Ready to go? Everybody ready? Okay, here we go. Well, good morning everybody and welcome to the uh Housing Redevelopment Authority meeting. It is March 5th, 2026, 7:31 a.m. And um we're doing these meetings in the uh now our traditional hybrid fashion. Some people are watching in from home or have that at least have that ability. And here are the uh numbers if you want to call in today for community comment. That's the only uh portion of the agenda where somebody can call in uh and express a concern to the HR about something that's not on the agenda today or scheduled for a future public hearing. Uh and uh otherwise we'll take on folks in the audience first and have them express their concerns if there are any here that do. We've got some folks with us this morning and colleagues and neighbors of ours uh and so welcome them as well to be here with us today. And uh having provided that we'll call the meeting to order and I'll ask the the role be called and I assume our executive director is doing that. >> Thank you your honor. Commissioner Risser >> here. >> Commissioner Jackson >> here. >> Commissioner Pierce. >> Commissioner an Agnu >> here. >> Chair Huffland >> here. Uh next is the pledge of 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. [clears throat] >> We've got a meeting agenda that's been uh published for the benefit of the H and the general public so they know what we're working on today. Is there any change to the agenda by staff or HA commissioners? Uh, hearing nothing. Is there motion to approve the meeting agenda as published? >> So moved. I second. >> Commissioner Jackson moves. Commissioner Agns the adoption of the meeting agenda is published for the H on this 5th day of March 2026. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adopting the meeting agenda is published say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Carried. We have an agenda to work from. And now we're at community comment. I don't know if there's anyone in in the audience here who wishes to come forward and address the H and a matter of concern to them, but you're sure welcome to come forward. >> Seeing nothing or seeing no one coming forward and hearing nothing. Turn to the online. >> I don't have anyone on the line. Just a second, but because there is a brief delay in the broadcast, I would recommend we wait about a minute or so before moving on. My clock shows that it's 7:33. I'll come back to you at 7:34 or when I have a caller, whichever's first. >> Okay. Thank you. It is now 7:34 and I still do not have a caller, so I think it's safe for you to move forward with your agenda. >> All right. Very good. Let me check in with our executive director to see if he has anything to report out on from our last H meeting. >> Nothing to report. >> All right. Very good. [snorts] Uh, we've got a couple of items on the consent agenda. Is there anyone that wishes to move the items on the consent or remove an item from the consent agenda? Let me ask that first. Okay. Uh, someone care to move the adoption of the items on the consent agenda. >> So moved. I second. >> Commissioner Jackson moves Commissioner Agnu seconds the adoption of the items on the consent agenda. Uh, any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the items on the consent agenda in a single motion say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Carried. >> Those items are adopted. the minutes of February 19 and the United Housing Foundation appointments. Couple of real capable people continuing to want to serve the city and the housing foundation. Pleased to have them back. Um in fact it's uh Bernardet Hornig and Mary Kay McNe and Anne Swinson people that are doing just a terrific job for that foundation and uh some different skill sets there that are really important to have Bernardet's experience in housing with her family and Mary Kay McNe with the mortgage industry and then Anne Swenson our former colleague here uh providing some good guidance to everybody. So, thanks for your continued service, those that were now reappointed to the United Housing Foundation. Uh well, it is the uh Stephanie Hawinson show today and uh we didn't get to this last time, but we're going to give you the rest of the time that you need to talk about a couple of things that u I think all of us uh you know throughout the metro. You can't believe the way people have responded to their neighbors and and community members in this time of need in this time of difficulty with um immigration enforcement operations taking place in the Twin Cities. people have been uh I mean they've just have been uh so robust if you will and um beyond even expectation as to what is a good neighbor and u cities are and and counties I think elements of state government are thinking about the same things. How do we get people through the the economic uh impact of this this tale that lingers as Homeland Security decides to uh wind down forces on Operation Metro Surge? So, uh we've been thinking about it as well and thinking about this uh la money that we get, the sales tax money and how we might be able to help people with either emergency rental assistance and I think people are also working on food security issues. Uh we're going to get people back to work and get everything going again. Get the kids back in school. Uh but uh we've requested that Miss Hawinson is our affordable housing development manager and kind of our overseer of those la funds. Give us some ideas about how we could further help people in need. And you've got that's at least one of the things on your agenda this morning. And that's the first thing is to potentially amend the agree the grant agreement we have with VEP uh for emergency rental assistance. So, I'm going to turn to you now on that issue. >> Thank you. I think you did a stellar job. I don't know if I have much more to say. All right. >> Um, I do not have a presentation. I did have some a statement to read. Um, it'll be a little reiterative. Um, but thank you. Um, so I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to you about the um urgent need for emergency rental assistance. As we know, over the past several weeks, federal immigration activity in Minnesota, known as Operation Metro Surge, has created widespread fear and uncertainty among many of our residents. We are hearing from hospitals, schools, construction firms, and service industry employers that workers are staying home, sheltering in place, and avoiding public spaces out of fear of detention. There are individuals who contribute every day to the economic and social fabric of Edina and they are faced with the impossible choice. Risk detention by going to work or risk eviction by staying home without wages. Our city's immigration response task force evaluated a range of community requests including the idea of an eviction moratorum. After careful review, the task force concluded that an eviction moratorum would not be in the best option for many un because there's many unintended consequences. The main goal is to keep people in their homes. We believe the best way to do this is to provide emergency rental assistance with a trusted partner who has experienced doing so. This approach is both lawful and effective in promoting housing stability. At the February 4th council meeting, you as a city council endorsed this direction. You approved a resolution urging the governor to provide immediate emergency rental funding through established organizations. You also adopted a legislative platform that supports emergency rental assistance financing. These actions send a strong message, but as we all know, state and legislative processes take time. Meanwhile, the need for a community is imminent. The city has a long history of partnering with BEP to administer emergency rental assistance during times of crisis. During the CO 19 pandemic, the city allocated approximately 1 million in CARES and ARPA funding to VEP, enabling residents to remain housed while they sheltered in place. As residents regained financial stability, the city support appropriately scaled back. More recently, in August 2025, the H awarded 200,000 from the local affordable housing aid, LAAHA, to be for emergency rental assistance. It was double the amount awarded in 2024, which reflected both the ongoing community need and significant reductions on the federal level. However, that $200,000 is now largely expended already, much sooner than anticipated due to the sudden and severe impact of Operation Metro Surge. This brings us to the recommendation today. To meet the urgent need for rental assistance, staff recommends a forward commitment of $300,000 from the anticipated 2026 LAA allocation. Because 2026 funds will not be available until July, VEP would temporarily draw from unspent 2025 funds designated for the affordable ownership preservation program. Then once the 2026 funds come in, we'll reimburse the um ownership preservation program. This approach allows VEP to begin providing assistance immediately without waiting for next year's funding cycle. It also preserves the city long-term housing goals by ensuring the ownership preservation program remains whole. Even with his forward commitment, more than $500,000 from the projected 2026 LAA allocation would remain available for other affordable housing initiatives. If the demand for rental assistance decreases, BEP has up to three years to fully disperse the funds, giving the city flexibility and minimizing financial risk. I want to emphasize why VEP is the right partner for this work. VEP is one of the only social service agencies that provides Adina residents with both housing advocacy and financial assistance. The process is structured, efficient, and compassionate. They screen households quickly, verify eligibility, work directly with landlords, and issue payments prevent eviction. They also provide critical housing advocacy, communicating with property managers, negotiating payment plans, and helping residents understand their rights and responsibilities. These services are especially vital for households facing language barriers or unfamiliarity with housing systems. In short, VEP has the infrastructure, the experience, and the trust of the community to deliver this assistance efficiently. Today, we are asking you to take action that is urgent. Operation Metro Surge created a crisis that is putting families at risk of eviction through no fault of their own. Emergency rental assistance is the most effective tool we have to keep people housed, maintain community stability, and prevent homelessness. A forward commitment of the 2026 LAA funds allows us to respond now when families need it most while preserving our long-term housing strategies. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions, as is Carrie Thompson, VEP's executive director, who is here. >> Yeah, thanks for that presentation. And I noticed that Carrie Thompson was with us this morning and um uh the executive director for VEP. And I'm going to turn to my colleagues now, but I want to maybe have you come and address us as well uh on this issue uh your firsthand experience at VEP so that we can have a good backgrounding >> have a good backgrounding before we make make a decision on this matter. And and I'm going to turn to Commissioner Agnes. She may have had a question before you begin your conversation. Yeah, absolutely. [clears throat] I was just going to ask one clarifying question. So, it doesn't look like we're asking for additional funding, but we're pulling funding and then later we'll pay it back. So, the the funding level is equal overall. Is that correct? >> That is correct. We have already allocated our 2025 LAA funds, but there are some that are unspent. So, they've been pledged, but they have they're still in our account. So, we're asking for a commitment of the 26, but drawing on the funds that are sitting in our account right now. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Mercer. >> How low are our rental assistant funds right now? >> Well, Carrie may have uh updated, but as of last week, there was enough for a few more houses. That's it. They drew almost all the rental assistance. >> My concern is that this amount is not going to get us all the way through July 2026 and then when we get to July 26, it may be that we need more rental assistance funds. But at that, I guess what I'm getting at is is there a number we want to think about where the funds get down to where we might want to come back and try to figure out how to get more rental assistance like just sort of a a low trigger point or something. >> Yeah, I think um manager Hawin >> uh commissioners, we are in communication fairly regularly. I'm there twice a week um myself. Uh and so we talk and we just check in. And if that were to happen, if funds in June um become low or funds in May they're low, I will definitely come back to you since there is um we have sitting in the account right now about $800,000 that has not been drawn from the previous requests. So whether we're sitting on a balance because the affordable ownership preservation program takes time to find the homes and to you know have a purchase agreement. So there's a lag time. So there is some room for um additional funds if you so choose um to come back to you if the need becomes there. >> And remind us again what our annual allocation is generally about of la >> last year is around 876,000. So I'm estimating it'll be similar to last year. I don't know if spending has increased um it could be a little lower um than last year. So I'm you know I'm in my mind in this report I wrote 800 you know that allocate pre-allocating 300 now which would leave 500 for future allocation um to be conservative but we won't know until July. >> Okay. follow on. >> I've got questions. >> With um our previous allocation, the amount of rental assistance um the year before, I can't remember what the percentage was, but I believe this allocation, the most recent one, percentage-wise, the amount of money we got up got received went up, but the percentage going to rental assistance actually went down a tiny bit. And I'm wondering if we want to really revisit the idea that we may need to make a much larger commitment of to rental assistance with the LAA funds. So just want to articulate that. >> Okay. Yeah, that'd be something good to analyze in July, I guess, or whatever you think that timing could be. All right, Miss Thompson, thanks for being with us this morning. Really appreciate the work your organization is doing here in the broader community. just praise for the for the effort that you're putting forth and the guidance you're giving people and you know delivering food to homes and and uh for those folks that are that are doing it the [clears throat] traditional way and coming to VEP uh and then the rental assistance program just doing remarkable work uh and we thank you for that and we thank you for being a great partner for Edina. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor Havlin and commissioners, and thank you, Miss Hawinson, for being such a terrific advocate for us as well. Um, yes, we are, you know, since this really for us, this all kind of started with the government shutdown to be honest in November and then it just has kind of kept going as the ICE occupation happened and Operation Metro Surge. But we have done a lot of shifting in how we get things to people over the last couple of months. Um you you know obviously our on-site food pantry is still open for people to come but as we saw people feeling afraid to leave their homes. We did some pretty significant shifting and how we provide those services and uh were able to secure about 600 volunteers from this community alone to just help drive uh food to people in Edina. Um so that has been wonderful to see. This is a great community. I live in Edina as well and I just love to see neighbors helping each other out in this community. It's just so wonderful to see. Um, in terms of the rental assistance, uh, as Miss Hawinson said, of the 200,000, we have helped 61 households so far with that in Edina. And there is about $8,000 left of that to spend on rental assistance, which really will be for just a couple of households. As Miss Hawinson said, we're seeing now we're where it was one month to keep people housed. Now it's a couple of months and we do anticipate that this is going to go on for a while. Um, as you know, anybody who's vulnerable and low income is when they have a crisis that hits like this, it takes quite a while to get back on your feet, especially if they now haven't been working at all. Um, they may need to find new jobs again, things like that. I know in my own neighborhood in Edina, I was home one morning and witnessed ice come roll down the street and take all of the workers off the roof across the street from me who were building a home. So all of those people just disappeared in the middle of the day. Um so it's been it's been tough to watch. I think for us we're seeing a lot of um a lot of people who are afraid to to come into VEP even. Um, fortunately with our rental assistance programming, we can do all of that over the phone with folks. Um, it's really easy to uh do the eligibility screenings, get the stuff sent via email, speak with the landlords, and make that happen quickly and efficiently. As Miss Hawinson said, we've been doing this a really long time. Um, we have a lot of systems in place to ensure that there isn't fraud happening and that we are really serving the people who need to be served. So, I just want to thank this group for um helping us to do that and to help the city of Edina. It's been really we've been really appreciative of how much you have stepped up and been leaders in the community on this. So, thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thanks, Miss Thompson. Uh on that last issue you just raised, it seems like when we talked before that um >> um you have some qualifying criteria for rental assistance and we do. And I think that we were we were comforted by that that you were doing a careful job of screening and making sure that we were trying to get the best use out of these funds as possible. >> Yes. Yes, we do. And I know there's a lot of groups right now with these mutual aid groups and things that are doing rent assistance, which as well, which is terrific. We appreciate all the help we can get with, you know, keeping people in their homes. But the one thing that we that we can say is we do offer that um oversight that some of these groups just don't have. We've got systems already in place for ensuring that these really are renters and really are landlords. We've got a database that we can just immediately look up tax IDs on landlords. So, we are really good at ensuring that this is safe and the oversight is there. >> Good. Commissioner Jackson has a few questions for either you or staff, I think, or >> Yes, I it's for Miss Thompson. Thank you for being here. Um, and so I want to start with a thank you. Without VEP, I don't know what would have happened honestly. Um the outpouring of first of all the need and and the fear and to have a trusted partner to be able to reach people who are in need and in fear is incredibly important, but then the outpouring from the community, the number of people who want to help and where do you turn? Go to VEP. And so I know it's been a lot of work for your staff to uh to accommodate all of this. Um but boy are we very very grateful for the work that you do. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. We appreciate that. >> Yeah. And so one of the questions I have is about the use of fire station 2. Can you tell us what VEP's operations are and when they are at fire station 2? >> Yeah. So we are working in fire station 2 to provide really all of our services as well as case management on an off-site location to be right in the city of Edina. And um we are really liking that arrangement uh and super appreciative that we have a place to do that. We've seen a really good um response to being right in the city of Edina. We can provide food to people out of that location and we can provide case management services, information and referral as well as the rent assistance programming. So we can do all of that. Um, in terms of when they're there, I was not prepared to answer that today. Um, so I'll have to get back to you on that. But they are there a couple of times a week. Um, so several hours a week as well. So I think they're there I think they're there two two half days a week, but I will have to double check that for sure for you. >> Terrific. So, uh, Director Benerat, is that something that we can put on our immigration um, information on the website? >> It's already there. >> It's already there. Okay. Wonderful. So people can go to our website, click on the immigration help and the hours uh at fire station 2 are there. So wonderful. Thank you. Yes. Um and I just always want to um repeat when we give aid like this the importance of keeping people out of homelessness because to give them rental assistance is a direct payment but to get them out of homelessness is infinitely more expensive and more complicated. So thank you for providing that service and we're happy to keep people in their homes and keep them safe. Absolutely. Yeah, that's one of the things that we do along with just paying the rent obviously is the case management services as well. So if we do see that someone is in a situation where this is just going to be continue to be an ongoing problem for them, we will work on trying to help resolve that with them whatever that looks like. So um those services are in addition to the rent assistance. So, >> so then that prompted another question as I listening. Um, do we do you provide help in looking at late fees and other kind of add-ons that um, uh, landlords might be doing because I've heard that in the news that there are certain landlords that have done that. Um, do you need help from us in doing that? And is that something that you can help manage for the people who are renting? >> Yep. We will help with late fees. We'll help with utilities if they get behind in utilities as well. We part of our case management work is we will negotiate as well with the landlords and typically they're pretty responsive to us. We've been working with all of these landlords for a really long time. So it it occasionally we'll encounter someone that doesn't want to work with us on negotiating, but most of the time um we're pretty successful in that as well. >> Terrific. Thank you so much. You know, I'm thinking as Commissioner Jackson's visiting with you that Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Risser with their city council person hats on are going to the National League of Cities meeting. I'm I I'm sure that this will come up as an issue and I'm wondering if you could provide manager Hawinson or directly to these two uh commissioners information broadly about what you've seen the impact from the government shutdown and the um and the kind of assistance that you're rendering whether it's food security or otherwise the number of volunteers you got working with you because people are going to be comparing city to city state to state and who's doing what. Yeah. >> So, it' be good for them to have all this great information and work that you do. Absolutely. And your model for how you do it because other states might be wondering what they can do and but they don't know where to start. So, these these two could give them some really good guidance. I think >> Yeah. Just let me know when you would need that by and we can absolutely provide that to you. I >> think it's less than two weeks. [laughter] >> Yeah. We're It's the um 15th I believe when we leave. So, >> end of the week. End of the week. Next week. Okay. >> Yeah. We can put a couple pages together for you for that. >> Yeah. Great. Okay, back to Manager Hawkins. No, were you looking for a motion now? Anything else you want to add, Miss Thompson? >> No, just thank you very much. We really appreciate our long-term partnership with Adina. >> Yeah. Uh Mutual, [laughter] as we've talked about. Uh so the motion would be to amend the VEP grant agreement to increase funding by $300,000 for emergency rental assistance and approve all necessary agreements and related documents to implement administer that uh that grant agreement program in its amended form. Is there a motion to that effect? >> So moved. I second. Commissioner Jackson moves. Commissioner Agnu seconds the motion as stated to amend the VEP grant agreement to increase funding by $300,000 for emergency rental assistance and approve all necessary agreements and related documents to implement and administer the program in its amended fashion. Uh any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion as stated say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed carried. The motion's adopted and uh we'll amend that grant agreement and get those extra funds to you to assist people. >> Wonderful. Thank you very much everyone. Before you're while you're getting set up there, I I had on the DAS this morning a notification. I'm telling you people in the audience this uh because we've all looked at this up here. I got a written piece of communication from the senior housing foundation that the senior housing cooperative conference uh is being held uh Wednesday and Thursday, May 20th and 21st uh at the Double Tree Hotel in Bloomington. And that core function of that organization is connecting senior housing co-ops with each other uh relative to a wide variety of resources and tools. I don't know if any of uh the folks that are interested in affordable housing are also interested in this senior housing cooperative conference, but uh I've got the information up here if you want to see it after the meeting, but those are the those are the dates. And I didn't have any times, but I'm sure you could find it easily. Okay, Andrew Hawinson, >> my apologies that my back is to you, but that's where my screen is. Um hello. Uh I wanted to talk have a start a conversation with you all today about the affordable housing policy. Over the past year or more um comments have been stated periodically about how there needs to be modifications or changes or if it's going far enough or not going um it's going too far or whether or not the direction is correct. And so since only the mayor was here when the policy was drafted and created, I thought I'd give some a little bit of background information of when this came into being um and what incentivized it, and then um give some outline about what it states, some ideas to think about if changes are needed or wanted um to start the discussion. And it's not in today's discussion. There's no vote. Um, I have no proposed amendments that I'm bringing forward. It's to get it going and possibly carrying this over to the April meeting to wrap up some discussion. Um, so the policy was created in 2015. This was midway through the last comprehensive plan. By this point in time of the affordable housing goals um that were created in the comp plan, zero were created. And so we the first five years in there was no affordable housing. There were discussions. It was done um prior to a formal policy when developers came in and wanted to propose a multif family development. There were discussions about okay but could you include affordable housing? That worked to um some extent and it also allowed um where some developers made a payment in lie. They're like, "No, but why don't we give you money to help you with um affordable housing elsewhere?" But there wasn't a formal policy. So, one was after about a year or so of discussion, one was drafted and approved in 2015. Um, as I said, prior to the policy, the H and staff negotiated with developers on a case-byase basis, and the city council directed the housing foundation to create a policy. So, it was in their hands. They did some research what was happening nationally. They worked with staff and a policy was developed. So the policy is based off examples from around the city. Now due to ADA I will say that that is a picture of the finch that also has inclusion of affordable housing within it. The initial policy goals was to have the private sector develop the housing to not put in the government hands. If private developers are coming and proposing multif family developments, have them do the ones that are doing the affordable housing. And it was also to integrate affordability in with market rate to not have a bifurcated system where you have 100% affordability, 100% market rate. It was to create a more integrated community to have so and that would be done by the private developers and then to address similarly to address the need for affordability outside the 100% affordable model that requires a significant amount of government um involvement. And in the early days with lower interest rates, lower construction costs, lower labor costs than what we're experiencing now, the delta between the market rate rents and the affordable rents was enough to cause them to happen without additional subsidies with the changes of interest rates with the changes in the market with multiple different changes that happen starting with CO but I don't know if we can blame CO completely um with tariffs the the economics have changed. So even when there is the inclusion of affordable units, there is um a need for some government involvement, significantly less than if it were in 100% affordable development, but there's still some need. Oh, and for ADA, that picture is of the proposed setting at 7200 France. >> Thank you. um question. With the new ADA requirements, you have to verbally say what the building is, but it doesn't have to have text underneath it to say what it is. I'm just trying to learn. I don't understand. >> It either has to have alt text, so when you hover over it with a mouse, like a little gray box pops up with that description. You need that and you need to describe it. You need both of those things. >> And I do have an alt text in the PowerPoint. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so how this policy as written has drafted how it applies it is for multifamily developments of greater 20 units or greater. So a development with 15 units would not it would not get triggered. Um, so it's 20 units and one of the following either the city or the HA awards financing. The city grants a zoning change PUD particularly or a comprehensive plan amendment and the development is built on city or HA owned land. This is one of the reasons for the PUDS was that it triggered the affordable housing policy. If a project came in that was completely code compliant and did not need a zoning change or a comp plan change um and even if it were 20 or more units it would not trigger the affordable housing policy at we've done some modifications over the years slight tweaks the same premise remains but there have been some slight tweaks um so what is required for affordability is that 10% of the units are restricted at 50% of the rent AMI rent levels or 20% of the units are restricted at 60% AMI rent levels. Since the policy has um been adopted, we are only seeing the 50% rent levels. That does allow for people with 60% incomes, however, because um in order to increase the bandwidth of who would be eligible to rent there because the incomes are so close um that you can have a 60% up to 60% AMI income to be in a 50% unit. Um otherwise, it's just too restrictive and it would be hard to rent those units. Um the rental units are affordable for 20 years unless there's city financing in which case they have to be affordable for at least 30 years. Ownership units have a 30year affordability period. Um proposed develop uh developments that are reaching maximum density must include the units rather than doing a buyin. And but there's some flexibility built in and you all could um elect to accept the buyin and it's right now at 175,000 per unit that's not affordable. So times 10% of the units. um the financial risk of similar they can put a financial risk similar to what they would do in their own building in another building or they can preserve up to 110% of the unit count in another building. We have not we've not seen the second and third bullet points. We have seen the buyin but um not where they put financial risk in another building. So contemplated changes um Just to throw out there, nothing's happened. Um, is that to create a separate section for ownership and rental, a buy in of 175 for ownership. We may want to contemplate whether or not that is sufficient when ownership levels are so much higher. Um, other communities, they have taken what the affordable would be and what the market rate of what they're selling and they divide the difference and that's the buyin fee. That's how other communities are doing it. Um, so I we may want to we may want to look at 175 per rental. Uh, it costs the about 350,000 to create the affordable unit. So is a buy in of 175 sufficient um when we would have to spend about 350 or it's just for them it's a lot lower bar to buy in at 175 even for rental. Do we want to review the percentage of units required at 60%. We're not getting any. Um do we want to review do we lower that percentage is 20 too high a bar? 20% of them. Do we want to look at lowering it to 15? Other cities do have 15. Do we want to introduce the idea of 30% units? Um, most of the calls I get from seniors who are on very fixed incomes. This is what they're looking for. Uh, right now I know there's concern about the 30% units in 100% affordable housing. And it's because um our other funding partners, Minnesota Housing in particular, require that the 30% units go to households that off the coordinated entry list there a lot. And that means they have to have experienced homelessness. There are a lot of folks that have 30% incomes that have never experienced homelessness and they are being excluded from a lot of our rental opportunities. Um, as planned unit developments trigger the affordability requirement. If we're moving away from PUDS, what do we have as a trigger? Uh, do we what is it any sort of zoning change? Is it variances? Is it legally allowed to do variances? Because variances you need to when you're asking for one or if they're asking for one, it's there's a direct correlation. So exploring whether or not there are other triggers if we move away from PUDS. Um, city of United has to have uh an affordable component based upon the percentages that we require at present. for example, >> if if they are code compliant and um guided comp plan compliant, we need to explore that. Um the laws have changed recently in the state level regarding affordable housing and what can be required. Um as a statutory plan B city, we have more restrictions than what Minneapolis can do and other cities can do. Um so I'm working with an attorney now. She sent me an email at the end of the day yesterday really wanting to dive into this and what are all the legal parameters of what we can enforce. >> Commissioner, do you have a did I prompt a question from you? >> Oh, um, yeah. When you mentioned Minneapolis, I I I worked on a project in in Minneapolis down on Lake Street uh in my day job and found out that um Minneapolis with respect to buildings that have that meet the affordable housing criteria requirements uh get some sort of reduction on their property taxes. And I don't know if that's in your >> would that be the I mean if they meet a certain percentage of units of affordable they can qualify for 4D uh for those affordable units and we do have a 4D program with our inclusionary housing policy right now um the 10% does not meet that threshold. It would have to be 20% of the units have to be affordable in order to get that property tax reduction. >> Okay. Okay. So that's something to think about in the in the quiver as well. Another potential arrow in the quiver. >> And to the point of your earlier question, ours is a policy right now and not a zoning. It's not an inclusionary zoning ordinance. It's a policy. So there could be more requirements if it became part of our zoning code. >> Yeah. So if it was an ordinance and not just a policy, >> correct? >> Yep. Okay. um clarify process in the event there's a deviation from the policy. We've had situations where developers wanted to do a longer affordability period if they had fewer than the 10% minimum. Um having perpetual affordability does meet a policy objective. Um but since the policy set up to 10% it was uh considered that that was the hard line. And so whether or not you want to be able to write in some ability for a deviation and um as I mentioned before whether or not you want to consider uh buyin differential between ownership and rental and whether or not you want to consider a buyin that is based on some sort of index. So we don't need to if it becomes part of code we don't need to revise the code every year or every two years. So, you know, some of those things to think about. Commissioner Russer. Um, another thing to think about is when there's more than one of those three um, triggers that are involved and it's already a PUD and then there's additional funding that goes to the project because one of the things that surprised me was I thought the developer had to provide the affordable units if they received the PUD because there were benefits they were getting from the PUD. and then it comes up later. No, they're providing that, but they shouldn't have to pay for it. So, we're going to, you know, provide spark on top of it. And it would be good to have a policy that clarifies when we're saying 20% or whatever percent we land 10% or whatever we land on. It is expected that this you know who will bear the costs and I think more clarity on that and it's not just affordable housing. It's also you know thinking about u putting in roads who is responsible for paying for those costs. So just kind of a comment that we need more clarity on who's footing the bill. >> Chair Commissioner, that's that's really challenging to do because it's based on the economics of the project. You know, they're they're investors in developments affordable or market can invest anywhere. They can invest in the gold market. They can invest in um Austin, Texas. They are not committed to investing in Edina. And they don't have to invest in Edina. So they are in order for a project to move forward at all the numbers have to work and if the numbers don't work they will not develop and the affordable housing um units causes the return the returns the income from that building is reduced and so if they come forward and they have a certain amount of affordable units or they're doing some things we want based on the policy and the numbers don't work they may need to ask for money if the numbers work and we evaluate that and we see what the return on investment is and we write it into our um agreements that they have if they reach exceed this return they will not get as much money from us if that's what makes it so it moves forward we need to consider that and so we it depends on the whole universe of the economics