes for the form. Does anyone wish to speak to the commission about an item not on the agenda this evening? If not, we’ll move on to the rest of the agenda. The next item is approval of tonight’s agenda. Does anyone have any additions or subtractions from tonight’s agenda? If not, a motion to move the agenda would be in order. Is there a motion? We have a motion. Is there a second? Second motion’s been properly moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion? Say aye. Aye. All opposed. Say nay. Let the record reflect that the motion passes. The next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. First item is to adopt the proposed minutes of the March 26th, 2026 meeting. Is there a motion to approve the proposed minutes of the March 26th, 2026. Consent agenda? At one time? Oh. So I’ll just move to go ahead to accept the consent agenda, and that takes care of 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. All right. All in favor? A second. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Are any questions to the motion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Let the motion reflect that. The motion. Let the record reflect that the motion passes. Next item on our agenda is going to be. 6.1. Item 6.1. Well, there’s a resolution here under 4.4. But it got done under the consent agenda. All right. All right. 6.1. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners. Um, so tonight I’ll provide an overview of, uh, local affordable housing aid program and also a request that we received the city has received for financial assistance for rehabilitation to, Willow Wood Estates. So local affordable housing Aid, or LA, is a quarter cent sales tax funded by a quarter cent sales tax. It was started in 2023. Uh, it is a fund that’s designed to create and preserve affordable housing or stabilize the housing for low income individuals and families. The funds is administered by Minnesota Housing. The funds are received twice annually, once in July and once in December. Um, you can see the allocations that we’ve received listed below. Notice that the allocation for 2024 is considerably less than our 25 and 26 allocation. That is because the sales tax went into effect in October of 2023, and so is a lower allocation amount. We do anticipate our allocation moving forward to be similar to 25 and 26 of approximately $900,000, also to note, the allocation of 2026, we’ve received 50% of that here in July, and we receive the remaining 50% in December. So 2024 through 2026, our total LA balance is over $2.2 million. Now, the state statute prescribes the law program. The eligible uses are emergency rental assistance, financial support to nonprofit housing providers, and then qualifying ownership and rental projects. And so these could be things like acquisition down payment assistance programs, rehab, either owner occupied or rental rehab programs. Um, gap financing and also financing new construction or new developments. There are income limit requirements. Uh 80%. Any any program or any project that is serving a rental project. It’s required that the, uh, recipients are at or below 80% area median income. And for homeownership projects at or below 115% area median income. So the program was designed to put the money into the community. And so there are spending requirements. Uh, the funds must be committed within three years of receipt and then expended within four years. So if we think of our 2024 allocation, it was received in 2024. It must be committed in three years. So by December 31st of 2027 and then committed within four years, which would be December 31st of 2028. Um, otherwise, it’s at risk of being returned to the community or to the state, rather, and then redistributed. Um, there is a possibility, although if you’re unable to spend the money in four years, you can appeal to Minnesota housing and prove attempt to prove that the delay in expending those funds was due to factors outside of your control or outside of the jurisdiction’s control. If that’s approved by Minnesota Housing, then those funds can be transferred into a housing trust fund and transferring them to a housing trust fund does fulfill the expenditure timeline requirement. However, any funds in there, if those funds are transferred to a housing trust fund, they must still adhere to the program requirements. Uh, one other important consideration is that the the funds, the funds must be used to supplement existing programs that can’t replace them or supplant them. Any locally funded housing initiatives? Uh, to monitor this, there’s annual reporting that’s done by each jurisdiction takes place in December. Um, we’ve done that in 2025, where we, um, review our locally funded housing expenditures for the previous two years. And then explain or justify any difference in there, any, uh, if the amount expended has gone down. Um, then we list as to justify as to why that happened. And that information is contained on our website. It’s required that it’s, um, posted publicly. Yes, sir. I have a question, Mr. Smith. Going back to what you had indicated earlier, you talked about transferring those funds. If those funds are transferred. What time period is allotted before those funds are no longer be available? Example, they get an additional three years or is it a one year extension or how does that work? Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. That the funds are then expended. And so the timeline ceases at that point. With that allocation of funding, there could be an additional allocation of funding that is still held under that time frame. And it is required that there’s an appeal to Minnesota housing and a justification as to why those funds weren’t expended. So jurisdictions can’t just take their law funds and funnel them directly into their affordable housing trust fund. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. So that is an overview, brief overview of the program. Um, I said I’d transition into a request for utilizing the funds for a property rehab. Um, and so Willow Woods Estates is the property we’re considering. It’s owned by Common Bond. It’s an affordable housing provider out of Saint Paul, Minnesota. Willow woods Estate was built in 1980. It is 40 units. It’s a townhome style development, so it has 3363 bedroom units and four four bedroom units. And these are large family style, townhome property. Not typical here in the city of Plymouth. It also has four garage structures, an on site playground area, and a community building that hosts the laundry facilities for the property or for the community. A community gathering space and the leasing office. Um, all of the units at Willow Woods Estates are supported by project based rent Assistance program. Now, project based Rent Assistance, or PBR, is a contract directly between HUD and the property owner. And it’s required that then the properties serve low or very low and extremely low households. So home or families at or below 50% area median income and additional restriction of 40% of those units at or below 30% area median income. So as I said, it’s a contract between HUD and the property owner. There’s currently a contract in place through 2029 with common bond for the continued operation of the project based rent assistance program. In addition to um, this request for funds, financing or funding assistance for the rehab. Common bond is restructuring the capital debt on there on Willow Woods estate, and part of that financing package requires an extension of 20 years for this PBR contract. So that would provide, um, long term stability for the Willow Estates community. Um, part of the financial restructure, then, is a series of different funding sources. Uh, common bond has received tax exempt bonds issued by Hennepin County. They’ve also applied for 4% biotech tax credits, which are allocated by Minnesota Housing. Um applied for Minnesota State Tax Credit loan and utilizing sales tax rebates and energy rebates. Um, just to roll it all in together. The refinance is of the first mortgage in the capital structure of the property, and then also includes a substantial rehab to the property. The scope of improvements to Willow Woods includes replacement of windows and doors, roofing and siding components throughout the property. Uh, parking lot replacement and update and renovation to the community building, and a renovation to multiple units on the property. In addition to energy efficiency upgrades, including furnaces and water heaters for long term durability, the total amount of city contribution assistance works out to be $16,250 per unit. So the funding request that we have is $650,000 loan for the property rehab at Willow Woods Estates. Staff have identified a proposed use of larger funds. I feel that it would be an appropriate use of the funds and would recommend a 30 year deferred loan at 0% interest, with a proposed closing date of 23 2027. Excuse me February of 2027. Um, the second portion of the request is to modify the terms of an existing loan. So the HRA has an existing loan. Um, it was initially issued in 2004. It was for $50,000 at 2% simple interest for a rehab. Rehab, a portion of the property at that point at that time, the property was owned by dominium. The anticipated balance or the balance, rather at maturity in 2025 would be 81. 2035 would be $81,000. The developer has asked that we, um, forgive the interest that’s accrued on that loan up to date and then also amortize that loan at 0% interest for 30 years to run concurrent with the new law. Loan staff is not supportive of this request. Uh, we feel that, uh, in conversation with our city’s financial consultant, it would be best just to have this loan paid off at the time of closing in February 2027, with the interest accrued to date. Yeah, this is a third year deferred loan. Does that mean there’s a balloon payment after 30 years and they are going to repay it? Or or do we forgive it at that point? Uh uh, Mister Chair and commissioners, I suppose the determination would come from the HRA. What would happen with the loan? Um, the balloon payment. It would be. It was 50,000 with 2% simple interest. And so currently it’s about $72,000. And that would be the final payout. But for the whole 650,000 loan. This is a deferred loan but payable in 2057. So they they would repay the 650,020 57. That is correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So for our next steps, I’d like to invite Sally Rabon, a senior project manager from Common Bond, to answer any questions or describe a little bit further. The, um, the project, both Willow Woods and common Bond. I’ll stand for questions you may have about the use of larger funds, and then we’ll ask. Asking the HRA to consider adopting a resolution to recommend city Council approve the use of larger funds to Willow Woods Estates Rehab. Are there any further questions for any