[Music] Heat. It is Monday, July 21st, 2025. I won't make too much of a comment about how quickly summer by. Um, but anyway, I'll call the meeting to order and uh we will start with Miranda and go around the introduce everyone. I don't think we have a guest tonight, so I'll >> do an assistant city manager. >> Hello. Uh, good evening. Eric Nelson, city attorney. >> Mike Bunk, city manager. >> Haty Foster, Bolton, Ward One. >> Kimberly Wilburn, at large. >> Rebecca Shack, W two. >> Brad Woram, mayor. >> Ky Kley, w four. Paula Romey, w three. >> De Calbert, at large, seat A. Julia Wishan, community development director. >> Alicia Gray, economic development and housing manager. >> Kendall Larson, housing coordinator. Jason Tate, deputy chief of police. >> Excellent. Well, welcome everyone. >> We didn't catch we didn't catch that on video, so that's probably good. >> Anyway, um so welcome. And uh tonight it's it's all about housing, uh which is um an important topic for all of us. And Mike, I'll turn it over to you. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, Brad. Council, good evening. Uh really my part tonight is pretty brief. I'm going to hand it over to Julie as for all of you now been on council not new to you July all things housing as we call it. So Julie and her team both Alicia and Kendall will be presenting tonight. So the three of them will be presenting a number of topics that were put in your packet. Uh staff looks forward to just visiting with you on a couple important topics. I also want to just acknowledge appreciation for you taking some time to fill out the encampment survey because that was helpful in drafting what you saw in your packet and certainly we'll get into that here a little bit later. Uh and then looking at just some of those housing things that uh we've been we've been talking about this last year and and staff providing some updates regarding some of the activity uh this last year. And so again, look forward to that conversation. And also we have Deputy Chief Tate with us this evening as we get into the encampment policy. If we have questions on enforcement, um certainly uh Jason will provide us some insight and perspectives on on enforcement because that'll be that's part of the conversation with the policy. Uh and then I'll really I'll just kick it over to Julie. We did put up as you saw mentter really looking to guide conversation tonight. So I probably stole Julie Slender on that one. >> So thanks for setting that up, Julie. really was make sure we maximize our time this evening and really focus on items or the really the items in your packet that are most important to you. If all things were considered equal, I think we were planning what Julie 17 minutes a topic or so, right? >> Uh to get through this evening, but we'll as staff readjust a little bit uh based on how you answered it because again we want to make sure we focus time where you want to spend time this evening. So with that, really appreciate Julie and her team putting together the staff report, even for myself uh >> reviewing it before we push it out. just some really good stuff in there as always just as our city we spend this July every study July every year in the study session because housing is so important and whether it's our uh availability of housing our housing stock along with how we look at affordability all of our programs and I know we cover much of this through our EIP that we had in a conversation here a couple months ago but tonight's just a deeper dive into that and again I really appreciate our city I think it's I say appreciate our city mainly because just of what we do on the housing front. Uh we are leaders um in the housing arena. I'd say even last week uh Mayor Wearsome and myself and and Miss Wishnack spoke with two of our legislators on housing. So housing is just really important and certainly on a legislative front it's going to be back in front of legislators and certainly all the activity that we're doing is is important and our legislators recognize the good work that we do. And so it doesn't none of that doesn't happen by accident. We're we're intentional about it. So, with that, I really want to turn over to Julie and we'll get things rolling. >> Thank you, Mike. Um, I think whenever we get together and we start talking, by the way, we started talking about this in January, what we were going to do for July's study session. Uh, and we do it that early so that we at least have subject matter and framework for what we're going to be presenting to the city council. And it's also kind of a reflection about not only things we've done in the past, but then how we're moving toward the future. And there are some ideas in here that are just being kind of vetted out. And I would say like legacy housing is one of those subjects where we've had it in the background for a while. We've been thinking about it, uh, doing some research, that sort of thing. But now it's coming together and we want to show you some of the products that we're thinking about as we move ahead. So, the way I have it, and Alicia and Kendall can correct me if I'm wrong, we've got encampment probably as a number one vote getter. So, we'll spend the most time talking about the encampment policy. Then the second um area is manufactured housing. The third area was legacy uh program ownership would be next and then I got lost after that. >> HIA. >> Okay. and rental registry. >> Rental registry. So that tells me that we've done enough education on rental registry. You guys know where we're kind of at so people feel fairly comfortable about where that subject matter is. But maybe we'll talk about it for just a minute and just check in with you. So we'll do it in the order. We have two hours planned for this. So probably encampment. I'm going to probably it's going to take a while for us to explain it. Um we've talked to you about it before, but there's some really good research behind what was proposed. and then we'll let um Deputy Chief Tate go because he didn't maybe that was his main issue of being here tonight. So um >> we'll let go. >> He he loves all housing because he heard about it all afternoon today, but he said it's okay if he can go after that. So was there any other subject matter? I see short-term rentals up here. Um, anybody else had other subject matters they wanted to cover that we didn't cover in the report or didn't identify? Okay, we'll just make sure we circle back to that. >> Oh, I do have one. Sorry. >> Okay, you can just shout it out. >> It's just the whole condo like how do we get how do we get them built? >> Condos and the state law. >> Condo warranty law. >> Warranty law. Okay. >> Other states are dealing with that too apparently. I didn't hear you. Sorry. >> I didn't hear you though. >> Oh, I was just saying other states are dealing with that issue too. I heard in Okay, got it. >> All right, we've got all of those written down. So, let's take uh if you don't mind, mayor, we'll do 30 minutes on encampment and then we'll move on from there. So, we're going to I'm going to hand this over to Kendall. She's been the research expert on this. all of us as a group, all four of us, including Eric, um, as a city attorney, we get together pretty regularly to talk about this encampment. So, we feel like it's pretty well vetted at this point, but there's room for improvement always. So, go for it, Kendall. >> All righty. So, starting off with just some kind of reflective information about our homelessness initiative. um that in 2022 the city partnered with his house foundation to provide emergency homeless um assistance and from 2022 to present day we've assisted um around 84 residents or 40 households. Um and that continues to increase. Um and with that referrals coming from the police through our um the kind of work group that we've had and the dashboard that we put together in 2023 um there have been 18 households that have been referred directly to his house from those interactions. Um and then also there are referrals that his house gets through the min through Minnitonka schools. Um and then of those households looking at seven households have been referred from his house to shelter. Um in a location that the person was looking to get shelter um and as part of that shelter some of those it says four households theirs were referred to either mental health or substance use assistance as well. Um, and then looking at coordinated entry, which is the county's system uh for getting on a list to get assistance um and specifically get into housing. Um, that five households were provided direct coordinated