Good afternoon and welcome to the regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole for Monday, August 10th, 2026. My name is Aureen Chaudhry and I'm the chair of this committee. I will call this regular meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll to verify the presence of a quorum. >> Council member Payne. >> Present. >> Wonsley is absent. Greenfield? >> Present. >> Fintak? [snorts] >> Present. >> Warren? >> Present. >> Osman is absent. Schaefer? >> Present. >> Stevenson is absent. Chavez? >> Present. >> Wade? >> Present. >> Palmisano is absent. Vice Chair Chikte? >> Present. >> And Chair Chaudhry? >> Present. >> There are nine members present. >> Thank you, Clerk. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum. Before we begin the meeting, let me offer a friendly reminder to everyone that these meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation. The broadcasts include real-time captioning to increase accessibility for our entire community. So, it's important that all speakers be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to please moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. Colleagues, our agenda is in front of us. Are there any amendments to make before we begin? And we are using speaker management, so please jump in if you have any amendments. Okay, I don't see any amendments, so I will move to adopt the agenda. Is there a second? All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed say nay. The motion carries. We will start with our standing committee report starting with the Business, Housing, and Zoning Committee. And I will give the report as the committee's advice chair. So, the Business, Housing, Zoning Committee will be bringing 20 items forward to Thursday's Council meeting. Item number one approves a permanent expansion of premises and sidewalk cafe for Pat's Tap. Item number two approves a permanent expansion of premises and sidewalk cafe for Bill's Bait Shop. Item number three is a resolution approving the Minneapolis Tourism Improvement District to continue collecting a service charge. Item number four approves two liquor licenses. Item number five approves 15 liquor license renewals. Item number six approves two gambling licenses. Item number seven approves four gambling license renewals. Item number eight approves a rezoning application for the Neighborhood Development Center at 2941 Chicago Avenue. Item number nine approves an appointment to the Minneapolis work floor workforce development board. Item number 10 authorizes a contract amendment for Pizza Project at the Convention Center. Item number 11 accepts a bid for Target Center's interior doors. Item number 12 accepts a bid for the Convention Center concession stands remodel project. Item 13 approves a loan forgiveness for the Lindquist Apartments at 1931 West Broadway Avenue. Item number 14 authorizes an ownership opportunity fund loan for the business La Herencia. Item number 15 amends a previous contract amendment to correct the not to exceed amount. Item number 16 grants the 2026 Hennepin County Transit Oriented Community Awards and authorizes a multi-jurisdictional agreement. Item number 17 is a resolution accepting a reimbursement donation from the International Code Council. Item number 18 is resolution accepting donation from the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. Item number 19 approves a rental dwelling license reinstatement for the property at 2113 Ilion Ave North. And lastly, item number 20 is nominating an appointment to the Minnesota Ballpark Authority. And I'll note to members, this was sent without recommendation. And the other thing that I would just highlight that I think would be good for folks to take a look at is the resolution approving the Minneapolis Tourism Improvement District and the annual report they gave. This was their first annual report that they gave to our committee following the ordinance that was passed last term. And just want to shout out Council Member Rainville and Council Member Warsame for authoring the Tourism Improvement District ordinance. So, I think that's really something that we should take a look at. Members, are there any questions on this report? Okay, seeing none, we will now go to the Climate and Infrastructure Committee and that's going to be given by Council Member Vita. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The Climate and Infrastructure Committee has 18 items to bring forward. Item number one is sidewalk repair and construction assessments. Item two is the Gopher Garden large block event permit for September 3rd, 2026. Item three is annual Target Together Core Week block event permit for September 14th through 18th, 2026. Item four is Target Together Core Week Community Celebration block event permit for September 16th, 2026. Item number five is the Lauren Alley Live 2026 Music Festival for August 14th, 2026. Uh item number six is Mobile Life by Flicker Large Block Event Permit for September 18th through 20th, 2026. Item seven is a contract amendment with Hennepin County for road maintenance assistance. Item eight is a non-governmental tax-exempt parcel street maintenance 2027 assessments. Item nine is non-governmental tax-exempt parcel street light operation fee for 2027 assessments. Item 10 is a contract amendment with St. Paul for the EV Spot Network Project Agreement. Item 11 is a contract with the University of Washington Urban Freight Lab in support of the SMART Grant Stage Two Project. Item 12 is a contract with the University of Minneso- Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies in support of the SMART Grant Stage Two Project. Item 13 is a bid for large diameter cured-in-place pipe lining, 2026. Item 14 is a contract amendment with Z Companies Inc. for engineering and design services for the Northside Greenway phases one and two project. Item 15 is contract amendments with Bolton and Menk Inc. and Alliant Energy Engineering Inc. for engineering and design services for the 38th Street and Chicago Avenue George Floyd Square street reconstruction project. Item [snorts] 16 is a contract amendment for Alliant Engineering Inc. for Bloomington Avenue and Minnehaha Parkway high safety improvement project. 17 is a legislative directive related to zero waste funding and item 18 is the 2026 through 2029 climate infrastructure committee work plan, and I'll stand for any questions. >> Members, are there any questions or comments? Council Member Warren. >> I have a question. In our committee meeting, I know that there were some presentations that we were going to take up. Is that How are we doing that? Is that going to happen in the full council or >> We actually, great question. We actually do have it on our agenda today. So, it's item number two. We moved contract with On Course Home Home Solutions for sewer lateral insurance program here. And then, in that meeting, the chair uh for the climate and infrastructure plan um just moved approval because it had been postponed, and it was just going to be a few short slides, which is attached to our CA. So, we're not doing that presentation um because under the discretion of the vice chair. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Yes, great question. Um we will next go to the Enterprise Labor Relations Committee. That report will be given by its vice chair, Council Member Waite. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The Enterprise and Labor Relations Committee has six items to bring forward today. Number one is authorizing agreement with the Los Angele- Los Angele- Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the City of Minneapolis to serve as the host city for the LA 2028 Summer Olympic Games flame and torch relay. Uh item number two is a contract amendment with Roshan uh Corporation for the Police Department Training Annex build-out project. Item number three is a contract amendment with various entities to provide computer-aided dispatch and related mobile equipment support services. Item number four is a legal settlement for workers compensation claim of Heather Bythol. Uh item number five is approving the establishment of one appointed assistant city clerk position to support operational leadership within the legislative support division. Um and item number six is confirming the city clerk's appointment of Ken Dayler to the appointed position of assistant city clerk for legislative support. I'll stand for any questions. >> There are no questions from members. We will now move to the final report of the public healthy health safety and equity committee given by its chair, Council Member Chavez. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. The Public Health, Safety, and Equity Committee will be bringing forward nine items. Item number one and two authorize a contract amendment with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for the Human Trafficking Investigators Task Force Crime Analyst and Investigators. Item three authorizes a contract amendment with Canopy Roots for behavioral crisis response services. Item four accepts the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Grant to support emergency preparedness activities. Item five accepts the Public Health Response Sustainability Grant to support emergency response. Item six accepts the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for bomb disposal equipment and training and authorizes an agreement for the grant. Items seven, eight, nine are gift acceptances for staff conference attendance. And in the committee, we also heard a report from our city's trees program annual report. We heard a report from the Minneapolis Tree Advisory Commission 2026, so that annual report. We also heard an update on the policy and procedures quarterly report from the police department related to Allison Lucher and David Maturi. Uh Members of the community gave feedback for a more thorough presentation next time. And then we also heard an update from our legislative research office regarding public safety policies and practices related to public gatherings and transparency, where uh there was an outline of a variety of different recommendations. >> Thank you, Council member. Are there any questions on that report? Seeing none, we will now turn to the two items on our discussion agenda. Our first discussion item is coming from staff at CPED, and it is related to Heritage Park developing a voluntary relocation plan. I will have Director Hanson speak more on the item, and we'll just give the Director a little bit of time to get set up and welcome. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Eric Hanson. I am the Director of Community Planning and Economic Development. I'm here today to provide an update on Heritage Park, and specifically to present a proposed Heritage Park voluntary relocation plan policy. Um the purpose of this policy would provide eligible Heritage Heritage Park residents who have health or safety concerns with voluntary option to relocate. I'll walk through the current situation at Heritage Park, the proposed eligibility requirements, the relocation process, and the financial assistance that would be available through the policy. Before we get started, I want to briefly update you on the status of Heritage Park, as I um shared with you last month, Heritage Park is a 440-unit mixed-income rental community in Ward 5 that was developed in four phases. Currently, only 211 units are occupied with an estimated population of more than 680 people living in those units. Heritage Park has both rental and ownership units is a master plan site. The map highlights the four phases of the rental projects, components that were owned in four separate subsidiaries by McCormick Baron Salazar or MBS on long-term ground leases from the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority or the MPHA. MBS built the rental housing between 2002 and 2006. There are several important developments that provide context today's policy. Heritage Park continues to be in a court order um receivership with Curtis Financial. Cities The city continues to work with Curtis and Minneapolis Public Housing Authority to coordinate responses to the conditions that I raised last time I was here to talk to you about this. The last month you approved $2.5 million for emergency repairs and relocation assistance. Right after that the emergency that approval, the emergency management department set up the Heritage Park Coordination Group. That group focused on identifying and responding to urgent household specific needs and working with the MPHA working with the MPHA, the receiver on potential outcomes including relocation. That work included conducting a need survey, communicating with residents, coordinating resources with partners, and and tracking repairs by units and hosting community hours. Starting in August, CPED resumed leadership of the coordination group as the process will require sustained effort as seen sustained attention as we assess the long-term plan for rehabilitation and work with work through the process of relocation. One outcome of this initial work of the coordination group with the identify identification of the need for an approved policy for for relocation to support the funding the