of that development tariffs labor costs interest rates all those factors play a role and that's how we evaluate whether or not a development needs the money. We wouldn't give it if it doesn't have a public purpose, it's no, it's no-brainer. If they want need money and it's not a project we want, they're not going to get the money. But if they're meeting public purpose and they need the money, we bring it forward for consideration. If it meets a public purpose and they don't need the money, we don't bring it forward for financial consideration. So I think you cannot codify in writing or in rules or regulation when they it's the um the bill is on their responsibility versus ours because it it has to do with the whole financing package of that development. >> It caused a follow on for you commissioner. >> Yes, it does. Okay. But and and I think we've kind of circled around to this issue before and part of my frustration and I think I'm hearing from well I am hearing from members of the public is when we do that and we move forward with the financing um and we are layering public support. Um, we don't really know what we're getting and I know we have differing opinions. Um, for some I believe counting doors is sufficient. For others, people want to know what is it that we're getting for our money square footage. Um, how expensive is this affordable housing? And I did go back because I haven't received um the square footage for what the 4.86 86 million of spark is getting us at the settings. Some of those units are in the 500 square foot range. So they're very small and I think you know we're talking about investments of quite a bit of funding and I think there needs to be more transparency and then going into these projects understanding just how much public investment is going to be needed and exactly how many people we're going to be able to help because if it's mostly 500 square units that we're spending that amount of money on I think we need to be able to weigh that as we're approaching this and find out, you know, is this really an investment we want to make. The other thing is as we think about how funds are being used, the spark money, if it goes toward helping a small number of people and it doesn't go back to the general fund, the uptick [clears throat] in property taxes is something that is becoming more and more burdensome on people who are really, you know, on those fixed incomes or not. There are a lot of families in Edina that are not making six figures. So you know who is paying the cost. So that I think those decisions and those issues somehow need to be in our policy somehow so that there is a little bit there is more transparency and we're not ending up inadvertently shifting financial burden on Adina residents who can bear it the least. So um those are my concerns high level. >> Commissioner Jackson. >> Thank you Mr. Mr. Chair, so I want to do a little level setting. After the Great Recession, interest rates went to near zero. Sometimes they were actually negative. And we were in a very low interest rate era for over a decade. And so when this policy was written, it was after years of advocacy. It was written in 2015 initially. Interest rates were very, very low. And so the community expectation was if there's a PUD there's enough value created to pay for affordable housing. Then we had CO and after COVID interest rates shot up and costs of labor shot up and costs of goods shot up and so that margin that was able to pay for affordable housing disappeared. And so I think what has caused the need for this review is a need to realign our expectations. Um so the world we're living in in 2026 is not the world we were living in in 2015. And so I just want the public to think about that that as you said, Miss Hawinson, they have to make money. The money will go somewhere else if not here. And so the expectation that a PUD alone will pay for affordable housing is no longer a realistic expectation. So, in in the past, you've told us, and I remember the figure, $350,000 for one affordable unit, and that's, you know, an average size. Um, is that approximately what it costs for one affordable unit to be built, for instance, in a 100% affordable housing building? >> Uh, chair, commissioners, that is the amount of money that is lost through the lower reduced rent. It costs now north of $400,000 to build in a 100% affordable housing development one apartment unit. The market has some bearing on the size of the unit. If it's too small, it won't rent and no one will build it um because their investors will not invest in a a property that is not rentable. Um so the market has a lot to do with unit size. Um if it you know if it's a micro unit there is a market for mic micro units but then it's sold as such and the investors are a certain type of investor. Um so the loss of income so when we did the evaluation we took a market rate unit um I think what we used as an example was Maison green um as a case study. We took a market rate unit and we took affordable unit and we spread it out over 20 years. the delta in what you get in those rents. And the loss of income was $350,000 per unit times those 20 units. That's a loss of income overall. When you're talking about an investor or how much money you can borrow from a bank or the value of a building, that $350,000 loss per unit has an impact on the bottom line. And so it costs them through investments or through lending 350,000 roughly per unit in loss of income. >> Okay. Thank you. So I took a look a a while back at how we could increase the 60% AMI units and what I learned is that there are so many variables it's almost impossible. So to think about putting into policy um how much money we're expecting from uh lend or from developers to to put up for affordable housing is impossible because given uh changes in rent rental rates given changes in interest rates and all these variables it was impossible to know what the loss would be at a 60% AMI um unit at any given time because they're just you couldn't I I made an equation. I'm like, there's no way I can fill these variables. Um, so I think that's very important not to put that into our policy. Um, but one thing that member Risser or Commissioner Risser brought up which I don't know is in our policy and that is I know in our TIF agreements we have said the affordable units need to be a percentage of what the the size and comparable to the other units that are in the building. That's that's my understanding. So that if there are 10 single, you know, studios, one of those is a affordable. If there are 10 twobedroom units, you know, one of those is affordable. Is that in our policy? It's in the policy that the affordable unit mix needs to be relatively proportional to the market rate unit mix. there. We say relatively proportional because in some of these market rate units you have the penthouse that is 4,000 square feet. We do not have the expectation that a penthouse will be affordable. And so we had to write in that flexible language to account for pen houses. >> Okay. But as we put together tiff agreements um for affordable housing, we make sure we say okay we're looking at the number of studios. We don't want all the affordable units to be the tiny studios. We want them to be mixed and we want them to be um indistinguishable from the the market rate units. Is that correct? >> Indistinguish. That is correct. As far as um bedroom counts, that is correct. As far as hallways, there are we do allow for some distinction and internal um finishings. We may not have a Viking stove in an affordable unit. It may be a frigid air or may tag. Um so there are some of those costs or else our the gap would be significantly higher >> but as far as floor space goes do we >> floor space it's it's relative. >> Okay. All right. >> It's proportional. >> Great. Thank you >> Mr. Agnu. >> Thank you. And thank you [clears throat] for raising this conversation. I know we've had a lot of conversations about it but I think it's important for us to be intentional with it. Um the things that you know continue to be really important to me is I think overarchingly right that we have this as a priority within our city. Um we know that it's it's a problem nationally. It's definitely a problem within Minnesota and it's something that we experience directly here in Nina. So for me it's it's really important that this continues to be a priority. So thank you for all of the work that you put into this and for your role in our community. based on conversations I've had, I I think, you know, there's always these splits between rental versus ownership and it can't be an all or nothing, right? There's both play a role in our overall strategy. Um, I think where a lot of the progress has been made is in that renter area. Um, because it's so much more costly to do the ownership. um there's just not as much that we can do within the ownership space. Um it c there's not very many options for us to, you know, buy and then rehabilitate. Um and even when we look at some of the like [clears throat] condo type opportunities, those just aren't as prevalent with some of the uh state laws that we have in place right now. Um, and so I know I can say, you know, Miss Hawinson, it's really important for us to do more ownership opportunities. Um, but that doesn't all of a sudden like make it happen. You [snorts] presented though one, I think really unique idea that I hadn't thought about yet, and that was, um, whether there's a different buyin amount if it's a rental property versus an ownership property. Um, and I think that's really interesting because that I think would give us the ability to um almost do like a like forlike replacement because it is so much more costly for us to do ownership. Um, but if we have a condo building going