entry assistance. Um, and that happened mostly through they Martha was who's the executive director at his house. um that was the best thing for those in households at that time to get them on co into coordinated entry. Um and so yeah, just a little info there for the data that we have. Um as I said before, um the staff formed an internal homelessness work group in 2023 um which then developed an internal response model to um go through some procedures and some scenarios of how we would help um individuals um with very specific cases. Um and then also creating a form, an intake form and dashboard that um our police and um community development and also the community can use. Um in addition, the police department also issued a formal policy for um homeless individuals and how the police interact with um homeless. So um if you have more questions on that, I'll give it over to Jason. But um then in 2024 the we also started researching more homelessness initiatives and looking far and wide um across the nation but also to some of the communities around us and just researching other initiatives, procedures and policies that were kind of best practices to be able to support um our community. Um and through that research um we then went to thinking about what um we would have for an encampment policy and we brought that um to the last study session in 2024. Um and today we will present the research that went even more in depth after you all uh stated that we should pursue this um and look more into it. Um and so Minnotonka hasn't experienced encampments like large encampments that we um hear about, but we want to be proactive. We don't want to be reactive. Um and so when we're looking to address homeless situations in the community and so we do employ an outreach and resource approach through the policy that we have, the internal um procedures that we follow. Um, but the existing homelessness policy does not provide specific language to address camping or homeless encampments on public property. Specifically, staff has seen more remnants of few camps here and there throughout the city as we've um had our dashboard specifically um seeing those different um interactions come through, finding tents that maybe have been abandoned um or what have you. So there have been more sightings of those as as time has gone on. And so as we began researching um other cities pursuing these very similar um problems um and looking at various approaches to enforcing regulations on camping and homeless encampments on public property. Um they were all mostly centered around kind of ant anti-amping ordinances or policies. Um but in many cities um the ones specifically researched that enforcement was not the primary method um to addressing homelessness or encampments. The primary method was outreach first. Um and they each city agreed that homelessness is not a crime and not wanting to criminalize homelessness. Um but you know how do we balance that right? Um and so through that research then uh a lot of information but these were um a lot of the cities that uh we looked into and you can see three the top three are from around the country um in different locations very varying sizes as well um and so specifically I'll just do a few points from each um but with Witchah Kansas there's was an ordinance um that was passed that prohibited camping in or upon any public property or public rideway unless they were granted a permit to be there for an event um or anything like that. their some of their enforcement includes 48 hour notice to vacate the property. Um and that you know they do have a violation would be a misdemeanor and that there could be a fine and potential jail time if you know uh as part of their enforcement. But they did indicate as well that a person would not be cited with a violation if they were deemed to be homeless and they weren't able to find them temporary shelter housing anywhere else. Um San Diego um obviously a very large city compared to us but they also have an ordinance which prohibits camping uh camps and encampments in Norupon public property uh but provides outreach to those who need it before enforcement begins. So that very much outreach approach first um and providing information and assistance and resources. Again, very similar enforcement for uh violations, but their pol or their ordinance specifies start like very specific locations where the enforcement would occur and some of those are two blocks from a shelter or two blocks from a K through 12 schools. Um I think city parks was another one. And so those are kind of the initial places that they want to make sure encampments aren't growing. um and then anywhere else in the city after that but those places are given priority. Um and then again 24 hours after they're they've given notice um then that's when kind of abatement procedures happen and people are um moved from that location. Uh Boulder, Colorado um has an ordinance as well that prohibits camping within any park, parkway, recreation area, open space, or any other city property. They did not have any language in this specific part um of their ordinance that had a violation or enforcement aspect. So um it was I couldn't find anything on that. So, um whether or not they do any type of enforcement, I do not know. Um and then looking locally, um starting with Minneapolis, uh they have an ordinance that prohibits cars, tents, and other temporary structures to be built or to be placed or parked on any public street, public or private premises um or street in the city and used specifically for shelter for living purposes. Um and so they use that ordinance um to um help with um encampments. Uh but they do have a homeless response team that works 24/7 and goes out to the encampments and does outreach and provides assistance to those living in encampments um before any kind of enforcement would take place. Uh looking at St. Paul, they have a city policy. It's not an ordinance but a city policy um as well as a police policy that they use. Um and this their city policy establish establishes a standard procedure in which they would clear an encampment. And so um they provide guidance to government city governmental officials and staff in evaluating and closing uh encampments that are in those public spaces being used for temporary shelter. Then they also have a homeless assistance response team uh that provides the resources and alternate housing options as well. So Minneapolis St. all very similar um in that another is Rochester. Um they have an ordinance um that prohibits camping in and upon city land or rightway there it's a a misdemeanor as violation and there are specific situations for prosecution um that are laid out within the ordinance. Um but they do they have a a pri prioritization of spaces in the community. So they have it listed out kind of similar to San Diego's that you know places closest to schools and in parks um and a few other are listed out in their ordinance. And the last one I'll mention here is Duth um that also has an ordinance that prohibits camping or establishing a campsite on city property as it is a public health and safety risk. Um and so there are penalties that are included. a fine of no more than $200 is specified and then there is also specific situations for prosecution for violations um of that ordinance as well. So, with all of that, um, we also, um, sent out a survey to the council to get feedback in order to kind of pinpoint the topics that we thought were most important uh, for um, what you all believe were the most important topics to include in this encampment policy. Um and so through that feedback um it indicated that the council wanted to wanted the policy to provide prioritize health and safety um as number one and not to criminalize homelessness as well as to pro provide a longer time frame to give people time to receive the assistance and to make a plan. Um, in reviewing the feedback, um, we had a few instances. I don't know, Julie, if you want to take over here. >> I can talk about the private property instance. Uh, the the response from you all was um kind of similar to other responses. So, we picked up you wanted to follow the same procedure for private property as you would any other property. There there's a little bit of a challenge with that in that uh if there was a private encampment on private property and the owner did not want them there, they would be trespassing and the police would go and remove them and trespass the people on the property. And that would be the case for anybody on someone else's property. But the way you answered it, it felt like you you felt like it should be handled the same way as like public property. That's the impression I got. So, I just want to be clear when we're talking about the policy here, it it does distinguish between private and public property. So, private property would be treated as all public private property would be treated if that makes sense. >> All right. I just want to make that clear going. Yes. So, um on the screen is um actually the policy itself as well, but scenario that kind of plays out exactly what July just specified of how you have to determine who the property owner is and then that would determine what kind of procedures would be followed. >> Question on that though. Um I mean what if the property owner didn't have a problem with that occurring on their property? >> Yes. >> I don't think we've answered that yet. >> Okay. >> Because I think >> Yeah. I mean I think see the struggle happening there. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I think >> we're not as advanced on dealing with that circumstance where it's indicted in. >> Okay. Very good. >> However, I think you would probably use the same general parameters. Uh there are there are other ways of dealing with that, but um >> I don't know that we got that far in our scenario building. >> No. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Good question. because there's been a lot of coverage, >> right? >> About that case, >> anything else you're gonna say about this? >> No. Well, there is one more slide. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Perfect. >> It's not meant for you to read. It is just an image of the policy itself. Um, that this policy that was presented to you was drafted with feedback uh from the council um and put together uh for you to review. Um and with that then our question to you is does the city council have additional direction regarding the draft encampment policy? Um any other feedback you'd like to provide? Um >> yeah and I think one of the questions that was tossed around today um is you know a lot of of the cities say they're not criminalizing encampment folks that are in an encampment. I think that's a little bit misleading because they all have or almost all of them except for one had some kind of criminal penalties after trying to do the outreach. And that's kind of what you see in the policy here is we follow this kind of outreach campaign if you will. There's an allowance for that to occur. There's some uh outreach that is given. If they don't take the outreach and people continue to stay, then there's the implementation of these other regulations like anti-amping. Um what's the other there's two other city ordinances. >> Yeah. So, public use >> public and other >> the parks and the and the library. >> So, there are other ramifications after all that outreach is done. And by the way, in the policy, it also says that city manager has to be informed, has to get the information and then make that final call as to whether we move into that uh second phase, if you will. So that's how the policy is drafted today. We make changes before we come back to you, but we do want to at some point come back to the council for the full adapt. >> Well, thank you very much. Um, so council thoughts, comments on the policy that was shared with us. Council member Kley, >> I guess I have a um comment um in regards to the policy. And I know that you you're saying you're going to do outreach, contact the person, but sometimes um folks have mental health. And so I just don't want us to be criminalizing people who have mental health who may not accept the um help because of their mental health. There's people who don't want to go stay in shelter for whatever reason and more so it's mental health. And so I don't want us to start to perpetuate the problem um of criminalizing folks who have mental health because I can see if we don't add that where we say, "Okay, we've done some outreach, we've had the social worker, we've offered services, but they still won't accept us accept the help." Well, if someone is not accepting help, then it could be something else going on with them. Um, and so I just don't want us criminalizing those folks. Um, because, you know, I worked in shelter, stayed in shelter, and there's people just don't want to go stay in shelter, and it's usually it's tied to some mental health. And so, I just don't want us doing that. And so I'm wondering is there another way that you could include in the policy if someone is diagnosed with mental health then you just don't penalize them. You don't criminalize them. I know in court that I remember working with a particular case where this woman had mental health. They didn't criminalize her. She kept committing domestic violence and they didn't criminalize her. They kept sending her to mental health court. but she kept doing the same stuff and they never criminalized her. So I feel like if we can do that for DV, we should be able to do that for homelessness and any any other person who have mental health. We should be if we can identify that they have mental health, there should be something that we say we're not going to criminalize those folks because doesn't make any sense to put people in jail who got crim mental health. That's just how I feel about it. And and I think the policy I mean the policy says specifically that that we're we don't criminalize homelessness. Correct. >> I think and and that's where and all the policies say that. >> Yeah. >> But when you get down to it and you have let's just I'm going to give you a scenario and and maybe this will help tease out what Ky was saying. >> Um you have a situation where maybe you have five um five folks camping on city property. let's say on the front lawn of city hall and you constantly get complaints. You are people are scared to come to the city campus because they're intimidated by whatever perceived criminal acts these people would do to them and you're facing that but then you've already done your outreach. People have been contacted. They won't take your help. They just want to camp out. So then what? >> Right? you do nothing or you continue with some type of enforcement. >> And and I think I I hear what Kyy's saying. It's hard to criminalize folks that have some challenges, mental health challenges. Police department well aware of that situation. You can see our outreach people have sent folks to diversion programs and and assistance programs for mental health. So obviously that's being recognized in the field, >> but when you have that situation, I use >> Yeah, but no, I get it. >> You see my point? You're just going to continue on and allow that to happen and be there. >> And then choose not to do any other action. >> Right. that that I think that's that's a >> well that's I mean to me you know and I don't I want to hear from other people but I mean that's that's the critical issue is that that's where the rub is when you do all of your intervention and for whatever reason be it mental health or whatever um the person does not want to leave and um and and so what what options are available to the city um we want to be fair and kind to people, but we also um want to um um we want to we want to we want to have the opportunity to ensure that we can change a situation that is not the way it should be. That's that's the rub. Um Deb, >> thank you Brad. Um, so I'm on the emergency management council for Ramsey County as the liaison from my department and the perennial monthly hot topic is homeless encampment encampments and you know St. Paul has a pretty humane very soft approach to encampments and but it one one of the qu this is like comments and questions. So, one of the things that came up in a meeting this past year was that when they eventually have to clear an encampment, one of their commitments under certain circumstances is to keep people's property. And so they need storage and it becomes extremely expensive especially if the property owners that they're keeping the property for the tents and the you know whatnot um for whatever reason can't claim them can't get them and um you know it's an expense. It's it's complicated and you need space for it. So, so that's one thing that I think about when we, you know, sort of the softer enforcement approach that there's actually just sort of logistical issues. Is that something that you have any information about sort of what it costs and like who's dealing with it and what they do? >> Um, I can speak to some of that. So, um, I don't really have the specifics on cost, anything like that. you know, we haven't really had to deal with that scenario