city council already approved to assist on to relocate. And now I'll go through the policy. The policy is intended to fill an important gap. There are Heritage Park residents who may have health or safety concerns and may want to relocate, but who do not qualify for for relocation assistance from other agencies. This policy provides voluntary relocation assistance for those eligible households. There are two primary components. First, there is a moving stipend to help cover the practical costs of moving. And second, there is a rent differential benefit that can be that can help households manage the increased potential increased housing costs associated with moving to an appropriate replacement unit. Taken together, the estimated support illustrated in this policy is approximately 6,500 to 12,500 per household, depending on household size, uh household and unit size, and actual rent differential. And I'll get into the details of that shortly. Eligibility, uh eligible residents who have health or safety concerns can choose to relocate and receive assistance if they meet the policy requirements. Choosing to receive benefits from this policy is voluntary and residents uh for residents that are not in MPHA units. Residents of MPHA housing units are not eligible for these city benefits under this policy. MPHA residents will need to continue to work with with them on transfers and available moving assistance from the MPHA directly. Currently, of the 211 occupied units, 128 are MPHA units and 83 households would be eligible for this policy. CPED is working to contract a relocation um consultant to perform the work with the residents. A household must receive eligibility approval from the reloc- from that relocation consultant before moving. Households receiving rental vouchers are eligible, although they would be they would need to consult their subs- their subsidy provider to understand whether accepting these benefits has any implication on their vouchers. There are several important dates in this policy. A household must have a legally occupied a Heritage Park unit as of July 18th, 2026. That household then must report health or safety concerns to the city by October 15th of this year. And then the household must relocate outside of Heritage Park no later than January 31st, 2027. There is um a 6-month extension that the CPED director may uh provide to that moving deadline in case of hardship to provide some flexibility. The next component in this individ- individ- individualized relocation assessment um is uh this assessment services. Eligible households will work directly with the city's relocation consultant to identify an appropriate housing option based on the individual circumstances of that household. The this that includes household preferences, schooling, and transportation needs, affordability, the availability de- decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and any any necessary MPCHA approvals. The receiver has also indicated a willingness to allow for relocating households to end their existing leases >> [snorts] >> and return any security deposits. We will encourage res- residents to seek professional seek professional legal advice regarding the implications of accept- accepting assistance and ending their current lease. Resident choice and agency remains fundamental to this policy and our work. If a household cannot identify an acceptable alternative housing option and it does not it it does not have it does not have to proceed with the relocation. Finally, if someone relocates and later wants to return to Heritage Park, they would need to go through the property's standard new resident application process. There are two financial components of this policy and I'll get into that in depth here. The first is a is a permanent relocation benefit and simple terms, this is designed to help address the increased housing cost that a household may experience when moving to an appropriate replacement unit. The benefit is based on 12 months of the difference between a household's current out-of-pocket rent and the rent they rent for the approved housing unit. Taking into consideration any voucher um um benefits that they might have. The replacement unit must be appropriately sized and approved to be habitable by the relocation consultant. There is also a cap on the benefit based on the HUD 60% area median income standard and the 30% affordability threshold. The second component is a moving stipend. This is a flat amount based on bedroom size of the unit the household is leaving. It is intended to address practical relocation expenses. Things like application fees, moving costs, transportation, and utility connections and that stipend ranges from 35 $3,500 for one bedroom to $7,500 for the five-bedroom units. And importantly, $500 of the of the of the moving stipend can be made available early once the eligible household has met the relocation consultant and identified an acceptable unit or when the CPED director or others approves other health or safety related emergency needs. To give you a sense of the calculations, you see on this slide it illustrates estimates of benefits. It provides >> Thank you, Chair. Um thank you, Director Hanson, um for the hard work that the city has done in organizing this um relocation policy. And um I don't have a problem with the the relocation assistance that's being given. I just have an issue with the fact that the individuals who are participant of Minneapolis Public Housing Authority are essentially being punished for being low to no income. We know that individuals who have low to no income and are receiving public housing are the ones who need help the most. And I'm upset at the fact that for the last several months, since the 23rd of March, since this was placed on my desk and I was brought to the attention of coming to meet with the 30 residents that were there in above the office in the management building that were talking about the conditions in Heritage Park, there hasn't been a response of of effort. And those are the people who are the most vulnerable. Those are the people who've been crying out for the longest, and they've been being gaslit by MPHA. They've been being gaslit by Property Solutions. They've been being told that their units have passed inspection. They've been told that they didn't need to move, that there is not anything that is wrong with the conditions in which they're living in. The thing that that stood out to me the most in this relocation policy is the fact that there are people, you say residents, who may not want to relocate on MPHA. There's not a choice because if you're inspecting the properties and you know that there is mold on top of mold, that there are floors on top of floors, that there are walls on top of walls, that there's over 3,700 failing windows in that property, that the entire envelopes of the buildings have to be removed, the stucco has to be removed, the siding has to be removed and in order to do that, you have to cut off all the utilities for the property itself. The fact that I was told by the fire inspector and fire chiefs that would build things that are boarded with one or two residents living in there because the campus is cut like cottage or Swiss cheese, that with only one or two residents living in a building that it's not even safe. That in order to to to service that building in the event of an emergency, if there was a fire or anything, they would have to remove all the boards from the building which would delay a response to a family. It is not habitable. If they have to remove all of the the exterior envelope of the building, it's not habitable. If they have to go inside and gut the entire inside of the building to remove the bolt mold, it's not habitable. If every roof in Heritage Park has to be replaced, it's not habitable because the water intrusion is there. So, I don't know why MPHA, their board, their chairs, their whoever keeps gaslighting residents saying that there are that that this place is somewhere where they can be, and a majority in there taking advantage of not just low-to-moderate income families, but a lot of them are immigrant families, too. We just had the entire city of Minneapolis through Operation Metro Search talk about standing up to fight for our neighbors, and here it is the people who need the most dang on protection aren't receiving it. No one's STANDING UP TO FIGHTING for them, and this is their first year of public safety. Abdi and Dominic have not come to the table and did absolutely anything that they were supposed to do as far as buy right by these people. You make it optional, and then you keep lying to the board saying that these units are passing inspection, and they're not. And we know. I've read the reports. You've read the reports. We read the reports. Do we not read the reports? >> Mhm. >> We saw them. It's a real place. This is absolutely devastating, and it's ignorant. I've lived in public housing. I've held a Section 8 certificate. I know how difficult it is to find housing, and I know how expensive it is to move. The individuals who are in desperate need of this assistance, the difference between them applying for apartment, paying a security deposit, or going out to go buy boxes is the difference for them having a roof over their head or not. They can't afford this. They can't. This is not fair to them. And Abdi Warsame is cheesing and happy and everything. Oh, we just built a new sustainable housing with solar panels and this, that, and the other on South Minneapolis, but according to your mission statement, you said that you were there to protect, preserve, and partnership, and all the rest of this stuff with with Minneapolis public housing at 30 that preservation means taking care of the stock you already got. How you planning for tomorrow when you didn't do anything about today? Doesn't make any sense at all. It's absolutely disrespectful. Affordable housing and public housing is not a sentence. And their health and well-being is not discounted because their income is low. MCHA needs to get their together. That's all I got to say. The end. >> [snorts] >> All right. Thank you, Council Member Wars. I have myself in queue. Um, Director Hansen, thank you for the presentation. Could you just like walk through a little bit on how this policy was developed with your team and then kind of the real-time on the ground considerations in making it? >> Chair Chautari, um, good questions. Uh, so if you recall and I'm I'm if I can, I'm going to comment on some of the Council Member Wars, um, uh, observations here. Uh, back, you know, a month ago, we were in front of you with an emergency situation. And when I spoke to you about that, we were talking about something with incomplete information. Uh, we knew that that it was evolving, the situation at Heritage Park was evolving. And, um, we needed to make sure that there was there were resources available for people who wanted to go. I will agree with the Council Member on the conditions of the buildings. I talked about the threshold question of are the buildings worth saving or not? We have still not been to a definitive can we save the buildings or not? I think we're on the side of the fence where we can, but we don't I can't give you with a with total confidence that we can save the buildings. And to that point, that means that um there is no habitable unit. Um and so when we were working getting that resources, which I wanted, you know, thank you for trusting staff to come to you and working through stuff with in complete information in an emergency. We then started to go to work and we had Director Sayer here at the council meeting to talk about the coordination group that was stood up um immediately after the COW meeting that I spoke with you and that has been working and doing some assessments about what's happening. And that's where we uncover that under our current policies, we do not have the authority to provide relocation benefits unless we come back to you with this policy. So that's that's the reason we're here. And that was through that coordination group that that that includes, you know, at at points the emergency management department, other uh ancillary departments that were in that coordination group like NCR or neighborhood community relations or regulatory services or the health department, as well as as prominent CPED leadership in the in the city attorneys. And as we were working towards the kind of the transition back to CPED, we knew we had to come back with this policy. And so in earnest for a majority of the last 10 days up until Friday when we were we were released this policy for you to review. It has been city staff working with city attorneys and and housing staff and our policy research and outreach team working to craft what we've learned from people on the ground at Heritage Park. And so that's why we're we're trying to, you know, what we have in front of you is is helping people for a year of the extraordinary the extra cost we think so that they can meet it and then figuring out what that stipend would be for for moving and we understand that the smaller your dwelling unit is the likely the least your lower cost than the larger unit. So that's why we