members of the Commission to, uh, Mr. Schmidt? Yes, sir. Mr.. Steve. Um, so the question is, uh, at your. Recommendation, is that we ask for them to pay off the 81,000 that’s due. Um, at the closing of the $650,000 new loan. I assume that may make them short of what they need to do. The rehab. Um, so how do we how do we resolve that issue? Uh, Mr. Chair and commissioners, that is a consideration. I think it would require, uh, sharpening the pencil a little bit and restructuring the current financial package that they’re putting together to try to include that in it. It is currently under 72,000. So it’s it’s a little less than that 81. That was um, because we would include the interest to date. With the original maturity of 2035. Huh. Thank you. Any further questions? Um. Is the capital. Stack pulled together then, or is this just a piece of it that’s proposed that if it’s just proposed, or are these funds contingent, that they get the balance of their capital stack filled? Yeah. If you wouldn’t mind, I’d like. Yep. Like Sally to work on that one for you. Thank you. Hello, everyone. Hello. Thank you. Chair Williams, members of the HRA. I’m Sally Rabon, a senior project manager at Common Bond Communities. Um, I know you have the information about common bond, but just a little bit of background or one of the largest affordable housing developers in the upper Midwest. So we own it, would develop and own properties in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota. Um, about 6000 units across the three states. And our mission really is safe, stable, affordable housing. And we offer wraparound services, something that’s a little unique to common bond is there’s supportive services in each of our properties that help residents with, um, resume help or applying for a job resume help or signing their kids up to enroll in school after school programming for youth as well. And, um, like Steven said, the community room at Willow Wood, that’s what that space is used for as well. You can come and meet with the staff or have, um, community events there. Um, over the last two years, Common Bond has looked at every property in the portfolio to come up with a rehab and recapitalization plan. And in that identification, we learned that Willow Wood needs extensive rehab and the because of the extensive rehab and the lack of funding sources to do that, we actually considered and pursued selling it. We had a buyer under contract that fell through. Instead of going to the next buyer, we thought, you know what? Let’s take a look at this again. How can we keep this in our portfolio? You know, it fits the it fits our mission of um, has a section eight hab contract. Like Steven said, that means residents only pay 30% of their income on rent, no matter what we charge for rent. Like not no matter what, but we work with HUD to determine the rent that’s charged. Residents still only pay 30% of income. Um, two large family housing, three and four bedroom units are so hard to find in the metro anywhere, and that they’re townhomes. So even it’s not even just an apartment that’s, you know, three and four bedroom. And it has the garages, like we said. And, um, playground and the community gathering space. So we thought, okay, let’s take a step back. How can we keep this in our portfolio? But still, um, rehab it because the property needs it and the residents deserve to have, you know, safe, good quality housing. Around this time, the state housing tax credit program came out of Minnesota, and we worked with contributors, contributors to contribute specifically to Willow Wood. So we went out to people to contribute to the program and told them the story of Willow Wood. We were able to secure $2.4 million loan from Minnesota Housing, so that loan you asked about the, um, capital stack, Tony, that that loan, combined with the sales tax rebate and the energy rebate, which is what we get back after we do the rehab because we’re a nonprofit. So putting an energy efficient boiler, we get a rebate and then the sales tax, we initially pay the sales tax on the lumber and all the products, and then we get a rebate back. So the state housing tax credit loan combined with sales tax rebate, energy rebate, uh, the 4% bonds and the light tech, the loan commission tax credits, a new first mortgage. From you all. And then we are deferring almost half of our developer fee. So that together is the capital stack. And all all of that has been secured. But yes. Did you answer your question? The larger and technically the tax credits you get, once we have the bonds and the tax credits come along with that? Um, and to note, like Steven said as well, the when we go through the process of the refinance and the rehab, we also secure a new 20 year Hap contract, which is what we want. If they give us a 50 year, we would take that. But 20 years, how they do that and the first mortgage lender and the um tax credit investor, they also want that. So they’re like, we won’t close on the deal without that 20 year Hap contract, which will ensure that residents of Plymouth only pay 30% of their income on rent for at least 20 years. Okay. So yeah. Any questions from Miss Rabon? Thank you very much. We appreciate your insight. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Um, Mister Chair and commissioners, if you have further questions about the, uh, the use of law or said we’re requesting that you adopt the attached resolution recommending this, uh, use of law to city council. We have before us HRA resolution 2020 603. Uh, is anyone had an opportunity to review that resolution? Are there any questions? Yes. I saw that Hillers went through and looked at this and gave the recommendation that said that this was a good investment in doing it. Was there anything in their report that surprised you or. Mister Chair and commissioners? No. Um, it was through multiple conversations with others in discussing this. Uh, the organization of their capital stack and the request that said, uh, you know, to realize that it falls right in line and it’s a good use of a the city’s law resources. Are there any further questions? Having heard none, I would entertain a motion to. Approve a resolution. To approve HRA resolution 2020 603 relative to the use of lahar funds. Is there a motion. so moved? We have a motion. Is there a second? Second motion’s been properly moved and seconded. Any further question or clarification relative to the motion? Having heard none. All in favor of motion, say I. I all opposed. Say nay. Let the record reflect that the motion passes. Thank you very much. Are we moving on this 6.2? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Um, so tonight I’m going to provide an overview of our 2027 HRA Budget and Capital Improvement plan. I’ll start by providing an overview of the budget process and schedule, and also then the financial roles and responsibilities work through the approved budget for 2026 and 2027 that was approved last year, in 2025, and then move into our capital improvement plan and our senior operating budgets. There is no formal action required or requested with this. It’s more for review and questions and garner any feedback you may have. So the city began implementing a two year budget planning cycle in 2023. We staff builds the operating budget in the odd years and then capital in the even years, and our 2026, 2027 operating budget, which we’re working through now, was developed in 2025, and we are now working through our, um, ten year capital budget, which we do include the senior buildings, Plymouth Town Square and Vicksburg Crossing are include included in the city’s capital improvement plan, which we call the CIP and is projected from for 2027 through 2036. Um, we utilize a similar timeline in our project development or budget development. Um, staff builds the budget through May and June. We bring it forward in July for for review, to answer questions or gather feedback. Then council will get their first look at it in August through three series of three study sessions. They’ll work through the budget cycle or budget planning process. And then in September is when the preliminary levy is set, and in December is when the final levy and budgets are approved. Um, there are no significant changes to the funding or to the program. So I’ll just work through this. Uh, each and address each one of them individually. The city Council is a grantee for the CDBG program. However, the HRA does make the recommendations for the funding and for the activities under our current structure, our CDBG program’s federally funded, um, it does run counter calendars, so it runs from July 1st through June 30th. We have received our 2026 program year allocation. Um, and it’s similar to our 2025. And we anticipate that for 2027, um, we don’t have any anticipation of major staff changes or administrative expenses. And, um, our current allocation is approximately 250,000, with the 80,000 of program income. The HRA general fund, uh, and rental assistance programs are under the purview of the HRA. However, the council has the authority over the HRA property levy. The HRA levy was approved. The for 2027 was approved in 2025 for a 3% increase, or approximately $20,000. Um. However, and the rental assistance programs, both the HCV and bring it home programs, we don’t anticipate significant changes to those. HCV is a federally funded program. We’re operating in our 2026. We operate HCV on our calendar year. Um, and we expect we have received our 2026 grant. Grant amount. We will receive the 2027. It’s expected in the fall. We haven’t received it yet, but we anticipate it will be similar to our 2026. Um, with Bring It Home. That is a state funded program. We’re in the beginning of a two year grant agreement or grant period for approximately $1.2 million, which we believe will fund 36 rent assistance vouchers and don’t anticipate any major changes to that as well. Um, the 2026, the the senior buildings, Vicksburg Crossing and Plymouth Town Square are also under the authority of the HRA. Under a current cycle or current structure. So the senior buildings operating budgets for 26 and 27 were approved last year. I’ll just go through those quickly. And then we updated our capital improvement plan for a ten year projection of 2027 through 2036. Uh, this is our proposed capital improvement plan, ten year capital improvement plan for the senior buildings. It is itemized per building. We worked with on site management staff. Uh, Grace management, uh, the on site property management to develop this list. And then we analyzed and grouped like projects or liked, like items together to keep the city’s CIP. Um, manageable. The recent improvements to the senior buildings Plymouth Town Square underwent an elevator modernization, a complete common area painting, fire panel replacement, roof replacement, and disease tree removal. Um, and Vicksburg