frequently, but uh in our police policy, we do have a pretty robust section about personal property taking care to collect all of it and store that. We do have the capability in the police department through our property room to be able to handle um that intake. You know, if it was a large encampment, we may have to look for some alternate storage, but we have capacity in our property room to take on some of that uh personal belongings that we may encounter in a situation like this. U and then I can also Ky to your point about mental illness. In our police policy, there's also a section that covers specifically mental illness and not using a 72-hour medical hold as a first kind of form of resolving a homeless issue. So, um, that is spelled out somewhat in police policy just to make sure that officers are not using mental health holes to try and solve a homeless issue. Um, and our social worker operationally is also kind of the first point of contact along with his house. So, she goes out and tries to offer mental health resources as well as other housing resources too. So, hopefully that speaks to both your comments. >> And then, if I may just continue, so I work in downtown St. hall in city hall and I will say that there is a significant homelessness uh homeless population in the city and it's sort of starting to converge >> excuse me not to sort of along some of the thoroughares there are some fence lines where where you'll see um tents and so forth but there have been people literally sleeping right in front of the door at city And I will just say that you know there are certain places in the city where first of all you know St. Paul is really struggling to remain a vital downtown. It is it is struggling mightily and kind of losing the battle and um I am you know because of my involvement in the in the um EM council and everything. I mean, I'm very acutely aware and it, you know, I'm very concerned for people and their humanity and their dignity and their safety, but I also understand the extreme importance of maintaining a vital downtown and having people sleeping in front of city hall is not help. It does not make citizens feel safe. That is also the county courthouse. And um and so for instance, to have to give someone say 72 hours in certain places like that, say in front of city hall. Um, you know, the policy that we as we're looking at it with 72 hours. I feel sort of, you know, for instance, there are a lot of people that have at best ambivalent feelings about the light rail, what might be occurring on the light rail, what has happened in the past in the light rail and what goes on at some of the light rail stations. That's another place where I just think that um having having it the sort of more traditional community space where people come and go and are not and are not living um would be really important. So um you know in the in the interest of and I have also uh friends who live all over the country who are extremely compassionate uh people and generally you know very pro um social safety net and you know very and um for instance just very liberal people that live in places like Eugene and Portland where there are significant homeless populations that they decriminalized and literally every park was you could not take your children to parks anymore. It was just solid encampment. And so I don't anticipate that necessarily here, but the whole idea is that we're being proactive. So, I think there are certain spaces in our city where, you know, children have to be able to go to the playground. People have to be able to take um public transit. Um city property like such as city hall um needs to be approachable and um and yet we need to show compassion. And so, when I thought about like the 72-hour time frame for removal, I'm not sure that should apply everywhere. So, I really appreciate you including, you know, how in other cities people are saying, you know, where and where you can't. Um, and uh, and it's very difficult because you want to be compassionate. You want to give everyone a chance to sort of access what they need to access to be safe and healthy. And um but those are some of the thoughts that I think of because I I do work in a metropolitan city that is struggling with homelessness and other issues and I see it every day when I go to work. >> Um I'm going to go to Kimberly and then Paula. >> Excuse me. Um, so sort of along the lines of what everybody else has been saying, like the question I asked Mike this afternoon was, what are the options in a situation where someone has refused services and has refused to leave? Um, and not necessarily just mental health, anyone. Um, and so like I'm I'm wondering like if we can or someone the police someone can think like can think of specific things that we can do aside from taking someone to jail or finding them money that they don't have. Um, and I'm not I I don't know like I haven't come up with a solution myself, but is there a way, you know, other other than like bundling them up and taking them to the border and that's not a that's not a viable option either. So what what can we do that would if if if if the situation if it's a place where they can't remain for safety issues or or whatever reason how can we move someone without taking them to jail? >> I think and Deputy Tate helped me with this one but nobody's been taken to jail. I don't think on a misdemeanor like this, right? You don't >> No. >> Unless there's some other >> violence or maybe they threaten somebody or whatever. If that happens, of course, then they're going to go to >> Yeah. So, it's difficult, right? Because there has to be some end >> point >> to a to a problem. So, what does that look like? And with how it's outlined in policy, it's an ordinance violation through one of the three ordinances that you see. Those are all misdemeanor crimes or cases are. So that kind of if you take an enforcement action that follows the state guidelines for misdemeanor violations, right? The penalties, the fines are in place, how much someone could be in jail. I think the fortunate part um right now I'm just kind of spitballing, but the fortunate part for for us is that misdemeanors are prosecuted by our city attorney's office. Um they have discretion in what cases move forward in the courts or not. I think uh with the relationships that we have that's a conversation that you know that maybe we don't just because a person's cited for that maybe we don't follow through with an actual criminal prosecution on that side of it to impose those fines or that jail time that would be associated with a misdemeanor. So I think that's a discussion that we have to have with the legal department to just kind of have a good understanding of how we're going to approach these these situations when they arise. But beyond that, you know, the policy does specifically state like some other cities that if if we're coming to an enforcement conclusion and there is literally not a bed for a person in the metro to go to, we're not taking that. We're not doing that. That's that's not the right thing to do >> if you don't provide a choice. >> Right. And I think uh what's really important to kind of understand in the distinction of policy is that all this work that goes into before we start that 72 block and I know working with his house and just I was looking at the dashboard just now to try and figure out well what's been happening and um the few encampments that we've seen either through resources or just us having a conversation um they have all resolved themselves within 24 hours. Most of them they're either getting the resource that they need or they're moving on because they don't want to be bothered by us. So, um we've been fortunate in that respect, but I don't know if that really answers it, but I I think, you know, the hard part is is that, you know, there has to be some sort of final resolution so that the problems just don't continue perpetuating themselves. And right now today that's >> unless and again this is a policy question for for the city council. Unless you don't have a problem with that. If you you don't have a problem with people just continuing to encamp wherever and you're not using a criminal enforcement mechanism, the encampment will stay. M >> there's no way to magically get these people to move if they don't want to move without some kind of criminal violation. That doesn't mean to jail. It's a misdemeanor. It's like getting a speeding ticket. Although that's a petty misdemeanor. Sorry. I know what but this would be an ordinance violation which is a regular misdemeanor. >> Y but they're not