have a graduated benefit to units. And as we do that we still continue to talk about what is the condition of Heritage Park. And I want to address, you know, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority continues to work with the city of Minneapolis. And I will agree that they have not been as forthright, but they are finding resources for trans for transfers of public housing units within Heritage Park for those that have to move because they have decided that or determined that they're not habitable units anymore and they're working towards resources for those that voluntarily want to transfer to other units. We have to hold they have resources. We have to hope that they are bringing those and we have to expect that the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority is bringing resources for Minneapolis Public Housing Authority residents. The city is here because we're make the discretionary decision that Heritage Park is important in this case and we we need to help the others that don't have that path out that MPHA units would and that's what this policy is about and I have to think about like we can like at this moment in time I'm thinking about what is Heritage Park now. What are we doing? How do we effectuate the funding in a way a reasonable and manageable way? How do we start working with the residents of Heritage Park that don't have a path out? This provides that option and you know, get on the ground. We are bringing in a relocation consultant that will work with us so they can sit down with each individual household and work on where do you want to go? What works for your family? Where do your kids go to school? What other things do we need to think about? And that's going to take some time and that's what we're going to manage. This helps us open that up so that we can start working towards that and I think that's going to help. And then we can go back to say how did we get here? I mean, we were just focused as as much as we can on the conditions of folks in Heritage Park now. And hopefully we can get back and then we can talk about how we got here and I'm all open for that conversation how we got here because we have to learn as a city when we make these substantial investments into people's homes. This is not an affordable housing project. This is 400 homes that we invested in. And we had the front row seat to this development and now we're at this condition. We have the same conditions we were supposed to abate with the consent decree and now we're here. And so I'm I I it is important and imperative for CPED to sit down and figure that out. We're going to work with the other departments that are within the within the city about what went wrong and so we don't have this thing happen again. It does not um delight me to be in front of you to talk about this uh but it is important for the city to when they know something to do something and that's what we're here to do. I hope I answered your question. >> Yeah, I think uh for sure in part um uh I want to make sure we get to others in the queue because there's a number of council members that did have a question maybe perhaps for the city attorney. Um could you kind of speak to the jurisdictional issue that CPED CPED came across that's requiring them to bring this policy forward? >> Sure. Yeah, so uh good afternoon. Um so essentially our existing relocation policies uh for example for redevelopment uh of a project, what which CPED often uses didn't fit with this one because there isn't actually redevelopment occurring at the moment. Uh and so and then there's also a separate temporary relocation policy uh that is generally used as part of our lead abatement program uh that is really intended for a short-term, you know, right contractors go in, remove the lead, someone comes back within a week. Uh and and neither of those seemed feasible here where the overall condition of the property and what the long-term plan is is still unclear. And so looking at those existing options, um there wasn't anything that fit squarely in this this need of a voluntary relocation uh of an undetermined duration. Uh and and so that was where uh we we just did not think either existing policy would work and and it would have it would be better for everyone and I think provide a lot of clarity, frankly, for folks within Heritage Park to understand what the potential benefits would be uh and and have some clearly defined um standards and benefits for how uh those determinations would be made instead of trying to uh just kind of cobble together something uh through two policies that don't really fit this scenario. >> Okay. That's helpful. Um I definitely think it opens up other questions. My last thing and then I'll pass it on is what I see attached in the LIMBS file and the RCA is not a typical policy format that we see. We usually see a policy resolution or an ordinance. Could you speak to what policy format this is that we are passing or voting on? >> Sure. So this one was drafted and and intended so it would be as clear as possible so folks both within the city and and outside of the city uh would get a clear understanding of of what the benefits would be uh and and how the policy works. And so we want this to be something uh that everyone can see and it's I I I think it is written somewhat similarly to our existing uh relocation policies uh from CPED. But in terms of whether a resolution will be added to it or not, that is something we're working with the clerk's office uh to finalize before Thursday. >> Yeah, I can I see that this is available clearly for the public to understand. I just I know for me it's important that like we have clarity as a legislative body in what way we're approving legislation, right? Cuz we typically have an author. There's no author on this. Right? And we also have a process that shows like this is when it's enacted. I also have some questions about like do we have to pass something in order to avoid this policy? I We're using the We are using the term policy really broadly and up here every time we've had a policy discussion, it had to be really clear on in terms of this is the type of it's a policy resolution or it's an ordinance or it's the specific thing. Um additionally, I feel like there are there and this isn't to to speak against this. I'm no way in doing that. I just think we're having a big issue with how this is formatted and how we are taking this up as a legislative body. Um there's obviously a financial impact. There is the $2.5 million we passed, but there isn't an attached fiscal note. So I just wanted to point that out. Um I don't know if there is anything from Director Hansen or yourself uh uh city attorney in terms of kind of those leftover questions in terms of policy format and then fiscal note. >> As to the policy format, I I think this is similar to other C-PAC policies, but we can certainly look at that and and get get back to >> Yeah, that would be helpful. I hear I hear that you're saying it's similar to others. I just we're voting on something and I know that C-PAC has internal policies, so it would just be helpful, but happy to follow up later. Um Council member Vita, you're next in queue. >> Thank you, Chair. Director, welcome back. Just a few questions about some of the things you brought up in the presentation. Have you selected a relocation consultant already? Do we know who that is and when is that person going to start on this? >> Uh Chair Chowdry, Council member Vita, we are working to um utilize an existing contract with through public works, so we don't have to do an RFP. >> [clears throat] >> And so we have a firm called SRF that we're negotiating a that we're negotiating a contract with. So it wouldn't be one person, it would be a group of people that have used we've used to do relocation when we do tax credit projects and other C-PAC funded projects. >> What does SRF stand for? >> SRF is a is a multi jurisdictional like multi expertise firm that does engineering, land planning, helps with housing projects. They're they're I don't know how to define them. They used to be just purely engineering firms. They have now expanded their work. It's not uncommon for companies like this that have typically unfortunately have three letter acronyms and SRF is one that's been around for a while and as bought other companies that have done some of this work so they have some expertise in relocation assistance but it's we need people we just need I mean to be honest with you we need people that can just sit down with the households and work through their issues and and we think that's going to expand our ability to do that quickly. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. I'm just looking to make sure we have a trusted source, right? Like I get it that we have a history with this group and that's helpful but I also want to make sure that the people who live here feel comfortable approaching the folks who they need to get I mean housing is very intimate, right? Like these are people that you have to talk to about everything. So I just want to make sure that whoever you select is and I certainly understand the process of an RFP and how long that can take and delay but you know I just want to make sure whatever choice that C-PED makes that these are trusted folks who we can rely on to be accepting and helpful to people around the needs they're facing especially when you're saying things like you know it's going to be a lot of I mean it's going to get complicated it's housing right? Like these are one bedroom to five bedroom units these are people who you know may have questions about things that existed when they didn't exist when they moved into Heritage Park. So just looking for a level of comfort from whoever is going to be this relocation consultant. My next question is it seems like the numbers changed since we talked originally when you gave the presentation and you told us the 2.5 million would go to assist with that the number was shocking it was like over 600 people and 200 families that needed to be relocated. What is the number now you think? >> Council member uh Shawdery, Council member Vita. Yes, th- this is the part of the conversation we were having with you about like having imperfect information. Yes. >> Yes. >> And as we are putting together, learning about the powers we have under the existing policies and the need for the policy that's in front of you, that's when we looked at which agencies would then provide assistance. And MPHA, that's where we got a better understanding of who was in there. There's still 211. One household has left since the last time I was here. So, it was 212 when I was back here. That's why you heard me say over 380 people. So, I don't know how many people were in that household. We said 385, 386 the last time I was here about people that were in there. From our work in the last month, we have been able to discern that 128 of the of the households are MPHA units of the occupied units and the remaining 83 would be eligible for this benefit. And I don't know and 83 households, I don't know how many people are in those households. I didn't do that analysis. Um but I will tell you to your point about SRF and relocation, I expect 83 complex conversations. >> Absolutely. And I don't know how much staffing SRS SRF has. That seems like a lot for 83 complicated households. Okay, so we know that we've identified possibly 83 households that could come through this city program. We don't know if they want to do it, but we've identified 83 households that could come through this program. And you said that um MPHA is going to relocate the MPHA families. Is there a regular uh meeting, conversations with MPHA to talk about a timeline or like because what what I fear with this is that when people start seeing the SRF families getting relocated at a pace or vice versa, it could happen with MPHA, then there'll be some confusion, right? Like people will expect that they can get the same amount of money that we're offering to the families who can go through the city program through public housing and I don't know what that looks like. So where who is at this table with MPHA and like how regular are you all meeting and how is this going to be communicated to the families, you know, the differences in the program? >> Yeah, Chair Chowdhury, uh Council Member Vita, very good question. Um we have one of the stumbling points we've had with residents at Heritage Park is we cannot articulate what the benefits are. And this is one of those steps. We're taking these kind of in in in order as best we can. We are talking to the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority on a daily basis about their progress, about our expectations, about our partnership. We're talking with Certus, uh the receiver, on a daily basis. We're talking with PSS, which is the property management, on daily basis. And so as we know what authority we have under this policy, we will then be putting together additional communications. You we would we've hosted community um hours already that we would expect to do things like that, engagement, and and make sure that we can demarcate the difference between uh transfer assistance through MPHA and and uh voluntary relocation assistance from the city. So that's the, you know, get the policy approved, then move towards um how to communicate that to get us our our relocation um group in place, then get set settled because we don't want to give people imperfect information. We'll give them the best, but we don't want to give them incorrect information where people think that it's going to go quick or slow or what have you. So, we're we're working on that. It's like I said, it's since it's come back to C-PED, we've been focused primarily on getting this policy put approved and then we will go to how to engage the community so everybody is clear. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I'm just um I'm I'm just a little skeptical of like how you move forward with all these different moving parts and making sure people understand that like I don't want people to feel segregated from something, right? Like you're coming there with people who are eligible for housing, but I'm not certain that there's going to be a representative there from MPHA to offer up something too. So, I don't want the the woman who lives in MPHA to feel like she has to stay somewhere she doesn't want to but the man who qualifies for the city project. So, I'm I'm hoping to see better >> coordination >> better coordination of like how this is launched and how it's presented to people in a way to help but not divide, not not to make some people feel like they have an option and others to feel like they don't. And I guess that's what I'm going to be looking to make sure it's happening because if I talk to people from there, I don't know like if they have a voucher or you know what I mean? Like I you don't know who has what and it just feels better like if we go in there with a coordinated plan with everyone who should be at the table to help going in together and you know, hosting people at the the reception center to come in and get help if they need it on all sides of this and not feeling like the city can only help how many families and we don't know what's going to happen with other people. >> Yeah, [snorts] Chairwoman Councilmember Vitale, I agree with you on all those points. And you know, if we reflect back on what Councilmember Waring has had, information has not been clear. It is now important, more than ever, to have of clarity of message and a coordination of the message. So, we will be working with the MPHA to do exactly what you're talking about, which is have both. We do not want to cause uh segregation within the community. >> Next, we have an up in queue, uh Councilmember Shafer. >> Yeah, a couple questions. Is SRF, the SRS consulting that does work closely with MPRB, is it that same organization that's working with public works? >> Chair Choudhary, uh Councilmember Shafer, I would expect yes, it's the same. >> Yeah, right off of 394. Okay. Thank you, that's helpful. Um can you speak a little bit to um the fund that we allocated and what you anticipate spending out of that fund? It seems like even with 83 households, if they were five bedrooms, that's not even a million dollars yet. And so, I'm just trying to understand, you know, some of it was for repair, some of it was for relocation. Can you speak a little bit to, you know, that was kind of a broad umbrella direction to help you? Can you just speak to where you are right now with, okay, how much of that repair is actually going to happen or is that all going to relocation or >> Uh Chair Choudhary, Councilmember Shafer, um I'll give some context for people cuz it gets complicated. So, when we uh presented the 2.5 million dollars, um that was a number that was for primarily for short-term rehab costs. It was for roofing, it was for uh HVAC improvements, and it was for unit turns. And it went so quickly uh in the last week before we were in front of the council that we added the relocation and and communicated to the council that we'd be working on pri- prioritizing relocation. And so, that money came from the affordable housing trust fund. We're we're looking at at at at um you know the discretions that with CPED about where it would go. We could not get to how much it would cost to relocate until we have a plan and that that will come out of this policy that will give you the benefits and you're to your point it's you know going to probably not exceed 2.5 million dollars. We will have to pay the relocation consultant so that the the negotiation that we're working on that's going to take a chunk of that 2.5 million dollars undetermined at this point in time and then we're looking at the long term. Like I don't know if we are going to authorize improvements you know that we're focused primarily on making sure we have money for relocation. After that we could have funding available for rehab. Unfortunately, I don't know if that's worth it without a global plan. So CPED has been working on the global plan with the receiver and PHA and the property manager and that is going to require tens of millions of dollars in rehab costs and I think that might be our focus. We might be tacting towards that focus and you might see that the 2.5 million dollars isn't fully exhausted through this but it's still too early to be known but we'll be reporting out on expenses. We're starting with relocation. >> Okay, before before Thursday I would really like to understand what we're paying to SRP. Is it a percentage? Is it a flat rate? I mean this is getting back to the fiscal note that Council member Choudry was. Um Um so I would like to have that be public knowledge what we're paying out of the fund and then also is that whole 2.5 then I thought it was for repairs and relocation but that needs to be clarified to the council. Um what is it all now 2.5 going to relocation? That seems like that's going to be more than what we really need but um I'd like to understand what we've already spent on on HVAC, etc., etc. Was that not out of the 2.5? That was a different fund? >> Yep. Chair Chaudhry, uh Councilmember Shafer, um we have we have $500,000 in the city's budget uh for Heritage Park. That is being negotiated for air conditioning and HVAC equipment now. Um the the status of the building conditions exceed the available cash that are in that $2.5 million. So, then it's a again back to that threshold question that I continue to bring up is is it worth putting funding in it if we don't have the global um uh financing package. And that's going to cost tens of millions of dollars. We the city will partici- potentially be will be asked to participate in that. That will be likely, you know, housing revenue bonds um or other, [snorts] you know, financial um instruments to help with that full thing. Uh when it comes to the relocation consultant SRF that we're we're negotiating with, I'm I [snorts] will will say it's in hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is a fee for a service, not a percentage. It's not as if they find something and they get a percentage off. It's a fee for their their work. Uh we're still negotiating that. I can give you the the estimate as best as I can by Thursday, but we won't have that contract that scope of work in place by Thursday. >> Okay. >> So, that'll be a So, it's Think about a $2.5 million, take off a couple hundred thousand dollars for that SRF work, then you have some available, and then you might hear from CPED that we're not going to exhaust that $2.5 million if it means just putting money into rehab that's not going to get you to the end goal. >> Right. No, I appreciate that. And can you speak to who's ultimately responsible for the major repairs in um these tens of millions of dollars? >> Uh Chair Chaudhry, um Councilmember Shafer, it's the owner of the property. And the owner of the property right now is McCormick Baron Baron Baron Salazar. And they have it in receivership. Um so, Sertus Financial is is operating as the court-appointed receiver, which means that they have all the ownership duties and responsibilities, but it's up to them to come up with the property, and they can come to us like all other housing developers for for financing. But in my opinion, it's not the city's responsibility to write a blank check to the owner of the property. >> Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And clerks, it sounds like there's a legislative follow-up in that in terms of the estimate, and I think that should be something that's sent to the entirety of the body. Uh, next we'll go to Council Member Wading. >> Thank you, Chair Chaudry, and and I think maybe just a a threshold question first to make sure I'm hearing this correctly, too. And Director, can you kind of explain a little bit to it the same question that Council Member Shafer does, particularly about the money at the moment. And so, it sounds like the 2.5 that we allocated out 2 weeks ago or whenever that was, I believe July. Okay, perfect. Um, that was specific to both relocation and repairs, cuz it sounds like you just said that a lot of that has been used up already. >> Uh, Chair Chaudry, Council Member Wading, there has not been a nickel spent on the 2.5 million dollars. It is being held. We have another 500,000 dollars that's already in the city's budget that was appropriated through the budget process last December. That funding is for HVAC. We're contracting that because people need they need to be able to, you know, they need air coming in. Um, uh, we we are focused, and I told the council when I was in front of you that we will focus on relocation, and then figure out if there's emergency needs, because you delegated authority to to me to to make some decisions. And so, we're focused on the relocation needs. That's why we need this policy. But I'm as we learn as this comes into more focus, we need a global plan of what's happening to the Council member Wars point. You know, we continue to learn about um windows and siding and roofing and all those sort of things. And so we we're not going to be able to repair um the needs of Heritage Park with the um $2.5 million that's been appropriated. >> Thank you. And and so it sounds like So the money that you were talking about that was used up quickly is that $500,000 that was already attached to >> Uh Chair Childry, Council member Whiting, we're still contracting that. I don't think that's been spent. >> Okay, so then what was the money that has been used up fairly quick that you mentioned? Is that I just cuz I you said that earlier in your presentation. You said there was a lot of money that's already been used to this point. And so I'm trying to figure out if that was the 2.5 or this 500,000. >> Chair Childry, Council member Whiting, I don't remember when I said that we used money really quick. So um >> Yeah. >> But >> it was earlier in your presentation you mentioned >> In my in my remarks. >> Yeah. >> Uh >> Answering Council member Sheafers question. >> Oh, um so I'm not Yeah, there hasn't been any more I'll I'll uh Chair Childry, Council member Whiting, just to clear it up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, thank you. >> The city of Minneapolis has appropriated $500,000 in its budget. That is being contracted. Has not been spent. In July, you appropriated you moved $2.5 million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund into this used used and that has not been used. If I said we've used up a lot of money really quickly, I apologize for that. That was an error. Um but we have not spent it. I will tell you though is the expense what we are learning is that it is becoming more expensive and we need a global solution about what happens with Heritage Park. And in the meantime, this gets the policy gives an option for people to relocate and then we would start spending money. And then once you start spending money, we'll be communicating that out so that people understand where the money is going. >> Thank you. That's that that's helpful. >> Yep. >> Thank you for the clarification. Um particularly to I think my first question is so you noted I guess currently are any have any has anyone signed up for these relocation assistance as of today? >> Uh um Chair Chaudhry, Council Member Whiting, nobody has signed up for anything under the city's policy because it doesn't exist yet. And so that's the been the that was the barrier. Like we couldn't give people relocation assistance because we didn't have the authority based on our conversations with the enterprise. Um so once we that's why we have to have the communication component to it so we can communicate here is what's available, here's how you access it, this is the process, all of those sort of things that are going to become very important very soon. >> Yeah. Do we know if if anyone signed up for MPHA's transfer assistance yet? >> Um Chair Chaudhry, uh Council Member Whiting, we are familiar with about 32 households that have interest in this um and there is um that are working with public housing. I will say that four there are four households that have expressed interest in the city's program when it when it starts. But I think there will be um I think there's I think there will be more people that will show um interest once they know what um what the program is. >> Right. That's a >> Once the benefit is articulated, then