Crossing underwent roof repairs and a security system, complete security system replacement that was resulting from storm damage and a lightning strike that was sustained at the end of 2025. Also replaced 13 Magic Pack units. Those are heating or HVAC units, um individual per each living unit, or um, HVAC systems, rather for each living unit. Um also replaced several portions of the asphalt, the curbing and concrete are on the walking and driving surfaces, and plumbing updates, and a sprinkler system are fire suppression updates. So Plymouth Town Square is operating expenses as approved. These were 2027 was approved in 2025. We approved a 3% increase over 2026. Um, anticipate no changes to that. The reserve replacement funding is to be $100,000. That is not an HRA subsidy any longer. That comes from the operating, uh, operating of the budget of the building capital improvements coming up for 2027 include a parking lot, seal coat and stripe, and then HVAC updates, which would be to the common area, uh, cooling system. So the garage heating and cooling units and also the garage exhaust system. Similarly, Vicksburg crossing, uh, it was approved for a 4% increase. We don’t see any changes to that either. The reserve replacement funding for that will be $80,000. Um, again, it is not an HRA subsidy that comes from the operating budget and the capital improvements for 2027 at Vicksburg Crossing will also include a parking lot, seal coat and stripe, and the stairwell, carpet replacement and then HVAC updates. And those include the make up air system and the building exhaust system. So for tonight, staff are seeking feedback on the H from the HRA on the proposed capital budget. Uh, any feedback and then be forwarded to City Council as they begin the budget review in August. And just to reiterate, there is no formal action requested. Thank you, Mister Schmidt. Are there any comments from any members of the Commission? Any thoughts? Questions? Uh, I would just like to say thank you. And I when I joined the HRA five years ago, we did not do this. So I see this as just good education for each of us to see what’s going on and to better understand what’s happening. So thank you for the presentation. I second that this is wonderful because it gives us an opportunity to look forward in a timely fashion and not react after the fact. So thank you very much. We appreciate that guidance and insight and. And to plan out the, uh, expected capital improvements. And, and it’s nice to see that the replacement reserve funding is coming from, uh, budget. So thank you. Thank you sir. All right. We’re an item 7.1 now. Not to update. So yes, HRA updates. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioner. Um, commissioners, I’ll just go briefly through here. Um, so the the closing went well for the bond purchase of Melrose and, um, there’s a construction is expected to begin here shortly this year. That is a 100% affordable property with 213 units. Um, so that’s a great asset to the city. Also, we received notice that Outreach Development Corporation is moving forward with the acquisition of Plymouth Colony. And so we were working with outreach development for anything that they need related to their application for the 4D program. Um, I’d also like to highlight our Bring It Home program. So we have uh, issued to date. We have issued, um, now 11 vouchers as we move forward as this is just now slightly out of date. Um, and and in addition to that, we have three approved leases that will all start in August. Actually, one will will start tomorrow. So we’re beginning to provide housing assistance to residents of Plymouth. Um, we it’s it’s a long process working through the, um, wait, just generating it, making sure that we’re providing equitable service and putting, you know, each person in, in order according to the preferences that were predetermined at the program’s inception. And so, you know, we’re nearly our way through the application or through the waitlist in which we can then award each person there. Um, appropriate spot on the list. What we’ve been doing with the 11 that we’ve issued is, we know, based on their preference points, that they’re at the very top of the list, and we feel comfortable being able to take those off the list in a more timely manner. Ahead of the the full reshuffle. And so, um, exciting that we have we’re beginning to actually, um, you know, issue vouchers means they’re looking for a place to live, but then to begin actually housing and paying the assistance on those, as well as exciting. Do you find that most of the applicants actually qualify for the program? Uh, or is that is that one of the things when you’re contacting them, you’re you’re going through to certify that they actually qualify to participate? Yeah. Thank you, Mister Chair and Commissioner. So, um, the application process itself keeps most of the people that are eligible or keeps people that are ineligible from being on the list. Um, we do have if we were to reshuffle the list now, we would say there’s probably about 30 people that have dropped off based on either no response to, you know, to us asking for them. Maybe they’re on a different list, maybe they’ve moved in there, didn’t update their contact information or whatever. Um, and a small amount of people that are that are not eligible. So most people are eligible, they just maybe don’t have all of the preference points to put them up toward the top, you