up or something like that, the ability to increase the buy in, I'm assuming it would be an increase, um, I think helps with that overall vision that we have. Um, so that's something I'd like to dig a little bit more into when you think about how this tactically changes our our policy. Um, and then one thing that I didn't see on one of the slides that I know has come up recently and we've talked about with some of the recent projects, um, is affordability in perpetuity. And I know that you found some really interesting ways to kind of make some of these properties long-term, almost like forever affordable. Um, but the some of the reference points you had was, you know, where we have 20 years of ability to to hold them to that affordable level versus 30 years. Um, and so I'd like to continue to understand like where do we have the levers that we can do in perpetuity versus the 20 to 30year affordability ranges. So, I don't know if that's something you can speak to right now, but I would also just say like as we're thinking about policy shifts, perpetuity is really important, although I'm sure it's a lot more costly. But just know that's kind of where my mind goes to. >> I can make some brief comments on that now, but with the direction to look into it further. Um, we are able to do that at the 100% affordable housing project at 4040 because we did not sell the land to the owner. It's under a ground lease. We maintain um the foundation. I staff the foundation as well. So, sorry for the use of we. Um, we the foundation maintained ownership of the land and is leasing it to the building owner. Um, and the so the ground lease requires perpetual affordability. We are also negotiated that at the setting because the gap was high. Um and so we negotiated in exchange for that the perpetual affordability. One of the reasons that allowed for that is state law changed. It when this policy was first passed that wasn't allowed. That was not legal. You could not have a declaration on a property that it was extended beyond a certain number of years. That changed. So um we can have our policy or ordinance adapt to the changing laws and have the reflected laws. The laws are changing pretty rapidly. So that's why I can't articulate what all the parameters are and after this session they may be even different. Um so we we'll definitely get a law clerk or someone looking into the boundaries. >> Thank you. So I, you know, I I think I join all my colleagues here in in being grateful that you're here working on the city team because this it's it just keeps getting more nuanced and more complicated to try to figure out how to deal with issues of production and affordability. And they're wrestling with it over at the state legislature. I went over there to what day was that? Tuesday testify. >> I saw you >> and um you know they've got they've got some distinct ideas the the bill authors that uh in my mind you know that zoning al zoning changes alone will help solve the problem. Well that's that's not going to help solve the problem I don't think. Um and then of course other elements of it that they want to um mandate in terms of um administrative process. Uh some muddy language around whether or not they're talking about green field or fully developed cities. You have to have a third of your property zone for single family residences available for multif family housing and you have to have up to a third of your commercial industrial property available for multif family housing. So to me the the better way to do it is the way the Met Council does it and that is to think about it in terms of saying okay here's what we expect in terms of population increase. Here's what we expect our needs are. This this $100,000 or$100,000 unit number is out there. Here's your proportional share of that. We'd like to see you try to attain this. It's not a mandate, but it's it's something that they use as a guide city by city. And I think if the state took that approach where they said to us and every other city, here's here's what we need to have you do, and you go figure out how to do it instead of trying to do this oneizefits-all thing, which doesn't work. Uh we'd be better off for it. Now, that's that's at a different level than what we're talking about here. But this whole conversation just reinforces the notion that this is so complicated and so nuanced as I think some of my commissioners have discussed here in their own way that it's it's hard to know hard to know what to do to make sure that we maintain that balance of wanting people to develop here but not providing regulatory impediments that cause them to think about not coming here. And so with the best of intentions, we intend to want to do something and we by by regulation or policy, we we shoot ourselves in the foot and we don't get we don't get any development that we want and so we don't get anywhere on the affordable housing issue. And I think that's what that's the pathway I that's the the delicate work I think you're trying to guide us on and that we see you trying to guide us on is to make sure that we find those that pathway to success to get some of this done. And I'm not sure how how we how we do it. Uh and I think this is why your guidance is really important. Um the buyin always has intrigued me because uh to member Risser, Commissioner Risser's point that she worries about taxpayers taking more of the burden that are on fixed incomes, but with the buyin, if we're using buyin money uh from developers, we're not putting a burden on the general levy. Um, there's a I think there's a there's a bill over there now, maybe you would know this better than I would, that we could use leftover tiff funds for affordable housing that arguably has a potential dimminimous sort of effect on taxpayers on their general levy because it's you're taking that money that's coming out of a tiff district that's not expired yet and using it for a housing purpose, but it still has that defined length of time which goes goes back under the general tax roles and benefits um uh the general public. So, you know, I I just don't know um what to think here right now about how to manage this nuanced problem. And um so while you've got all these discussion topics for us to have uh conversation about, um I think we're looking for your guidance, too. Maybe that's a long windy way of saying we're looking for some guidance from you too on what you what you think might work that might help us keep that balance between trying to get affordable units in place whether it's rental or ownership and of course you know I've I've sensed over time here this council is thinking about ownership because that's where the kids are primarily I mean we do have kids in affordable housing units that are big enough to remember's point if it's a three-bedroom you got a lot better chance of having kids there than you do in a 500 per square foot unit. Um, so how do we how do we do that delicate dance? How do we make sure that we don't step into quicksand here uh and shoot ourselves in the foot to use some uh analogies by trying to do the right thing? >> I speak analogy. Um, I think one of the reasons I wanted to bring this up was some of the things I've heard was or what I thought I heard was that there was um unhappiness with having a policy at all that required affordability and market rate having that blend. I thought I heard that and I so I wanted to just daylight that like is that something that you think is still worth trying to achieve is affordable units within market rate developments. >> Yeah. So to to explain that a little bit more fully would you do that? What what do you flush that out a little bit? Um what I believe I heard from the dis was that we should only accept buyin that we should not have the inclusion of the affordable units in a market rate apartment. I may have misheard, but I wanted to daylight the question to see if having affordable units in scattered within a market rate apartment was still something that was a goal that you wanted to achieve where there was the integration of affordability and market rate under one roof. Um whether or not there was still an appetite for pursuing that basic premise of the policy um or not. >> Okay. Okay. So, what I hear you saying there, we our basic policy right now is you can do the units in the building you're building. You can you can pay the you can do the buyin at 175,000 a door or you can go do the your you can go meet your responsibility somewhere else. Go buy it go buy a building and it becomes all affordable. You're you're what you're suggesting is uh do you want to hear from us eliminate the buy in and just mandate that uh they have to put them in the market rate unit. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. No, chair. I'm not saying that um eliminate anything. Whether or not you still want all of those options. >> Oh, okay. >> Whether or not you still want the option to do the inclusion within the market rate. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, or or any of them. Do you want to eliminate any of those options? >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. That helps me. Commissioner Risser, >> I I think having affordable affordable units and market rate makes sense. And I have to say sometimes at night when I wake up in the middle of the night, I'm looking at existing buildings and thinking some of the apartments that are available may actually be naturally occurring affordable rentals. And right now, um there is a unit at the Bower. It's small. It's 445 square feet, but it's got a rental price of 1,638. And the chart doesn't go up to 80% AMI, but it says spread over a longer period of 14 months, it comes down to 1,473 a month. And so I'm starting to wonder and as buildings get I I don't want to say the Bower is aging because I I don't know that at all and it still looks like a very beautiful building, but it's possible there is naturally occurring affordable housing um right across the street that you know and it would be good to have more data about that. And so it, you know, that is something that I'm thinking about because if we're only counting doors and we're not doing square footage. Um, and that is how we're going. There's that. But the other thing we haven't talked about is, um, and I don't know if we can go to your slide where you have those three things that are listed, [snorts] but um, the that u right here, okay, development built on city or HA owned land. I do think if we are doing residential, we really need to have that affordable housing. Um, and if if a development on um, city or HA owned land cannot accommodate that and the the numbers aren't working out, I think we need to step back and go maybe this is not suitable for a residential project. Maybe it needs to be opened up and it needs to be a RFP that goes out that is just very open and you know gets ideas for projects that might be residential, might not be residential and all of that. But when we're talking about city or HA owned land, I think for me at least we really should have that affordable component if we are pursuing a residential project. >> Commander Neil. Uh thank you uh m Mr. Chair. Uh just a couple of things that we've already some we've already touched on but but one is uh regarding PUD. We we we have signals we've received as staff we we've received signals from council that uh you would prefer perhaps to do less PUD in the future than we have done in the recent past. PUD is our access point to affordable housing uh dollars, right? So, we we don't have the legal authority to to adopt an affordable housing commitment unless we do it through a PUD. And we've heard that from our attorneys since we started talking about this. >> It's that it's that give to get. >> It's a tension between those. >> You want something from us. >> Y you you have to give us something. And that's that's been the trigger. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> The other issue is is the buyin fees themselves. We we do see other cities that have buyin fees, but not too many cities, I believe, that actually get them, right? Do we do you know of any, Stephanie? >> Um, you know, I haven't asked that. Um, I Yeah, Bloomington has been able to develop a lot of affordability. They have a buyin. >> I don't know what the ratios So the design of the buyin fee is important because it if you design it to cover the entire cost of the unit, we're we probably won't have much of that come to us, right? We've heard when when we have talked about uh re uh development redevelopment in the future using these fees, we've we've heard pretty clearly from developers kind of where their tension points are. So that's that's another thing we have to keep in mind. And then uh the item that Miss Hendrickson just Hawinson just uh mentioned was the scattered site piece of this. Do you want to see uh more affordable buildings or do you want to see uh affordable units that are scattered within uh buildings that aren't necessarily 100% affordable? Those are the things that we've talked about with councils in the past and you've given us direction on those in the past and I think part of what we want to find out is just we want to find out it just reaffirm those past directions or not >> and we don't have to do all of this today either. >> Yeah. Commissioner Jackson and I'm going back to Commissioner Risser then back to I'm sure Commissioner Agno's got some thoughts that have popped up too. >> So we didn't allow you to finish your presentation. Um I don't know if there's other stuff that you need to cover, but I do have a number of questions for you. Um so first of all, we're only counting doors, not square footage. It when we're having the um inclusionary >> the door banged. >> Sure. Um the comment that we're only counting doors, not square footage. Other than the things like pen houses and stuff like that, are affordable units essentially the same size per class, a two-bedroom, a onebedroom, a studio as the market rate when we have inclusionary housing? Yes, they're I can't say that they're exactly the same because part of it the reason what the challenge with answering that definitively is when a developer comes to us with a concept and an idea what is on paper and the square footage may be different than the final blueprints um the construction documents because once they get their engineers in there and they figure out where the walls are and where the HVAC systems are room sizes, apartment sizes can shift by feet. Um, once all the mechanicals are in there, the intent is yes, that they are proportionately similar to the market rate units. Whether or not down to the square foot they are, I will not say that definitively. >> But we're not just counting doors. We are trying to make them the same size as the market rate. >> It is. Yes. >> Okay. So that's a misstatement to say we're only counting doors. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. So one of the questions you had was about um increasing uh 30% of uh housing for people at 30% of area median income. The experience that I'm working off of is that we have found that people at that level who in existing housing really need high levels of services. Um, when you said that there are seniors who want to downsize, who've never been homeless, um, who aren't experiencing the social disruption that home that often accompanies homelessness, they're not able to access housing because we don't have those 30% units. Would it be useful for you um, in your work to house people who need this type of housing to be able to separate those out? And um I'm because I'm very concerned that if we bring people at 30% of AMI into uh market rate housing, they're not going to get the services they need. And and I I'm just very concerned about them falling through the the gaps in the system. So if we're going to have 30% AMI housing, I want to make sure that there's 24-hour service to help people because the things that go wrong go wrong in the evenings and weekends. Um, so I I'm very worried about just randomly adding 30% affordability. I'd like to accommodate the people who need it, but I also want to make sure that they're not they don't slip through the system because it's it's not providing the services they need. So if we look into that to meet a need that exists in our community that's not being met now, I want to make sure that the people who get this housing are not um left with housing but nothing else. Um so when we talked about the ability to deviate um I would like to have a set of standards whether they not like a legal standard where have you met X Y and Z but maybe um uh values standards. So this will increase the the amount of affordability or you know how does it fit with our values but I need to have that spelled out. Um so when we have these deviations that come up say okay well it's not really what our policy says but it's clearly within our value statement. Um so I would ask that that be um uh spelled out. um conversion. Um I know in other cities they've been looking at converting office buildings, old older office buildings into housing. Um I don't know if we need to adjust our housing policy to accommodate that, but that's something that I'd like to. Some of these older buildings are set up so that windows can open and so there's there's daylight in in way that newer buildings do not have. Um so I want to make sure that we can allow for that in our city. Um, let's see. Uh, I have to mention Arie Bigby. Arie worked for decades to get an affordable housing policy in our city. And if we were to eliminate the um, uh, the um, inclusionary housing element, I think that that would defeat his entire purpose for working for that. So, I will always be a fan of the inclusionary housing policy. And my final question is, will it help you do your job if we separate out ownership um affordability from rental affordability into two separate policies or or two tracks? I know you that functionally you do that, but if it will help you do your job and if it will increase um the opportunities to meet the needs that are in our community as they change, um I would be uh open to separating those policies. But I want to make sure that it it doesn't add to the complexity of your job, but would help it. >> Chair, commissioners, um I don't know if they would need to be separate policies um just within the policy distinguishing different criteria and I think that would be helpful. We have learned as of ownership projects have come forth that there are some shortcomings with the existing policy on addressing all the different variables [clears throat] that ownership brings. >> Terrific. quad be in favor of of making those changes. Thanks, >> Commissioner Risser. Then, Commissioner Eggna. >> Um, I want to thank Commissioner Jackson for pointing out it's pursuing the square footage issue. One of my concerns when I read the policy summary that was included in our packet um information background. It starts that back in 2015 when the policy was created u it was with developments greater than 20 units they needed to include affordable housing units equaling 10% of the combined units square footage and then in subsequent actions the policy was amended to include a buyin option and change the percentage base on the number of units versus square feet. So, um I I do remain kind of concerned about that, but I I do appreciate your response and how uh it is really the attempt is being made to try to make it um back to sort of what the original um language was. So, there's that. Um I do think, you