we will hear >> Perfect. And then I guess just my last question here is um is there a a reason there's some policy or kind of reason why that there's been sort of differen- differentiated between MPHA and the city of Minneapolis? Like why isn't it that we're also like MPHA residents aren't also able to use city funded dollars. Chair Paley, Council member Whiting, I think it's important for the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority to take care of its residents. They have responsibility to the residents that are in their care. Um, the city is making discretionary decision to help folks at Heritage Park for the reasons we've articulated over the last few council meetings with you. On the subject. Uh, and so I think it's the right thing that the city is doing, but we need to make sure that the MPHA uses their resources for the MPHA units and then we can provide for the ones that do not qualify for them. >> That's all. But but there seems like there's there's no policy that wouldn't that could preclude us from assisting with the MPHA residents if needed. >> Uh, Chair Paley, Council member Whiting, I'm not certain if there is a policy or not. I know that the city has some restrictions on on how we are managing or potentially interfering with public housing operations. Um, I could look at it if there's like a definitive choice. I mean there's what can we do is a question [clears throat] and what should we do? And I'm going to tell you the policy that we have in front of you is the thing that we should be doing. >> Helpful. Yeah, because I think you know, just to to both Council member Waring and Council member Vitale's comments, I think right if we are starting to see some discrepancies between I think certain programs or we're seeing an extended wait time for MPHA or city of Minneapolis kind of the two different programs. I think there might be an ability it sounds like to to kind of assist where where needed. >> Chair Paley, Council member Whiting, the first approach to that is to make sure that we're we're working as as quickly as possible at the same pace. Um, and hold the MPHA to the same exact standards that we would hold ourselves to. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. I put myself in queue next. So I was able to reference a policy that kind of followed the same policy framework and this was like the perpetually affordable housing program changes. So that was helpful for me to look back on myself. The thing that I feel like we need on this RCA by Thursday in order for me to vote on this is a fiscal note because there is clearly a fiscal impact. It says currently in the RCA that there is no fiscal impact, but we know that's in this discussion that there will be. So if we could update an estimate within the fiscal note for transparency in the work that we're doing can is that something you can do? >> Sure I can explain why there isn't a fiscal note. So this is a policy that is being appended is the next step from the appropriation that you guys approved which does have a fiscal note back in July. And so this is just the policy that helps us direct how to use the funding that was moved from the affordable housing trust fund into this appropriation for Heritage Park. But we can bring that fiscal note back up. >> I think we I think that's really important because when the public reads this it says no fiscal impact anticipated. So even if it's the same fiscal note, I think it's important because a lot of folks are following this closely and in the future we might need to look back on it. The other thing is there isn't a a REIA attached to it either. And I think a race equity analysis would be really important for this policy. And maybe as a fiscal not fiscal as a legislative follow-up is like once this is completed what happens to this policy? Like what's the is it sunsetted? Does the department just make a call? [clears throat] Cuz for our perpetually affordable housing program, that just continues, right? >> Yes. Chair Chowdhry, this the the intent of this policy is to be time limited. It you you would have to you would have to move by the 31st of you'd have to tell us by the 10th or the 15th of October and move by the end of of January of next year with a 6-month buffer for um, you know, circumstances. Um, but then this is tailored exactly to Heritage Park relocation at this moment. So, it would be unique to this situation and it would not live on after um, the last last person took advantage of the policy. >> Okay. Um, and are you able to attach a REA to this as you have for other programs? >> Chair Chowdhry, we'll do our best for between now and Thursday. >> Yeah, and I appreciate that you're doing your best and I think we're moving this through really quickly. And at the same time, like, Director, you're providing us very dense policy with very significant um, financial implications for the city and implications for residents here. And so, just the basics of this request for committee action are really important to me because I think not having it today is positing [clears throat] more questions than I anticipated. So, that's why I'm asking for that. >> Chair Chowdhry, I would say that I think it's important and imperative for the city to move. Um, if we're thinking about the racial equity impact of not acting, we're putting people in um, you know, communities of color, black folks in North Minneapolis, um, in circumstances where they cannot get out of. And so, we can put that into an analysis, but I can tell you just off the top is this is um, addressing community need exactly where the community needs us to be. >> Yeah, I I I 100% hear you and I'm not debating that whatsoever. But there is a level of oversight that's necessary for us to do our work and I am genuinely just struggling with it. This is a dense policy load that's before us and within the CPED department when you bring forward program changes, you have a very thorough background analysis and REAs. You always do and as a committee member of the Business Housing Zoning Committee, I rely on those and have relied on those for agenda settings and on items that we have to vote on because they can be complicated. So, I do think it's a fair ask to say that we need that and I don't think it's in competition with moving urgently. But it's like this is the legislative body. This is what we need to I'll I'll just speak for myself. This is what I need in order to make such a significant change and I mean, if other members are fine with that, that's I totally understand that, but I want to I I want to say I know that there are other council members that are what wondering the same thing and also getting questions from constituents, the media that I can't answer. That's a difficult, especially when I take an affirmative vote on something. >> Right. >> And I think we are all in super shared agreement on the urgency and the need, especially the race equity components of it. It's just having that clarity. I'm just stating it's just not there fully in the way that it needs to be. >> And and I agree with you, Chair Chaudry. Um it is important to have information. This, as I this situation is not you know, the the typical um approach to way it CPED does its work. We're trying to meet the needs as as I was communicated and shared in this presentation. Um we're trying to meet the needs of community in in a situation that if we had more time, we take it. Um and we just we're working with imperfect information. We're moving as fast as we can, and we'll get you as much of the information as we can by Thursday. >> Yeah, and I appreciate that. I think like just the the clarity on the fiscal note, so it doesn't say there's no fiscal impact and like even just diving a little bit more on like that sunsetting piece and like that type of intention and the background analysis that you CPED usually does, a little bit more would be helpful. And I just want to say like thank you for your work on this and thank you to your team for working on this. I know it's not easy. I know it's really around the clock. I know that you guys are really pressed for time. And I think that is reflective of like this isn't the same level of information that shows up in our Business, Housing, and Zoning Committee. So, I hope you take that >> Okay. >> feedback genuinely. I mean it. Like I appreciate it. Um next on queue is Council Member Warren. >> Thank you, Chair. Um Director Hansen, we talked about a couplet of listening to you in as you're saying what's going on with this relocation um program. SRF firm is currently getting ready to be paid $400,000 by the City of Minneapolis to be a fiscal agent. They're only providing about two staff people to support with the assistance in relocation when in North Minneapolis, currently specifically in Ward 5, we have organizations like Al Maa'un, North Point, and the Urban League Twin Cities who are able to support the residents, who've been working with the residents because this is a predominantly black and Muslim community, so it would be beneficial for them to work with individuals who are connected directly with their autonomy. If the city's relocation plan provides assessment services that consider schooling, transportation, household preferences, housing availability, and all of these very human-centered approaches around autonomy, then whether you're a resident of public housing or not, you still should be given that same grace and human-centeredness and the ability to work with people that are directly within your community, so that there is a very cultured and human-centered approach. I want that changed. I'm not working with SRF or whoever those people are. If we're going to pay $400,000, it's going to North Minneapolis. We did something else like that already. We won't have more of the same. Next thing with this because um the other component in this is that they can't articulate, the residents, um who are having issues around saying, "Yes, I want to move." is because they're constantly being lied to by everybody. Everybody keeps changing the story up. There's no consistency. When I talked about this in the beginning and I said, "Housing insecurity is a real thing." I don't I don't know if you don't get it or you don't understand when I say it. Like, if you don't know what housing insecurity means, that means the difference between being housed and unhoused, the difference between me getting my car towed and being able to pay my rent. You know, the difference between one little mistake, living paycheck to paycheck, the difference between buying diapers and and and eating today means that I might not be able to pay my rent tomorrow if I have to spend too much or the price goes up. Like that housing insecurity is a real place. The barriers that individuals have to housing, backgrounds, previous landlords, individuals who are being retaliated against in this situation dealing with MPHA and Property Solutions Now. Still currently, there are residents who are going to court and are experiencing housing barriers. This 12 2.5 million dollars that we allocated towards Heritage Park would essentially equate to about 12,000 dollars per household for all 211 families. Instead, we've discounted it and we're paying all of these additional administrative costs. There's not anything that anyone needs to do really essentially to qualify to move. Everybody is eligible. They should be. The truth is it's not habitable. It's not anywhere that anyone should want to live. Like it's a real place and I think that yes, as the city, we can't tell people you have to go, but what we should do is give them proper information around the implications of black mold. I still got some stuff growing on my arm from being out there door knocking. Do you see what I'm saying? Like it's it's still growing there. It's very visible. You Being out there is do If it's doing this to my arm in addition to sitting right underneath the Herc and everything else that's going on over there, all of these conditions weigh a heavy factor on how people are living in this situation. There should not be any gaslighting going on here. They can't articulate it because they're being lied to. And the residents have a community meeting every Tuesday. I know cuz I go. And they're working with organizations like North Point, like the NAACP, like Zera Holistic Healthcare and Wellness. Those are people that are centered in the needs in the community, and they've come forward. We've tried to, you know, make warm introductions and transfer because people are essentially going to want to talk to someone who looks like them and understands their struggle and where they're coming from, not whoever these SRF people are. I'm sure they're nice folks. Great. Thank you. I ain't seen them not one time. And no information has been even provided to me to make a warm introduction of, "Hey, community, here are some people that are coming that are not going to examine you like lab rats." You know, when we're talking about human-centeredness and we're looking at assessing community members' needs, this is not You You know what I mean? We don't want people picked apart. We got folks that are experiencing some real serious challenges when you're going through