know? And a preference point would be like based on if they’re rent burdened or based on if they’re below 30% Ami and if they have children and, you know, maybe living in shelter or those sort of things, we award different preference points as points for. It, but. We’re really only helping less than 10% of those who apply in are qualified. That’s all the the funds that we have. So there’s a much greater need. Yeah. Uh, Mister Chair Commissioner, that is correct. Um, we are looking for as we design this program and get it up off the ground, we are anticipating in the future that we’ll have, um, with our with the speed in which we are working through the program. Um, we are far ahead of many other jurisdictions. There’s over 50 jurisdictions in the state of Minnesota that are doing this, and many of them haven’t begun yet. And we look at that as a favorable, um, we feel that we’ll have a favorable application for the next RFP session to, um, ask for additional vouchers and additional funding from Minnesota Housing. Okay. Mister Schmidt, are we expecting any additional applications, notwithstanding the fact that the financing is already been taken care of, will we still receive applications for the next funding cycle? Uh, Mister Chair, can you clarify applications for which program? Um, for for the program you’re just describing? Um, I’m just wondering, will there be additional additional applications will be expecting to receive. So we did, Mister Chair. We did open the open a waitlist for it, and we worked through that waitlist. We currently have. Um, we’re working on number 170 of 200. I said we have approximately 30 that have dropped off of the list. So we anticipate we’ll have a list of maybe 170, 160 people that we can, um, that we can work our way through. We have funding enough for approximately 36 vouchers. And so then anybody 37 and above, we’ll wait for someone to move out of the city and free up that voucher or, um, you know, to in some way work them, work off of the program in which then we have that voucher to issue to a new person. Thank you. Any other. Yes. Mr. Cornelius. Yes. Just to clarify. So the Bringing Home program, as I understand it, was a two year pilot program. And so we got the funding last year for two years. So at this point we’re working through that. That two year program is expected to assist the 36 households that Steven talked about. Um, now, when the next RFP comes out, we you know, I would imagine that’s probably sometime next year. Then we would be presumably would be expanding the program, um, potentially getting additional funds. So but no, we won’t take any more applications for what we currently have. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments from any members of the Commission? Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. So I have there’s a couple of other updates I wanted to mention that are in the report that that Steven prepared. Um, if there’s nothing else on on bring it home. One was the, um, council study session on July 14th. So, um, that study session, there were two topics. The first topic, um, related to the boulevard. So we started our afternoon with about a 95 plus degree afternoon tour out of the belt era. It was a sweat box, uh, construction site, and there was no air other than the job site trailer. There was no there was no air conditioning in the in the building itself, but council and staff took a tour, which I think was, was, you know, really helpful to see that building coming along. And they’re making good progress there. We anticipate that the, belt, the belt area will open up. You know, sometime fall winter. Uh, so they’re getting pretty close. And that was a nice introduction to then come back from that afternoon tour to then discuss, um, kind of other things that are going on related to the Boulevard. So one was kind of an overall update in terms of what’s going on out there. There’s been a lot of progress. You know, some orthopedics, Coburn’s Chase Bank, uh, a number of buildings that are under construction, a few that are on the drawing board with the developers, in this case, Scannell and Raws were mostly wanted to talk about with council, was the affordability mix for the last two buildings. So when they originally proposed the Boulevard project, uh, their pledge to the city is that 20% of the units, which was they’re estimating roughly 800 units, 20% of those would be affordable at 60%. Ami. And where they’re at right now, with the Belle Terre under construction, with that building having 20% of its units affordable, and now the Melrose, which will be 100% affordable, they’re a little over 30%, I think 31% of the projected units will be affordable. And so they want to adjust the affordability mix on the last two buildings. Um, so we’re still working out those details. They kind of presented a concept to the council. We got some feedback on that. But there’s more more that we need to do with that. So we anticipate that we’ll come back to the council with additional information on that. There may be some additional TIF assistance that’s required as as part of that, in order to make the numbers work. Um, and then the second part was unrelated to housing, and that was talking about potential incentives to attract, uh, the waterfront retail uses that are out there. That’s an important, uh, amenity to, to the city. And I think it’s an important piece of that development. Um, that is a tough