So as you said today's request is adoption of resolution 2024-25 for $850,000... it would be 0% interest this could change depending they're seeking tax credits as well... and it be co-terminus with a loan from Minnesota housing and that would be between 30 and 40 years.

64.7% of senior renters are housing cost burdened and 90% have greater than 150% of the poverty level... 6% of Edina seniors have incomes of less than $5,060... there's two Section 8 project based Section 8 apartments in Edina that serves this population with 129 units.

The residents only pay 30% of their income and then the HAC contract covers the rest so these residents are not housing cost burdened... it's established that 30% of their income goes towards rent.

Because they... the incomes and the rents are so low there isn't the bandwidth to address major rehabilitation so 20 years later the buildings are in need of some mechanical systems they need Windows they're a little tired... they're really tidy and neat and clean and all that but they're just older.

We're working with LHB Architects to do a physical assessment of the property so as engineers and Architects we've walked both buildings looked at mechanical systems... that's directing us to make repairs to Windows make repairs to the Plumbing Systems which some of them are original to the buildings and are now approaching the end of their useful life.

Within the apartment units we have some original kitchen cabinets flooring... we're anticipating a full refresh of Apartments to upgrade materials... to provide residents you know upgraded living environments also community room spaces that may need some redesign.

I think that um over the years that common Bond's been in we've had such a good relationship with you and uh understand the stresses that you're under... as you try to provide housing for people that is high quality really decent quality housing uh and you getting rents in return that don't cover the cost of operating and and also the cost of maintaining that property uh it is extraordinarily difficult for organizations like yours to to to function.

We currently own these buildings... we transfer it technically legally to a new ownership as a mechanism to create this refinancing... we're going to do with that $10 million is pay off the existing debt that exists... seller equity and we're putting it back into the transaction which is the common Bond seller note so instead of taking cash out to fund operations um it remains in the project as a source of funding.

I strongly encourage you to to do that because we want to see the Energy Efficiency and this is exactly the type of project that those tax credits are aimed at reaching so I I hope that that's part of the final package we see.

I know the Met Council only counts new buildings that are created when they're looking at the metrics for what we've done for affordable housing and I don't know if there's any way to capture Investments like this to say you know when we submit the numbers oh by the way we're investing in ensuring that these houses can remain... it's frustrating because I think this is valuable to that count and it should count.

When we first established this particular Tiff District we included the old Perkins site we included the Tupa Park parcel... as well as the roadways that lead to uh the Perkins site... the need for um for public roadway improvements became obvious um The Limited sidewalks uh lack of bike routes limited roadway capabilities some some safety concerns uh urged us to include all those roadways.

Over the decades there's been several studies about potentially relocating those historic buildings and uh I recall there was three different studies over three different decades and they all came to the same conclusion this would be good we don't know where we're going to put them and we have no idea how we're going to fund them and we're not sure if it's worth the effort.

When we created the Tiff District the thinking was well if there ever is a place to relocate them by using tax increment we could maybe solve that funding problem um there's a lot of ifs in that statement if we decide to do it if there's a place if there's a will if there's a reason.

As we were certifying the district through the county we came to learn that the manner in which city hall and the park were originally uh registered as on a land survey was problematic it wasn't an alignment with the County's expectations um for how you um Define a tiff boundary... we're at a point where there's still more cleanup to do and it's going to take months um uh and uh it doesn't help anything it's just paperwork that has to happen.

We're at a point where we really need to get this tip District certified so our recommendation is to simply just simplify the whole certification process and just remove that Park parcel from the Tiff boundaries.

This will not impede any work that we're going to do on fixing the interchange between 50th and 100 in fact it will facilitate it by making the paperwork and the deeds and everything with a county um right that's correct.

When I look at the stipulations for creating a Redevelopment district one of them is that substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area... if we remove those two buildings are we at risk of invalidating the Tiff District.

Due to how small overall this site is and the Fairly central location of the Perkins building that would still be within the original qualifications um and all the surrounding area that all directly feeds into that in terms of the roadways we do not think that that would invest validate any of the original findings... the finding that needs to be made is that greater than 50% of the buildings that are included within the Tiff District need to qualify a substandard so when we remove this parcel we will still have one of one building that was originally substandard so that's 100%.

By removing these Parcels from this Tiff District today I believe that would disallow the use of Tiff on those Parcels um I mean hypothetically in the future maybe we can reconsider a new Tiff District just to include those Parcels that's a whole another conversation that could that could be had um but by removing this parcel today the Eden Wilson Tiff funds would not be available to to move those buildings.

At this point um the the likelihood of needing that option and using that option is very minimal... the likelihood of needing that option and using that option is very minimal.

The last item this morning is resolution 2024-4... the use of tax increment funds generated from this Eden Wilson District to pay for the roadway Improvement that are currently underway... about $5.4 million of that of that uh debt obligation that will be incurred in the next month will be focused on paying for these public improvements so the resolution this morning is simply the uh uh the agreement of the HRA that when tax increment funds are available from the Eden Wilson district will repay the debt um that will be incurring um as a city council when the Deb is actually incurred in I think Late July early August there's a another page where the city council will agree to accept those funds so it's a little bit of pingpong as far as uh the process.