usually going to jail unless there's some other extinguishing circumstance. So I just want to make that clear for the record. Did you have a followup? >> Well, just and this is just me wondering um so is it possible when like if in in conversations with the city attorney or say to say to someone um we won't we won't prosecute if you agree to go to a shelter or etc. That's an er question. Council member Wilburn. Um I think um Jason uh referenced the scenario quite well. I mean this is the rub of this entire issue, right? I mean it comes down to that is the the ultimate question. We have all of these other side questions that can inform the policy about belongings and storage there. And there's different ways cities approach that. there isn't a legal obligation to store, but some cities incorporate that in our policy and and and handle it even at a detailed level inventorying the property and storing it for lengthy periods of time. Other cities like Minneapolis deems anything left behind after a closure to be abandoned property and discards it. Um so that's just the spectrum of approaches can vary there. This question about if someone simply won't leave, what do you do is is is the that's the rub. Um, I would suggest that, you know, ordinance violations in general, and this could be any ordinance that we're talking about, if you have an ordinance violation, there are a limited number of ways we can enforce. Um, the the the one that's been mentioned is that an ordinance violation is a misdemeanor offense. Um, and the city does prosecute misdemeanors in in Henipin County. You're aware of the division of prosecutorial responsibility, and we do have prosecutorial discretion. we always maintain that and we work very closely with our police department here since we're housed in the same building down the hall from one another. Um and so yes, I think there I think there would be approaches. It would bear having further discussion about that about ways we could use um use that as an incentive to move. But by even asking that question, you're implying that you would be okay with an acknowledgement that there is the potential out there for some sort of criminal enforcement. Having that as a backs stop provides you with that. If if it if it's not on the table, you're limited to effectuating your closure policy and working through those channels and then still having the difficult question of if somebody just won't leave. But Paula, >> for clarity, Eric, um the council by as a body can't make pro prosecutorial decisions that for your office. >> Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Yes, that and that's why I reference prosecuto prosecutorial discretion. That is ultimately um a function that lies solely with the attorneys. >> It's even free it's free from influence from elected officials and it is free from influence from from staff as well. that is that is a something that I will always fiercely defend. Um but I can say that it is it is not often that a misdemeanor charge results in any kind of jail time. Um there are many ways that those cases can be resolved. Um and so um there is by by going down that path you're you're not headed to some inexurable outcome that can't be can't have some nuance to it. >> And I just want to make that clear because I don't the policy can't be written to say we can't we can ticket it but then we can't enfor I mean you can't do that. >> So you can say >> and I wasn't trying to imply that. No, but I just want to make sure like >> if anybody's reading the minutes of this meeting, >> right? >> That you know the policy can say here is our general approach and then beyond it it's the function the functions of the city. So anyway, sorry I didn't want to labor that and we have exactly two minutes to get this conversation. >> All right, Paula's next and then we'll wrap it up. >> Okay, also >> I'll make mine very quick. So comment. Um I I just wanted to second the idea on prioritization of spaces. Um quick comment. I've lived in um both Washington DC and Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, all of which had significant homelessness um issues in the 1990s and early 2000s. DC. I lived in a house at a block that had a crack house on it. Um so the main street in my neighborhood was Mount Pleasant. I had a five-year-old. Um, you know, I think we have to be realistic about what can happen in those situations. Like, you want to balance that compassion with, you know, your 5-year-old having to step over somebody who's homeless, uh, and then exposes himself on the sidewalk as you're walking by. So, I think it's being really, you know, careful to lead with compassion, but understand that, you know, when it comes to the safety of our our children or if somebody's having a mental issue, understanding what that could mean if they are left untreated um in the community um you know, the the consequences of that again leading with compassion. Um, so I am, you know, in agreement with with the policy as written. Um, and the 72 hours, but maybe having less in certain situations, near a school, other things, the park and ride, people need to feel safe getting to work. Um and then uh the comment um or the question would be um another aspect of this that we haven't really discussed is people living in cars and that's usually the working poor um who are doing that and we don't have a Walmart um I don't think in our community but Walmart actually does allow um people to park in their cars and stay overnight. Um, so I was just, you know, comment question if there's anything that we're doing or thinking of in that regard, if it should come to that because, you know, those people, they're going to jobs, they just can't make rent. >> Um, and if we have anything that we've thought about, we did think about that specifically because we do have a lot of people that are in cars that that come in contact uh with this car. >> Yeah. even though even if it's not a um company that necessarily invites it in, they it just happens by a matter of you know people going there. Holiday is a good example of that. Holiday won't what would you say? They wouldn't maybe forcefully >> Yeah, there's a few different locations that >> there's their car sleeping and we leave them >> okay specific complaint. So I would say, you know, that would probably fall under either the private property scenario where a private property owner may ask for that vehicle to be removed. Otherwise, you know, there are specific parking ordinances that could apply. You know, the parked on the street for so many hours. >> Yeah. >> Um in the parks, there's no, you know, the parks have operational hours or that be some prohibition from vehicles being in there after hours. So there are some existing ordinances that could apply to that and we did talk about vehicles in our work group >> several different times and I think that was kind of the conclusion was >> there's existing to address that specific scenario >> but we also recognize that encampments could be a group of let's just say there's a group of cars camping together and they're stringing tents between the cars and things like that that can happen. Um, so we we would define that as an encampment as well, even if it was an automobile. >> Okay. Yeah. No, and I'm I'm saying I, you know, I'm all for allowing people to, you know, overnight doing that. I'm not saying I want to criminalize or anything like that. I'm just uh and I'm glad to know that there are places in the community where private property orders are allowing that. And just, you know, as long as we have that option for people right now, that's just what I'm >> quite a few actually. >> All right, Rebecca. Thanks Brad. Um, I want to be careful in the discussion of, you know, not here but fine there. You know, because I I hear a little bit of that in that, well, you know, I work downtown and I know what the situation is downtown and it is not that way here in um but that doesn't mean we're too good to have homeless people and so um we might I mean we do and we may have an issue and I don't want to say we're going to treat people differently because we're Minnetonka. like I want to be really careful about kind of approaching the policy in that way because it just seems really elitist. Um, and I, so, you know, I lean on giving everybody the most opportunity to get their situation um, improved slightly with our help and giving people time and opportunity. And even if it's on the front yard, I think we have to we have to have some grace for people. I full disclosure, I I was the person that said, "Give seven days notice. Give seven days