market. Uh, the restaurant market. And so we’re trying to figure out, um, incentives and what that would look like to potentially attract particularly more of, like a local restaurant as opposed to a large national chain. So we got some feedback there. There seems to be some interest, but a lot of details that we need to work out. So I thought it was a was a productive conversation with with the council. And I think we got some good, some good feedback. The other topic unrelated to the Boulevard was an update to the council on some discussions that we’ve been having with developers about other development opportunities in Plymouth, um, city center, the area southeast quadrant of 440 455, um, that we’ve been working on for about a year, a year and a half. And then the area around station 73. So we’ve been meeting with developers, asking them questions, getting feedback about opportunities, pros and cons for those sites. Um, just trying to figure out, you know, what is our next, uh, redevelopment priority. And it seems like a lot of the interest from the development community is in City center. And the area that we’re looking at is out in front of lifetime. So there’s some parking out in front of lifetime, where, um, as you might as you might know, the city actually owns all that land around, uh, all the parking around the lifetime, uh, lifetime sits on a ground lease. Uh, the parking is shared. They have a nonexclusive easement to to use that parking. So, um, we feel like there’s an important opportunity there to to redevelop that area, bring some additional residential to. Well, I guess initial residential to city center, retail, ground floor retail. So we have some, some goals. Um, but there are a number of developers that are interested in that site. And so we’re going through that process of, um, eventually, you know, having those folks interview with the council. So that’ll be coming up in September. So we’re really excited about that. You know, there’s a lot of interest in City Center and doing more um, and you know, number of the developers that we talked to have not developed in Plymouth previously. So we got, I think, some really good feedback. Uh, so it’s exciting and we’ll continue to update you on that as, uh, as those plans evolve. So the lifetime project, I’m assuming, would require a fairly large parking ramp in order to open up the space to build residential. That it would. Yeah. And that’s and that that’s a, uh, a role that the city would play in assisting with that parking. We have to replace any parking that we remove since lifetime has access to it. And then you have the parking that the development will need and, you know, potentially additional parking that the Plymouth Ice Center might generate. So more than likely it would be some kind of a public parking facility or some type of assistance to help, I guess, pay for that. So a few moving parts and some details to work out. But yes, parking would be a key, a key piece of making that project successful. Sounds good. Any other questions or comments for Mister Cornelius? Thank you very much, sir. You’re welcome. Uh, next item. Yes. Uh, next item then, is an update on, um, the HRA Housing Commission transition. I realized as we were putting this packet together that I think our last regular HRA meeting was in March. We had the joint meeting with the council, and we did have one in May or April. We had the joint session with council in May and we haven’t met since then, and not everyone was able to attend that joint session. And so I thought, um, maybe I should highlight for those who weren’t there what what happened? I thought it was a good meeting. We discussed roles and responsibilities and HRA governance, how things are currently working. And as you know, um, for all practical purposes, the HRA has acted as an advisory body, even though, um, you, you act as a board and have the powers under HRA statutes, the council basically approves all of the actions that you that you take. And so we discuss pros and cons, how that works in practice. And I think there was some general consensus that we can probably improve efficiency and decision making. And so the general consensus of the council that night is to move in the direction of having the council serve formally as the as the HRA and then creating some kind of a housing advisory commission, which you folks would serve on. We still need to work out the exact roles and responsibilities, but I think for the most part, we would probably function much like we do now. But I think there would be more clarity around who makes the decisions and that that aligns with our bylaws and how we’re, um, how we’re structured. So I think there’s maybe better transparency to the public in terms of how, uh, how the HRA functions. So we’re going to be working on that. Um, we don’t have anything formally scheduled at this point, but we’re already having conversations with the city attorney about what that process would look like. I’m anticipating we’ll go back to council at probably a study session with some options in terms of what that would look like in a process and how the legislative piece would come together. so that by the end of the year, we could get that all sorted out and have the new commission established, have the council, um, you know, serving in their now new kind of official role. So I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. So it wasn’t a wasn’t a surprise and I’d