transition and transitional change, anything could cause CPS to get involved in your life, anything could cause anything to happen, right? So, the delicacy that we've already placed and put things in place within our community of North Minneapolis in its exactness, it's important that the city works with the community in that position. I really just North Point's Black Social Worker Network, Dr. Bravado, um all of these wonderful individuals, our Fremont Clinic, you know, um North Memorial Hospital, all of these individuals are ready and prepared to do a very human-centered and holistic approach with these residents. I appreciate all of this stuff. It's great, but I don't know who SRF is, and that frightens me. And I'm sorry I have to say that. And paying them $400,000 also frightens me because that's taken away from the residents. That's over 15%. When it was, you know, when it was Operation Metro Surge and we gave all of that money to it was over three or so million or whatever to What was it? 6 million we gave to the agencies over south to help with rental assistance. They charged a 5% administrative fee, right? Why are we paying so much money to SRF? That just doesn't make any sense to me. Um So, the residents to the community have been me and having a meeting. It is a division because it's public housing and the non-public housing individuals who have housing choice voucher stuff. I get it. 83 households. We have more than enough to help 83 households, but we also have enough to help 211 households, too. With $12,000 essentially per household and um $11,889,000 per household could help them. Um and if we did a 5% administrative fee, that would be $125,000 and we could pay that to somebody cuz all they're really doing is paying for accounting and bookkeeping. The people who need help need housing supportive services and things like that, application fees and what have you. The money is there. It's how are we managing it and how are we using it, but we do have more than enough. Essentially, that would be about $4,000 a month would be enough to help a family stabilize itself. And I don't I think that that on top of whatever their already acquired income is, I think they would be okay. I don't I don't see that as an issue. If I had an extra $4,000 a month, I'd be okay, too. You know, so I think they'll be just fine if everybody spreads the wealth evenly across the board and stops using yardsticks and whatever else because like I said the 128 people are the people who really need the support and I know MPHA has a job but at this point I don't even think those people show up for work. I left a message at their voice answering service. You know they got an answering service Eric when you call you can't reach a real person and they still haven't called me back and it's been weeks. So I don't know how they're responding to the needs of these people and I understand that someone is there providing um what they call a relocation packet for individuals who have housing choice vouchers on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The city is there but that's not the same as what's called a transfer packet. A transfer packet is what's utilized for an individual who is a participant of public housing so they can transfer to another public housing space or they can port out to another city whether it's Metro HRA or Ramsey HRA or Dakota County CDA or what have you. They can move into another if if MPHA is saying that they don't have the capacity but no one is helping them with that and then they're being told that they got to qualify and someone needs to come and look. That's it just is not making sense to me and I wish that everyone would really get their act together because this is this is this is ridiculous but I don't agree with SRF. I don't agree with um with um giving them that that $400,000. That doesn't make any sense to me because I don't know what they're doing with it. They should already have accountants and people who do you know uh salesforce or however they're utilizing their client based service record data keeping stuff should already be in place. It's not like they're buying new software or whatever else. If we're going to allow for something like that to be done, we probably really need to invest in putting that in North Minneapolis directly because this is just the tip of the iceberg. Everything else over there is going to need some examining, too, right? You know, so this is just the worst of the worst. So, it would be better to have it in-house and and get that stuff together over there, but this is I don't I don't agree with them at all for that. And um the residents may not want to relocate, but we really need to give them stern advisement about the health. I'm really kind of feeling a way that our public health department has not come forward and talked about the public health and safety implement implementations that this living condition is having on people. And I I would expect to have to have heard more of a statement from our public health department besides the fact that there's mold in the air everywhere because we know that, but this is black mold, and black mold has a different impact on your lungs and on your body. So, um on your entire well-being, right? And I'm just thinking about how that needs to that that really needs to come forward, but if people stop gaslighting the residents and just tell them the truth, then individuals can make a well-informed conscious choice, you know, instead of a decision to think about whether this will be short-term or long-term because this is going to be long-term. Heritage Park buildings cannot be rehabbed in 6 months, not in 8 months, not in 3 months. It will be more than a year's worth of work that needs to go on over there in order to bring it up to par. And the fact that we're spending money on air conditioning units and central air units over there to blow the mold spores around is just ridiculous. All of the HVAC units, the 168 of them, that were placed in there over the winter when people didn't have heat, Eric, we now have to be replaced because they contain mold spores. Like this is we don't want to hustle backwards. Let's not hustle backwards. Let's move forward. My campaign slogan was moving us forward. Let's move forward. Let's do the right thing, you know? Let's move forward and let's ensure that people have right information so they can make right choices in clear, you know, understanding, access, and the opportunity, you know, to don't don't strip people of their autonomy. We cannot do that. Like I'm I'm seeing this and literally every day it breaks my heart. I sat in my car for an hour on Friday after Alfred called me and cried. Cuz I'm like these are public housing residents. They're not going anywhere. They're the ones who being gaslit through this whole thing. MPHA's not doing enough. This wasn't even our stuff, but we stood up. I called Jacob and I said, "Hey, I need you to flex your strong mayor muscle or something because this is not fair to our people. We give them $5,000 a year to go towards their levy. I'm not saying that they got $5,000 sitting in a pot somewhere, but in in a vault, but I'm saying that we've contributed a lot to help support them. They're not preserving people. They're not preserving housing stock, and they're not preserving opportunity. No one's putting the people first cuz this would not have gone on for as long as it has. >> Church Audrey, uh Council member Warren, um the city is putting the people first when it comes to what we can do here. I think we need to make sure that we're not letting the public housing authority off the hook. They do receive levy. It's $5 million. >> Right. >> They have resources. And you the political um pressure [clears throat] needs to be applied so that they use it. And we have They've been showing that they're coming to the table. And so we have to continue to work with them so that those 128 public housing units still get the transfer benefits, those transfer packages as you were talking about. Um it is a very complicated situation. You and I have had this conversation multiple times. We talk a lot about Heritage Park. And you know, I've used some of your um uh turns of phrases with, you know, Band-Aid on a bullet wound. Uh and also, you know, like so you talk about the HVAC units. We we should be We [snorts] should be looking at that because some people will not move. They back to centering to their agency of the residents. Some people will not move. And so we have to look at the conditions on which they're living. And if we can help with that, then we should be providing it. I'm just saying to us as a city, we should not be throwing all of the money into it until we have a global plan. And that's what we're working as hard as we can to get to is that global plan, which is going to be You're right. You're right. It's going to be like a year and a half plus or minus a couple months on both ends. Right? So it could be 18 months to 2 years to rehab Heritage Park, and that hasn't started. And with respect to SRF, they're not coming out and talking to people because they're not under contract. If we would bring in organizations from other that are not contracted, I would have to go through a procurement process. I'd have to go through an RFP. >> An RFP would only take 30 days, correct? >> take 30 days, then we'd have to contract. You would not see [snorts] relocation assistance in available until the middle of the summer or middle of the of the fall. And that is unacceptable for me. I think we need to be able to push this funding out as quickly as we as we can and the staff and the team have come up with a way to do that. It's not perfect. Nothing is perfect in in a in a unplanned situation. And so, um, that's why we're suggesting here that we work with a contract we already have in place. And if we have community-minded, um, supporters, that's that's positive, but I want to make sure that we can get to a point where we can start sitting down with households and finding out where they are and where they can be, um, as soon as possible. And I think another 2 months of waiting for a contract to be in place is 2 months we don't have. >> I hear exactly what you're saying. I just I'm I mean, I have so many questions for this invisible company, this SRF. Like, do you have any experience in working with minority population? That's just like me going to go pick a realtor who I'm choosing to go buy a house with and he has no experience working with a first-time homebuyer, you know? You don't know how to If you don't know how to help people with, you know, wine tasting beer money. I mean, I don't know who these people are. And they're taking a lot off the top. So, I see this as somebody seizing more of an opportunity than I do. More is jumping in. And then what happens if they're not meeting the standard? What happens if the community complains and they don't feel comfortable or they're not getting exactly what it is that they need? We got to go to RFP to then again, don't we? What's happening? >> Um Chair Chowdry, Councilmember Warren, uh that's the you know, I'm not going to opine on on how much it's going to cost. I just know it's going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the scope of work. >> Alfred told me. >> and then we're managing Well, that's not something we've agreed to with SRF yet. >> Oh, well. >> But uh um we have to hold we have to manage that contract. Uh we have to set expectations and we're expecting to set those expectations to meet the the needs of the community. And so if SRF is not meeting the expectations and CPED is not doing its job. So, just you rest assured that we're we're going to be managing the contracts so that the the needs are being met. And those questions about cultural competence is something that we are asking as well. Like, how do you know who, you know, have you [snorts] worked with um communities that um vulnerable communities like this before? And uh if if we don't get a suitable answer, then uh then we might have to go to an RFP, but I just I need to we need as a city to look at this option because it gets the money available sooner. >> I understand and I am agreeing with the urgency because I like you want the families to get the help that they need. It's been far too long. Um but I don't want it to be done any old kind of way just because, you know? Um and I don't want them being shortchanged in the process, either, cuz I broke it down $12,000 per household, 211 families, 686 people. It It all the math math'd, right? Um So, those are those are just some of my thoughts and I know that we are not and we shouldn't let NPHA off the hook. I just really hope that we as a city look at who we are assigning to our boards and that we are attentive of who we are placing in these positions. You know, um for so that we can ensure that we have the right oversight when it comes to our public housing and supporting the residents who need the most support like public housing was designed to help these individuals and keep them from being in situations like this. This is what our public tax dollars go to to support and help the most vulnerable in our community who need an extra boost and and some extra