know, just sitting here and we've talked about affordable housing. Um, it would be nice if we could open. It seems like we're at a juncture where it would be really important to get more feedback from community and I don't know if there's an opportunity to do that because it it's sort of I'm getting the sense that, you know, there's a, as um, Commissioner Jackson pointed out, there's just so many components to this. It is really hard and I think it might be nice to get this on better together or, you know, somehow figure out a way so that we can get feedback. Um there may be ideas that people have also involving the community. One of the things and I know we can't as a city um solicit donations for things but um it would really be great if we had if any Dina there was a robust fundraising arm kind of like what Minnetonka has. So I don't know if opening it up and having a broader dialogue might um somehow help in that regard as well. Thank you >> Mr. No, >> thank you. Uh I think it was on one of the earlier slides when you were reviewing for us uh what the initial intentions were. Um and I was I was happy to be reminded of one of those initial intentions being um not isolating affordable housing to specific areas. Um and that to me continues to be important. Um, so [cough and clears throat] I would like to see us continue to try to get it included in market rate projects that are happening across the community. Um, so thank you. >> I I feel the same way having experienced uh this policy for a while and its implementation. You mentioned early on that I was here when it was it was formulated with uh Council Member Stuntton. I think Council Member Fischer was here then. Um, but I remember when we were just using the bully pulpit to try to get a unit here or there and uh having a policy made all the difference in the world on being able to advance this. The the buyin fund has created some opportunities we didn't know that we had. It led to the creation of some units that were solely dedicated to affordable housing. But in in in my world of preference, I I'd prefer first that we blend them in as Commissioner Ragnu indicated in the market rate units. That would be my first choice, but I also don't want to lose that flexibility of having funds coming in from another source to help us do some work that we may may right now be unforeseen. Uh, and or we could, you know, use some of those funds for um some of that naturally occurring affordable housing work that we want to do with the with Henipin County Land Trust. So, uh, I like the idea that we continue to have those three prongs to our policy. you you you put them in the units that you're building. Uh you look at a per door fee or you do go do them meet your obligations somewhere else by buying a building. Uh I don't think we've had anybody do that yet, but I know that people have looked at that. Um, and in terms of some of the buildings that we have that are completely affordable, I think we've helped on with AON on a couple of projects where it's all seniors, uh, in some of the buildings near Southdale that that they purchased that we helped maintain affordability for seniors. So, that might be something to think about, too. Um, those are just general thoughts. I mean, you've got you've got half a dozen questions here. uh that we're not going to get to because it's 852, but uh could you talk a little bit more just quickly about do we support the creation of housing for households with incomes at 50 to 60% of AMI? What what what were you wanting us to discuss there in a little bit more detail, please? >> Um chair, commissioners, it was right now the policy does have these two tracks 10% at 50% area and median income or 20% at 60%. wanted to know if you're still comfortable with that. Um, since we have not had any 60% units, whether or not we should reduce the percentage required. Um, also if you wanted to expand that um when I mentioned the 30% units. So, I just wanted to this is in the policy currently is taking a temperature on whether or not this was something that you still wanted to um have remain in the policy of serving these income levels. Uh, Commissioner Jackson, I've got a couple I'm sure everybody's got thoughts on that, too. I personally like the idea of maintaining that 50 to 60% AMI. >> I would I'd like to see the 60% built. So, if we need to reduce it from 20% to 15% or but like I said, I did that calculation and it was way more complicated than I could figure. Um, if you can figure a way where they get built, let's do it. [laughter] Anybody else on that one? >> Um, I feel like I am not I don't have the expertise to answer a lot of these questions and it would be great to get more information and what are the upsides and downsides of going in different directions? What is the upside of raising the 175? What? So I think more information because I feel like this is this is outside of my wheelhouse. >> Chair and commissioners, I was not expecting all these this was just to help frame some discussion to, you know, but I was not expecting these to get answered in today and defined. Um that's helpful. Um, Commissioner Risser, so when I come back, I can, if you want me to explore some of these, I can lay it out more um, mathematically and what some of these differences would mean. Um, I can explore and do a deeper dive. I just, it was more of a temperature check. Um, if there's like do not explore that, I would not explore. >> Get rid of that. Um, so if I were given some, you know, something like that, but this was not intended to be vetted thoroughly. It was to help guide if that was needed. >> You may have a whole new series of challenges ahead of you depending on what happens at the state legislature >> or resources >> and >> or what? >> Or resources. >> Yeah. >> And also local elections because you only have me for another 10 months. >> Yeah. So anyway, I think we should hold off discussion till after we get done with the legislative session. >> Okay. >> Discussing it further to see what the landscape looks like then. So >> that works. >> Okay. Anybody else have anything on the topic? Yeah. Thanks. >> Thank you >> for sharing that and and and thanks to our interested housing folks for being here early in the morning. And uh our pleasure. >> I didn't see any of you fading off back there. >> [laughter] >> I can't see Hope. She's hidden behind that laptop screen, but uh saw her get up and walk around for a while. You know, one of the things I I picked up the sun last night when I got home and I read in there that I I had no idea this had happened that Tom Mo had passed away. I don't know if anybody knows Tom Mo, but um that family has been here forever. Uh he was a I think a 19 maybe a 56 graduate of United High School and was you know kind of a three-star athlete and a really great student and he went to the U he died at 87. He went to the U. He was um the most valuable player on the football team and then the next year he was part of the team that won the College World Series in 1960. And then he he was an economics major as I recall. And then he went to the University of Minnesota Law School and distinguished himself there. Ended up being hired by Dorsy Whitney and ended up running Dorsy Whitney as a managing partner for years. And then in 19 late 90s they called him over to the U when they were having some troubles over there with athletic directors. He was the interim athletic director over there and helped get that ship straightened around again. Uh and uh his wife preceded him in death. she had Alzheimer's. But, uh, really a remarkable guy. Uh, had that, uh, a great Scandinavian name, Thomas. His middle name was Odd OD. Uh, Mo. And, um, he was smart, he was insightful, he was compassionate, he was direct. Uh, he was a really interesting person. uh and um strong sense of responsibility and a strong sense of obligation to everything and uh real community loss there. So our best to the Mo family uh and uh there's still folks around that are descendants of his uh and his brother Jim who preceded him in death as well who had been the chief counsel for Cargill for several years. So, uh, smart guys, uh, good community members, and, uh, hate to see them gone, but such is life, huh? Or destiny. All right. Um, we're nearing the closing hour here. Anything else, man? >> Just one quick one. I want to introduce Miriam Laredo. Uh, Miriam is sitting out by Carrie. She is doing admin support work in in our community development department and HR will be part of her universe. And so I asked her if she would sit in on a meeting to see how this all worked and that's why she's here today. >> Yeah. We saw your memo come through and we thought, "Oh, a new hire, a new a new name, and a new face." So, welcome. Yeah, >> that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh, anything else from folks HR members? >> Commissioner Jackson. >> Yep. So, just talking about Metro Surge, I met with some nonprofit leaders and the walk, the takeaway was get out and go places because that's what's going to make our community safe is getting out and about. Um, and of course, if you go to 50th in France or to to some of our other establishments and spend a little money, that wouldn't hurt. but get out and about because that's what makes our community safe. >> Yeah. Thanks for that encouragement. It's important. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. Second. >> Commissioner Agnu moves and Commissioner Jackson seconds notion that the motion and the notion that we adjourn the meeting of the H. Uh >> any further discussion? >> Okay. >> All right. All those in favor of adjourning the motion of the HA uh meeting to this Thursday, March 5th, 2026 at 8:59 a.m. say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Carried. We stand adjourned.