be happy to answer any question. Yeah. Mr. Cornelius, I do have a point. Um, and I have a little bit of concern. The way this is presented in section 7.1, it says the council requested that staff develop a plan to modify the HRA bylaws, to have the city council officially serve as the HRA board. Those of us that were at that meeting, we didn’t hear any specifics regarding that. And the minutes that we received did not reflect that. And the minutes are supposed to reflect what transpired at the meeting. That’s the official record. Um, now, I’m not disputing the fact that the city council has the right power and authority to decide anything that they want to decide. The only thing I’m contesting is the fact that it was decided that day at that session. Had it been decided that day at that session, it would be reflected in the minutes that were sent out. I have a signed copy of the minutes. And not only that, but I had a couple city council members after that meeting requested that I meet with them. I met with them and in fact, I’ve got another one that’s requested a meeting next week. They’ve all expressed appreciation for our efforts and support. We’re willing to do whatever is required of us to do, but this is forming a narrative that that’s already been decided. It was discussed and decided at that meeting, and it’s not reflected in the minutes. If it were. So, Mr. Chair, um, in terms of like formal decisions, no, a formal decision wasn’t made that that night. So I’m not I’m not trying to suggest that a formal decision was made, but consensus in terms of what direction are we going to go that I thought was clear. So that council directed staff to start working on this and come back with a with a plan for them to evaluate and then ultimately approve. So, um, I, I don’t know how to reconcile that, but it was it was it was clear to me that that, that the general direction or consensus, while there wasn’t a vote taken, is that’s the direction the council wanted to go. Well, I’m meeting with another council member next week. And again, the ones that I’ve met with have said that they’ve been very grateful for the efforts that we put forward and supportive of our efforts. Again, the City Council can do whatever they want to do. The point I’m simply making is that the narrative and summary that’s concluded in section 7.1, last paragraph, is not what was decided at that meeting and reflected in these minutes. So I don’t have anything further to say on that. So I would just ask a question about study sessions. My my sense is minutes of study sessions are are very general and and are not meant to be like minutes at an actual council meeting. They just talk about because because they are study sessions. There aren’t actions being taken. So the fact that the consensus that the minutes just say, we talked about this. Correct. So but I think both parts are true. When if I walked out of the meeting that night and I was asked, what did you sense the consensus was, I would have said pretty much what Grant just said, that there were moving towards the council reclaiming the title of HRA, which somebody has required to have that by the state. And that we’re going to reconstitute this commission in some other way. Just to be clarified that we don’t have the authority. And it resolve resides with the the council. So that’s why I think the minutes. I just like to respond to that. If you look at this, the minute it says set future study sessions in the specific action items, very specific going forward. So I’m saying this is not specific may be interpreted that way, but it was not. And again we would submit to the right power and authority of the city council when they decide we have to follow. And we’ve always done that. We’ve never tried to make a decision on anything. We’ve tried to research and try. So to to reflect that, um, what is summarized and it’s in it does delineate very specific items under set future study sessions and agenda topics. It’s specific specifically talks about drafting various things. Specifically. It doesn’t say that in hours. So just a point of, uh, of attention, that’s all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just add that Wayne is absolutely correct that in general speaking, you know, the minutes are meant to be more of a general statement of what occurred at that meeting. We don’t get in details. Maybe when we adopt AI to take our minutes, AI will keep better, more detailed track, but it’s not intended to be like that. It’s more intended to be like, here’s what happened at the meeting. And those study sessions are never to make decisions because they’re not. They’re why they’re public. They’re not televised. And so but staff needs to know what council is thinking in terms of bringing something back in front. When we do discuss it at a normal meeting. So that’s why we develop consensus. We get direction of staff. Um, that’s just totally trying to explain more of, you know, the workings of how a study session go versus a regular meeting go. All right. Are there any further discussions on, uh, section 7.1, the HRA updates? Any further questions? If none. Grant, were you? Excuse me, Mr. Cornelius, were you about to say something? No. Okay, if not, I’d entertain a motion for a chairman of our meeting. Motion? We’ve got a motion. Is there a second? Motion is properly moved in a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. Our meeting is adjourned. Thank you