support, you know. Um and I don't I don't think that, you know, it should have ever gotten to this point and that, um their humanity or their autonomy should be discounted for any reason. So, um I thank you for your work on this, Eric, and I know we're going to continue to talk about this, but um those are my concerns and my frustrations and um you know, I don't mind being vocal about it all and um I'm not happy with with Sertus and I'm not happy with Property Solutions. So, just so we have that on the record, too, as well. Thank you. The end. >> Thank you. The last person that we We on queue is Council Member Shephard. >> One other question around um if you could speak a little bit in the policy of why um you were bumping anywhere from the current rent to the anticipated new future rent was anywhere from like $250 to $450 for each um bedroom. Can you speak a little bit to that? The reason I'm I'm asking about it is just knowing this is a short-term fix. Knowing that 12 months from now, most likely people will not be able to move back into their unit. They'd have to go through the whole leasing process again. I am concerned that 12 months from now, we're going to be in the same situation where folks with because of not having the differential of the extra 250 or to 450 a month >> Yeah. >> are going to be over their skis in being able to stay in that unit that we provided for them for a year. >> Yeah. >> Chair Chaudhary, Council Member Schaefer, um thanks for those questions. I put the uh table back up. These are illustrative. This is a average estimated monthly rent based on affordability um uh um figures based on one bedroom to five bedrooms. Uh uh The there is an expectation that the the like the reason we provide this um stipend for rent differential is cuz of a shock um where you're moving from one place and then the rent goes up and this gives a ability for a household to stabilize their budgets to figure out how to to um control for that rental increase and you're in month 13. This is um typical of of relocation policies that we have had is to give is to give a certain period of time for people to to make it and we see mostly that um households will put their money into rent first and and other things and then we're trying to make it as as clean and and um easy as possible to to for that move to take place by offering the moving stipend which you know varies from 3500 to 7500 dollars depending on bedroom size but that's also a way for them to absorb that shock of of moving and make it as smooth as possible. >> Okay and so you're confident a year from now we won't be in the same situation with another policy. >> Chair Chowdhury Council member Schaefer we already know that there is a there's an extraordinary burden on renters in the city of Minneapolis. The people who live at Heritage Park are most likely in the same situation where they're paying more than 30% or higher than their income on rent so it's it's unaffordable rent in a lot of cases. And so we will still have that problem regardless of what we do whether we're in Heritage Park I would imagine that there are folks in Heritage Park that are are rent burdens now and so they will unfortunately be rent burdened in the future. The city and you know the the way the structure of of of housing and income inequality we're just not in a position to to address that whole that problem but it'll be a problem throughout the city. Not just these 83 households. >> Well thank you for trying to figure out the best way to handle this and that explanation helps me. I would just say with SRF in your continued negotiations you know with that number if that number is correct you know that's about 5000 dollars per family or per unit and that is almost equal to the one bedroom relocation and so maybe there's some way we can tear it to the size of the unit or some some sort like that. But thank you for your work on this. We're going to make it through. We just got to help everybody else make it through. >> Yeah. >> All right, thank you. Are there any other council members that want to get into queue? Seeing none, is there a motion for this item? >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Great. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. That motion carries. Our next discussion item was originally scheduled for the climate and infrastructure meeting last Thursday on the 6th, but was postponed due to time. This item authorizes a no-cost contract with OnCourse Home Solutions for sewer lateral insurance program. I'll invite Ross Jonnek, manager with Sanitary Sewers Division, to get us started about this new program. Welcome. >> Chair Kadri and council [clears throat] members, thanks for having me this afternoon. Um I'm here to talk about the private sewer lateral insurance. Um he said my name, but it's Ross Jonnek again. Um manager of the the business team for the Surface Water and Sewers Division. Uh before getting um more into like the program and some other things that we do to help people with their sewer laterals, um just wanted to kind of go over the basics of of the sewer lateral and um some of the common problems that occur. So, um with the sewer lateral, it's one of those things that a lot of homeowners don't realize that they that they own and that they have to maintain. Um it's it's the lateral that leaves your house and it takes your waste. It takes your toilet waste. It takes your sink, your dishwasher, um your shower, your clothes washer. It takes all of that and it and it conveys it to the main that's out in the middle of the street. Um A lot of homeowners don't realize that they they do own that sewer lateral all the way from their house all the way through the yard out to the street under the sidewalk, um as well as the connection. So, um that's in city ordinance. Um been existing for a long time. Some of the Some of the common issues that exist with these lines is root intrusion. So, all those wonderful trees, they are great at finding moisture, and so they will go out there and they will find find moisture in the sewer line. And so, they they find a crack and they start to to develop issues within the line. Probably the the number one thing that we we get calls about is people having root intrusions into the line. Um So, cracks exist. Also, the gap [clears throat] at the at the connection to the main can can develop issues where it disconnects. Another common one that's not in the image here is there'll be dips in the line. So, at some point the erosion happened below the line, it dips out, and then those dips start to not let the the gravitary flow of the line occur anymore. So, um Most of these lines in the city are they're they're original, right? So, they're original from when the home was built. Majority of homes in Minneapolis were built prior to 1939. So, you know, we're looking at, you know, 90 100, you know, we hear we see you know, up to 150 years, right? So, there's Some of these lines are really really old. Average repair cost that we see for the the ones that kind of come through our programs is 13,000. There's definitely a wide range. I've seen up to 40,000. So, it's They get can get really expensive to repair these things. Um Current programs that we have right now is we have a sewer private sewer lateral grant program. Homeowners can get a grant so 5,000, 7,500, or 10,000 dollar grants. This funding comes from Met Council. We've been doing the program for 3 years now. Um This year we had 350 applications and only enough funding for 36 grants. And so, definitely a long waitlist, and that 350 applications those are all homeowners who submitted that they they were they proved that they had issues with their lines, not just people saying, "Oh, I'm interested in applying." These are all people that have had that contractors report saying, "Yep, fix your line." Um, and heard about the program and applied for it. So, um, definitely a a big need there. Um, definitely evidenced by the just a number of people applying for that this year. The other program we have is a is a assessment program. And so, with this, um, the sanitary sewer fund financially supports individuals fixing their line. They can assess assess it to their property taxes at a 5, 10, 15, or 20-year payback period. Um, in 2025, there was 116 property owners that took advantage of this program um, at the cost to to the sanitary sewer fund of $1.1 million in repairs. Um, just as we are sitting there, we get um, if an online application system, I got one in. It was in the homeowner's facing $25,600. Um, and they're choosing to to assess that over 20 years. So, um, and they can always pay back early, but as a homeowner, now you're having to pay that back and it's going to be on your property taxes. And so, um, it's great the program exists, but it's not always the it's not always the best thing when you already have property taxes that are going up as well to have something else on there, but So, private sewer lateral insurance. And so, um, we issued an RFP earlier in 2026. Um, with this program, it's 100% optional. It's not being forced on any homeowner. No one needs to sign up for it. Um, the city endorsing a company allows homeowners to get a better rate and coverage limit than what is available on the open market. Um, for the most part, um, no no city funds will be used for this, so it's not costing the city any money. Um, the city will provide branding um, and customer contact information. So, that is really kind of the part on the city side. Um, you know, you put your logo on there and um, you know, we want to stand behind a company to provide a good service. And many cities in many in Minnesota and around the country have similar partnerships. And so, this is nothing new. We're not, you know, not coming up with a new idea. It's very very common around the country. From the RFP, we've decided to go with OnCourse Home Solutions. They are endorsed by the National League of Cities. The rate that they're they're offering for the first 3 years of this program is um for the first year, it would be $5.49 per month for for a homeowner. And then after that first year, it would go up to $9.99 per month after that, you know, first 12 months. Um the coverage limit number three there is an unlimited coverage dollar coverage limit for repair replacement of residential sewer service lines. That's why I was mentioning those costs earlier that you get really really expensive. If you can have insurance and it's going to cover that versus only covering part of it, it's it's a great deal. This insurance also has additional benefits. $1,000 per occurrence for out-of-pocket restoration costs, $1,500 for hotel accommodations, or $500 pet boarding. So, um really that number three is one of the big reasons why we wanted to go with OnCourse along with the rate that they're offering. In addition to that, they're offering a $100,000 community partnership fund. It's a one-time amount of money to come to the city. And then number five there would be an annual $50,000 customer hardship fund. That fund would be something where we would refer a homeowner to them and, you know, cover It could be someone who doesn't have the insurance. Um the way these programs work, not everyone's going to hear about it, right? You know, there's going to be a lot of marketing that happens, but someone might not heard about it, just didn't sign up for it, didn't feel like they could, you know, afford the the extra amount of money per month, but they're in a hardship situation. So, another good example is this is last year, we got a call from a case worker and there was a woman whose line backed up and we definitely have programs to help fix that line, the assessment program or the grant, but we don't have programs to help with the cleanup that might occur and stuff like that, you know. And so, something like that is something we could refer to um to this amount of money. $50,000 um probably wouldn't go very far. It gets spent up quickly, but Next steps with this program, we need to refine and improve the contract with OnCourse. I'm currently working on that. Outreach to neighborhood associations, develop a city website just so people have a place to go if they're questioning what the program is about. Um Approve the marketing materials that OnCourse will use. Anything they send out we have will we will approve and have 100% approval for. Um And then that fact that last thing kind of mentioned that was just to set up some guidelines for that annual $50,000 hardship fund and you know at what point do we refer someone who calls. And finally, yeah, just again thank you for your time. Happy to have any answer any questions now or if there's any in-person briefings anyone wants would be happy to to meet with you. >> Yeah, thank you so much Ross. This is really exciting presentation. Kind of glad that we had it move into cows so everyone could get it. We have a couple of council members in queue. We can go to council member Witing first. >> Thank you Chair Chaudry. And thank you to to Ross and Angie. I know this has been something I am aggressively excited about particularly here for for Ward 11 being one of the highest home ownership wards in the city and this is this is a strong statement