notice." I understand that that's not um necessarily where the rest of the council is and I'm okay with 72 hours. I would be really reluctant to truncate that at all. All that being said, on the flip side, we are right now a society where the way we enforce things is through laws and through legal process. And so that is what we have to do. I agree with my colleagues that and Ky and and and Kimberly and and the and the rest of the colleagues that we don't want to rush to that and certainly have a lot of grace and we don't want to further criminalize somebody because they can't pay the $75 ticket and then they wind up in a worse situation. We don't want that to happen. So, we want to be careful, but I don't see how you can after you've given everybody every opportunity and the 72 hours that we can't use the legal process to try to do what we need to do to to, you know, resolve the issue. Um, I just very briefly, I think about it, I've thought about it a lot like child support, right? That's how the business that I'm in. Somebody doesn't pay their child support, they get a lot of chances. they can make a payment plan. They can do all these things. It takes a long time and then finally the hammer is you haven't paid your child support and you've kind of thwarted all the opportunities for us to fix this and so now there is a criminal or a you know a threat of jail time or something um that comes into play because you've chosen to discard all of these other options for resolving it. And in I think in the system that we have, I think that's the best we can do. So I'm reluctant and I would still call it not criminalizing homelessness, but recognizing that that is kind of the last resort is some kind of legal remedy. >> And I just sorry, >> go ahead. Yep. I just want to say too that um like when you're talking about mental health issues and they don't want to go to shelters, I think there are other solutions than you know just going to the shelters if they don't want to do that. Maybe help them get on new meds or something like that. I mean I think there are options there and it's not just either go to a shelter or not. And then I will add I mean first of all I think we all are unanimous that we want to lead with compassion. I mean that's that's the first approach. Um but I also think that there is um a difference between enforcement and criminalization. And I think that you know um I mean I've spent a lot of time in Portland, Oregon. You know, what a beautiful city and what a mess. I mean, the the homelessness situation is is disturbing. Um, and it's everywhere. And you stay downtown in Portland. Um, I used to go running along the river. I mean, and or or you you um walk downtown and you know, before 10:00 in the morning, you're stepping over people sleeping in storefronts all over. Not not once in a while, not one, 50 or 100. I mean, you know, we don't want to get there. So, um, you know, Portland has done a great job on compassion. They've done a horrible job on enforcement, and I think there's a difference. Um, you know, and I think I mean, I I do support the policy as written. Um, but I think that there is a difference. Um, we're not going to step in and and arrest people who are being difficult as as a first step. We're going to give them chances. And I would like to think that we as a city, and I believe we do, have a menu of options and a menu of resources that that can um that can help move toward um toward enforcement. But the other piece of it is um you know, I I I don't think we should um um provide um lifetime storage of property. Um, I don't think any of us get that and I don't think we should offer that to to individuals who are homeless, but but we can say, listen, you know, we're going to work with you. We're going to provide some resources. We're going to coach. We're we're going to we're going to provide resources that enable enable you to get out of this situation. But understand that after a period of time we are going to remove the situation and we will we will store your your we want to respect property rights but we are not that doesn't mean we are um a go-to uh storage entity either. There's going to be a period of time and and the quidd proquo is you know we'll store it and keep it safe um but you have to agree to do some things too. It's not just an open end where you get to the do whatever you want and um and we have no enforcement capability. I think I think I think we have to I think we have to enforce the rules. We have to do it with compassion. Um and I think we should use the different resources. The homelessness res resources. Um his house is is clearly one. Um there are places there are hotels there there are there are temporary shelters for people that they can go to that um would not be overly restrictive. Um you know I just think having that menu of options available so that we can respond with with um with compassion and solutions but at the end of the day um that you do need the legal option. I mean, you do need the legal option to say if you don't do that, ultimately you will be arrested. We do not want to arrest you. >> Not take it in. >> Well, I mean, but I think I think ultimately >> Okay. >> I don't I'm just asking >> You're right. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're not You're not We don't want to prosecute anybody. We want We want We want them to get into a safe place off off a public property is what we want. But but I do think you do need to have at at the at the end of the day um after you've tried a lot of things that you do need the force of the law to to ultimately get things done if if somebody is not going to cooperate. But we we're going to go the extra mile is is the way I like to think about it. And I hopefully we never get there. Um but I I do think that we need that capability. And I you know it as far as property storage I mean it is >> it's taking up a lot of space and it's a huge expense. Yeah. >> You know they're really you know it's becoming a whole other job trying to problem solve that kind of new problem. So >> um but >> I think you make that very finite. >> Right. Exactly. But but even then you know you have to then dispose of the property. So it it's a real job. It's, you know, it >> it's not free. >> It's not free and it's not fun and it it it takes staff time and, you know, >> Y >> and and they don't relish getting rid of people's property either. So, I you know, it's just a whole other thing. But I I agree with you. I think that the you need you needs. We want to help people in every way we can, but but but I also think that if if if a legal option is not a last resort, >> then then we're we're just kidding. >> You you're you're you're you're writing the rules. We're not. So that's one. Does anyone have anything that they'd like to add? Otherwise, we'll move on. >> All right. That's a hard one. Well, it's a very hard one, but you know, and it's real and you know, and as you has been said, we're not immune. These things happen and and you know, I have I'm a believer that without housing, people simply do not have a chance. They do not have a chance. And I'm somebody who believes personally who believes in chances. >> And so, I want everybody to have a chance. Um but but we do have situations and and and you know, we have a city to run too. All right, we will um the next step for us is to bring back the policy to you for formal adoption. That means it goes in your council policy book. >> Um and then hopefully in in hopefully we don't have the situation, but if it does happen, that's how we will react. Um and I think that helps the staff just understand what the procedural steps are and what's acceptable to the council. um for moving along. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, it is tough. That's a tough >> than we expected, but that was the hardest one, I think, in terms of discussion. So, uh that was a good 15 minutes. So, >> thanks everybody. >> We'll move on to I think manufactured homes were the next highest vote getter, if you will. Um and I'll tell you a little moving. Oh, it stopped. >> There we are. >> Okay. So something that um has been on the minds of all of us as we had put together kind of the detailed uh information about some of these stick built situations like with the twin home and um the habitat project you know the dollar figure in there it just un unsustain unsustainable for future ownership product. So that's why we were looking at manufactured homes. I'll tell you a story. The picture up on the right hand side of the slide is my mother-in-law's home. Uh it's a manufactured home. It was uh put onto her property, her farm property about five years ago. Uh we were in the throws of a caregiving issue with my father-in-law. She needed a onelevel living. Couldn't live in the farmhouse. It was too many stairs. The bathrooms weren't right. no roll in shower, you know, all of that. So, manufactured home was her solution to the issue that we uh were facing as a family. And I only I don't share a lot of personal information, but it was an interesting uh process because as a family, we got to see how much it costs, what it was like to build this home, how it came together on the property, how long it took, which by the way was under a month um by the time we ordered and uh got all the finishes. By the way, um when Alicia and Kendall and I, we went on a road trip to go see some of these units, 18 model homes, we saw at a site in Hutchinson. Uh there's lots of vendors and and we kind of equate it to like a car dealership, right? There's only about three makers, four >> three or four makers in Minnesota that make manufactured homes, but there's lots of dealers who sell them. So, this is one of the dealers. They say they sell multiple types of manufactured homes. Now, just a little bit on the glossery of manufactured homes. Okay? So, some people say trailer, some people say uh mobile home, some people say manufactured home, and then some people mess it up with modular. Don't mess up manufactured with modular. That's just they're not the same thing. Um so, the the picture of my mother-in-law's that is an actual manufactured home. It came in two pieces. So it comes together, the crane sets it down, puts it together, they seam the roof line, and then on the left side where you see the garage, the attached garage, that's built on site. So it's stick built and attached to the manufactured home. So that's kind of how it worked in our situation. But what's interesting about uh manufactured homes is you're able to pick from a variety of layouts. So this home that she has is a threebedroom. She actually uses one as an office. So it's really two-bedroom, an office and two bath home and uh with large dining and living area. It's one of the bigger homes that they sell at this um at this site. Um some of the the smallest would you say was the one >> maybe like a 700 square foot? >> 700 square f feet. Yeah, it was very nice though. very it actually felt pretty spacious. Um that 700 ft that was a onebedroom, one bath type situation. So you can kind of get everything in between. And the interesting thing is you I think a lot of people just think, okay, that's that's the look I want and that's the look I get. But you actually get a menu of options. So if I don't like the layout of that kitchen, I can pick a different kitchen layout. If I don't like that particular setup of bathroom, you can pick out the bathroom type. and that's how it's manufactured for you. So, it's more individualized than you think. So, why does the city care about manufactured housing? Well, because we can't think of any other way to provide ownership, affordable ownership in the city without trying this. So, what we're thinking about doing, and we have to tell Eric, um, is it legal to do this? One of our first check-ins was with him. Uh, trying to figure out how a city would go about this. How do we purchase a manufactured home? How do you publicly bid it because it's over the amount that you would have to publicly bid? And then um putting it on a site that we already have uh own whether it be on Wellland or Belmont or even the backside of the where the twin homes are going on Roland. That's another opportunity. >> It could be on all the property that we're talking about. So I think one site try it see how it works. see what the costs are. Um, if we get one of the more modestlysized homes, we probably could do it in the $300,000 range. Um, that's not the lot cost, but the house cost we were able to um was a hundred about $120 a square foot cheaper than stick built. That's about the >> Yeah. Right. And you know, five years later after my mother-in-law's, you know, we're I'm I was I'm looking for wear. I'm looking for how's it holding up? It's actually holding up pretty well. It's very airtight. The windows are very nice. Her heating bills are low. Um, so some of the things I was concerned about in buying a manufactured home just haven't shown up. Not yet, anyway. Is it as longasting as stick build? Absolutely not. Um, it is a shorter life cycle for a home like this. 25 years I would say, not a 50-year type home. Um, I don't know that manufactured home manufacturers agree with that statement, but that's just in my in my analysis of how they're built and how they're put together. Um, the other thing is you don't have to put a basement under these. These are attached to a a foundation system. Um, but there's no full foundation in the house. My mother-in-law's house. There's a actual crawl space where the HVAC equipment and the um other items, electrical, etc. are under the floor in the garage space and under part of the house. So, it's kind of a an interesting um setup, but the cost of not doing a basement is what makes it so affordable, right? >> Can you can you put them on a with a basement? You can, but then the cost just went. So add another I would say 60,000 to do a full basement under and that's unfinished. So I think that's the the trouble with some of these is I think a lot of people then go, "Oh, let's add a basement. Let's do this." You know, and then it just then the affordability just goes out the door. So um but we can give you some of those numbers. I think we did that with one of the twin home where we kind of said, "Well, if you do this, this is how much it would cost. If you do that, that's how much." So, we'll do kind of the same setup if if this is of interest to the council. I don't know. So, I'll stop there. That's my pitch on manufactured homes. >> All right. Council questions. Kimberly. >> Yeah. So, I'm wondering what property cost is in Minnotonka. So, um, since I live down the street from the Wellland A Avenue property, um, and if if I'm not mistaken, that's a like a halfacre lot. It's a it's a >> it's a good >> Is that the North South Road? I was going to mix up. Belmont's east west. >> So, the one on Wellland is the one we need to tear down because it's in bad shape. That's more >> of a long lot. Very narrow though. >> Yes. Right. >> Yeah. Um, so I'm just wondering like say we put a $300,000 house >> on that property. >> How much would we set? How much would the land cost add to the sale price? >> You could decide yourselves how to do that. So you can just do the land right down and say zero for the land and sell the house and land together, but no land cost. And then they would just mortgage based on that. um and then put a covenant on the property for resale so that you don't lose traction on it continuing to be affordable affordable lot kind of like what we did on the twin homes almost identical actually so um that's one way to handle it. Now, if you want to make a more moderately priced house and charge like a hund and some thousand for the land, you could do the total package for under 450, which would would be more of a middle um middle type range of housing. It'd be under what your average is in Manunka, but 300 keeps us at the 80% >> between 60 and 80. >> Yeah. So that keeps you in a different um area median income. >> And we're saying when you're saying a moderate home, >> are you saying you know your your your mother-in-law has three bedrooms, two bath? >> Is that what you're talking or are you talking >> Yeah, that at the time that was under 300 to do that whole setup. >> And how many square feet is it roughly? >> Uh 2,000. >> Okay. So, it was a really good setup. Now, that was five years ago. So, fast forward. That house probably would be more like 350 today. Yeah. So, um the houses we looked at I mean the largest one. There was one bigger. >> There was one that was one that was over. >> Yeah. We wouldn't that probably wouldn't be a choice we would make just because it was too large and too expensive. So, anyway, >> I have a question. >> Yep. Go ahead. So the the property that you're thinking about putting it on on Welland >> maybe. >> Maybe. >> Well, whatever. Whichever. Would it be more than one? >> I think Welland we could not do that. It's just too skinny. >> It's too skinny. >> Too narrow. The one on >> Baker. We might be able to do that. We might. That might work there. >> And that would that be a zoning? >> Yeah. Is it currently zoning? >> Depends on how the zoning ordinance works out. I mean >> current zoning. Current