coming from someone that hates insurance hate insurance broadly so anyone that knows me does and and I could not be in more support of a policy like this. I think it it is helpful for individuals to know and I think maybe by example right I got a call from my mom goodness probably about six months ago particularly to she was she was extremely worried. Kind of like Jameson how in the heck am I going to retire? And I was like mom hold on what's going on? What's actually happening? And right and so she there was a root intrusion and she got a I think an estimate of somewhere upwards of $15,000 to come in and replace her sewer line that she didn't know that she had or even existed. And so I think this is something, you know, what she told me there was like, "Hey, can you figure this out at the city?" And I was like, "Mom, it takes a little bit longer than that." But so thank you for putting me in good graces with my mom. But I can't thank you enough for this work and particularly to my predecessor as well, Council Member Koski, for kind of putting this in motion. It's one of the things that we talked about initially right when I came into to office here. And I know her four years of work to get this off the ground as well. And so again, I just can't thank, you know, Public Works, you all enough for doing this with a level of speed, transparency, and I think accuracy for this. I think the only question that I have particular to kind of the Oh goodness, the the hardship fund that we have on here, kind of the the 50,000 and then the community partnership fund of kind of that initial one-time payment. Looking at those like 350 applicants that for kind of that lateral sewer grant, I just kind of did a quick math of you know, if we took that at the average repair, right, that's $4.5 million across all of those applicants for for one for one year in the city of Minneapolis. I guess the question is how often is this or are we kind of seeing these things kind of pop up and happen across the city of Minneapolis where there's a some level of of lateral sewer line replacement or repair. I know repair happens that happen more often than a full replacement does. >> Chair Chatman and Council Member Whiting, I don't have the numbers for you. It's often. And we see the ones that are coming through the grant and assessment program. There there they don't come through those programs and they're just calling a contractor. Um I can definitely pull some numbers. We can pull um the permit numbers and how many permits are happening and so it's a good estimate of it's a lot. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> No, that's really helpful. I think it's just let us know how we can be helpful to kind of get the the word out. I did some more quick math cuz you can tell how much I hate insurance. It would take 108 years of paying into this insurance to to get to that average repair cost. And so I think the investment is is well worth the the rub here. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Council member Warren. >> Thank you, Chair. Um this is great. I all of the sewer lines underneath my house collapsed about 2 years ago. Where you been? Um so um what >> [laughter] >> It was real It was a real place. It was devastating. But I know how expensive and how detrimental that this can be for people. And I know that we also have an extremely long waiting list. When we opened up the application period for the city earlier this year, I had a number of residents calling saying, "When can I apply? How do I get on there? What do I need to submit, send, blah blah blah, what have you?" And they were even having trouble uploading photos or you know, inspection reports in hopes of being chosen. So, with this insurance, individuals who have pre-existing conditions, especially our seniors who've been waiting to get picked on this lottery system that we have through the city, are they eligible for this insurance or you know, cuz sometimes insurance don't cover pre-existing conditions. Help me. >> Chairwoman and Council member Warren, yes, in in talking with Oncourse Home Solutions, Um, know, we had the RFP and their response and then we had them in for a presentation, and that's one of our questions. It's very common. People know they have root intrusions, and so we want to make sure that wasn't going to be an exclusion. They said it wasn't going to be. Um, and when we do the contract, we're going to make sure that's part of it as well, so it's in writing. >> Okay, yeah. I would love a report back to make sure that individuals are eligible for this insurance, because this is something that would greatly benefit, I know, especially our seniors. Um, because people have gotten injured carrying those huge augers up out of the the basement, those 150-footers that got to go to try to clear out the lines and get all the root stuff out. Yeah. That stuff is dangerous carrying it up and down, you know, to try to Otherwise, you got to pay so much money, like $500 to have someone go through your main stack all the way out or through your cleanout and whatever else the case I mean, that can get very expensive. And so, knowing that we have these beautiful and amazing tree canopies that love sewage water um, in our front yards and things. Um, but they they definitely um, do a lot of a lot of damage to the underground piping, and we want to make sure cuz getting it sleeved can go anywhere between $8,000 all the way up to $50 to $60,000. >> I know. >> Because when I when I'm telling you they collapsed underneath my house, and the city sent me out a list it was like 15 or 16 different contractors of who they allow to come in contact with their lines, cuz the lines from our house go all the way to meet the sewage line in the city. And and so, if they got to open up, excavate, and then disrupt the sidewalk and whatever else, like the homeowner has to pay for all of that. And that is not cheap at all. And so getting those different bids and things, I just want to make sure that it will cover pre-existing conditions and that people will be able to get the help that they need if they're not eligible to take advantage of the lottery system. We're trying to help as many people as we can with the grant program with the city, but I know that this will give other folks some hope, too. Thank you. The end. >> Next we have Councilmember Shafer. >> Thank you, Chair Chaudry. I have a question. Thank you very much for this work. Very excited to continue to share this with residents. Is there any opportunity for um water lateral pipe insurance? For water pipes? >> Yeah, Chair Chaudry and um Councilmember Shafer, in in working with our water division, they don't feel there's a need. Um part of that is um a lot of the breaks that happen with water lines are lead service lines, and so they've had funding available to like replace those for individuals. Um and there probably are some extreme cases where other ones do break, um but they're they felt having involved is just would be a waste of money for individuals. That they would be paying for something that's not needed. >> Um well, there's a lot of lead pipes that are still out in our system. And so I think people would like to, but maybe lead isn't a requirement for insurance that has to actually break for replacement costs. Um and then can you speak to um um the just briefly any of the condition of the city connections? Um I've heard that our city pipes are not great shape. Is that primarily the sewer? Is that primarily the water? Maybe you're not the right person, but >> Chair Chaudry and Councilmember Shafer, um I can give you a a a general answer. We can definitely have a a longer conversation, I think, but we you know the as a division, we do have an asset management program where we're looking at the the health of our our system. Um and this is the sewer system. Um and we have a an active capital program to to replace the sewer line. So, it's um it's something that is nothing to be ignored. We need to keep doing it, but we definitely have a plan. >> Okay. All right. Now that we all have the all the laterals get replaced, we won't want to have a major with the with the main. But, thank you for your work on this. It's exciting. >> [snorts] >> Thank you. And next we'll go to Council Member Wieden. >> Yes, sorry. And Council Member Savard, the same question that I asked as well about the the water lines. And it's my understanding that it's a kind of an add-on project. So, it's not under kind of the city's endorsement, um but it is something that you can add on as as part of the your your package, but it wouldn't be under the city's kind of endorsement of. And so, it's a program that you could like we could as individuals go on right now and purchase that those insurances. So, yeah. And then the last kind of question here, maybe for the city attorney's office, I've never done a no-cost contract uh before, at least acceptance is will this come back to us? Or since it is under the threshold of of Council authorization, does it not come back before the body? >> Well, I don't know if you have Generally speaking, because it's a non-standard contract form, even though there's no cost, it would come back uh to the council because we it's not on a standard uh template. And so, this council action is to authorize entering into the contract and then the once I I'll defer to kind of the timeline, but then it would come back to to approve the contract itself. >> Chair Chaudry and uh Council Member Wieden, yes, that's my understanding as well. It's um you know, we started this process, it was do we even need to do an RFP? And it's like asked those questions, it's yep, it's non-standard, we're going to be endorsing and picking a company over other ones. So, yep, we'll go through this process and yep, come back with the contract. Yep. >> Amazing. Thank you so much. >> Yep. >> Thank you. I just had a quick question. What would be the rate if we didn't endorse this? Do you know what the comparable is and how much you're saving with the endorsement for for folks? >> Chair Choudry, I'm sorry. I don't know the exact what it would be. I do know competing competing companies that might have a similar monthly rate, but their coverage limit's 12,000. >> Mhm. And this is unlimited. >> Unlimited, yes. >> Okay, that's great. Okay, that's the only question that I had. Members, is there anyone else in queue? Um seeing no one else in queue, can I ask for a motion? Oh, sorry, Council member Warren. Didn't see you there. Go ahead. >> Um thank you. You said it was for unlimited amount of repairs and stuff, but typically if a sewage line is sleeved and it's repaired, after you know, you get that that casting put in there, cuz I got mine sleeved, and then it's under warranty for the next 25 to 30 years, like you wouldn't need the insurance to continue to pay it anymore. See, I'm worried about this because you said it'll cover the pre-existing conditions and then you're saying unlimited numbers of repair, but once you get your line sleeved or you get the line replaced, then the line would then be underneath the service warranty of whomever replaced the line and did the stuff, so then you wouldn't necessarily need to keep paying the premium for insurance. >> Chair Choudry and Council member Warren, in some of some of the situations, they're not going to replace it just off the bat, you know, they're going to try and re-establish the flow of the line. >> Correct. >> Take the roots out of there. >> And even with the sleeving, sleeving has about a 25-year warranty on the sleeving of a line. So, they jetted out with over 4 or 500 PSI of water, clean it out, then they're going to run that sleeve through there, then they're going to curate it, and then it's like it's it's essentially like a whole new pipe that is then put through the sewage line. I know, I watched the whole process with a camera. Was slick as I don't know what. you. But, now I'm under the warranty of the company that put my sewage So, they gave me a warranty that's good for 25 years. So, if I had an insurance, why would I continue to pay the premium? Because all of those lines clean out included are run through the same sewage system essentially, unless this is covering the stack in the inside of a home, the main stack. No, this is just for the lateral lines out exterior to the home, correct? Okay. >> Chair Audrey and Councilmember Warrenton, you're right. As a homeowner, it's 100% optional. So, if you just had it fixed, you don't need it anymore. So, you don't have to keep You just you cancel it and you stop paying. >> I mean, cuz all of $5 and stuff could go towards some eggs. Okay, thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Yeah, and it looks like on the website there's a pretty clear spot for program cancellation, which is really helpful. Um members, I'm not seeing anyone else in queue, so is there a motion for this item? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Excellent. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> That motion All those opposed say nay. That motion carries. And thank you for the presentation, and seeing no further business before us and with no objection, I will declare this meeting adjourned. >> Okay, three.