zoning. Let's let's just >> Yeah. Under this would not be this year's project. So it would probably be post zoning. We have to figure out the legal aspects of it and then figure out and then it probably be early next year we would propose it which could be kind of the same timing as your zoning. Becca, >> I think that this, you know, the kind of the sticker shock and the us losing the win, our wind when we saw the twin home pricing come in, >> right, >> reinforces for me, we can do a lot and as a city, I'm comfortable taking these these um lots that we have and and writing down some a part of the land cost or doing our part to contribute um but making it so that the amount of subsidy that is necessary to make these homes affordable is much much less than what we're seeing on the twin homes cuz that's just not realistic. That's not something we can do on a regular basis. So, I think this is worth, you know, I'm not rubber stamping it now, but I like the idea. I think we're I think we have to be creative and I think this is something worth looking into further going forward. >> Yeah, >> Kissy. >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea, but I do have a concern about um you know, long-term um you know, you said 25 years, you know, well, that's kind of your thought process. >> Yeah. Um, so my thought process around it, if we're going to, um, write down the land or, you know, give the land, however, you know, we do it. Um, and you said covenant. What does the covenant look like? And is it going to be another land trust type deal where you put the 99-year lease on the land? Is it or if someone purchas it, would it be a way that they can also make sure that they're getting some generational wealth in something like this? And I don't know if if there would be an opportunity to make sure that the folks are creating some type of generational wealth because at 300,000 or 400,000 to me there has to be some type of generational wealth in that. And so what would that look like? That's my biggest issue. But other than that, I think it's a really good idea. I've seen I used to want to live in I call them trailers. I used to want to live in one when I was younger. I thought they were nice. And actually, I went to St. Louis and my uh my aunt was renting one and it was really nice. I was like, I still want to live in one of these things, you know, like. So, I think they're nice. >> So, just a clarification about trailers. So when people say trailers are mobile homes >> typically uh the way in which the so if you look at the foundation the the house my mother-in-law's house >> this looks different though >> that it's attached to a footing basically a man or a mobile home or a trailer as you you would refer to it has some mobility meaning it was traveled to the site and then it's skirted right and um the sewer and water it's insul ated underneath the skirting and it's anchored uh to the site. Typically, they won't move once they're placed, but you can't. >> But this but this >> this is different. Okay. So, uh you know, they do they do make trailers and man uh mobile homes and so uh they they call them park models. It's a little different. >> Have a fancier name for them. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> They get more that way. But they are just like what you're talking about. And th those range um for about a 550 square foot uh park model. That's about an $85,000 $90,000 purchase. So I call them like a tiny skinny home. >> Oh yeah. >> So this is this is different from that. >> This is different because it's more permanent. Okay. >> Um I would say it doesn't have like smaller appliances. It doesn't have smaller cabinets. You know, you go into one of these uh uh manufactured homes. It's just it's like living in a a traditional stick built home. I think what you notice is maybe the finishes aren't quite as high-end. >> Um you know, more laminate countertops. There's no granite. There's, you know, that sort of thing. Um >> I think what I see is the biggest difference when you think of a traditional trailer home, they're very long and You have a bedroom on this side, a bedroom on this side. Very >> um >> narrow >> narrow and it's hard to have like a nice kitchen and living room in those spaces. >> If you think about stacking two of those side by side, it gives you a lot more opportunity to have >> it's a double wide. >> Yeah, I was going to say a double wide. >> A double wide one. >> You can call it a double wide. Double wide. >> That's what it is. That's what that is in the corner. Double wide. And so people have all kinds of vocabulary about these things but >> it is different than a um mobile >> right >> I have a question about so so let's see say we get to the end of its useful life >> um >> what then >> that's what I was wondering too what happens >> yeah so I mean it's not like it's not like like deconstructing a regular home tearing down you know it's Why not? >> But that's a I mean my question >> cabinets are the same. I mean maybe they're not as you know substantial as a stick built home bathroom has the same fixtures same same kinds of bathtubs that sort of thing. So I I would submit to you not on the scale maybe >> but sort of but the but the other end the other question for me is because the >> useful life is >> um >> and and some of them >> it feels like we're solving a problem not exactly shortterm but maybe medium-term creating >> because of the snow >> another issue later um 25 years. >> Could they be renovated? Like I mean what's interesting about these homes is that it's just like a normal house. You replace the roof, you replace the siding, you >> replace flooring, you replace it's all the same. >> It's not like you can't do some of those things. >> However, >> no, >> you know, does does it last as long? I don't know. I don't know. We're finding out. We're going to find out. >> You know, >> I was going to I mean, you kind of answered, but I was going to ask if there's a way to extend the life of these, you know, like just you like, you know, >> I mean, I'm hopeful that this this has already gotten better since, you know, years past. Think of the 1970s um more mobile homes that we're thinking of, right? >> I lived in >> You lived in a mobile home. >> I lived in two different >> way different, right? This looks way >> Yeah. You know, I think a couple of thoughts come to mind. I mean, when you talk about the life expectancy, we do so much with housing that has a 30-year shelf life. I mean, we talk about 30 years. I'd love for us to be able to say, "Let's talk about this 30 years, not 25." Um, you know, because that fits with a lot of what we do. But I just think we I mean, I I favor this because we have to try new stuff and we have to figure out how to how to do that. And I I think that, you know, I think a home like this that's wellmaintained, and maybe that's part of the deal is that we we help people ensure that they they're properly maintaining this so that maybe you can get 30 or 40 years out of it, not 25. >> Um, but I also think that, you know, deconstructing homes and tearing down down homes, I mean, it happens in Minnotonka all the time. Um, tearing down something like this is is much less than tearing down a stick built um house. So, you know, I think um you know, I think if we if the numbers work and we can provide new construction housing for people at an affordable price, I I think we have to try stuff. >> We we have to find a path to try stuff. >> I think it's exciting. >> Cool. >> We do too. I think and what we wanted from you is just kind of a nod to go to the next step. And I think I hear that from you. there's enough of you saying yes, let's try to figure out figure it out. And then the next steps for you would be >> we'd have the legal research. There's some issue on financing these structures, too. I I have to tell you, it wasn't easy um in my personal life to get this thing financed. So, just happen to have a good relationship with a local banker to make that happen. But, um I want to make sure that that's an easy uh thing to do. And I don't know that it always is easy with manufactured housing. So I want to make sure that hurdle is crossed and then we'll come back to do a report and do a proposal of where we think it could go. >> I will >> you know that that reminded me of one more question because I do insurers look >> No problem. Insurance is not a problem. Financing is not as straightforward unless they've dealt with it a lot. Unless their bank has has dealt with a lot of manufactured homes >> because >> because huh >> stigma >> stigma oh it I don't know if it's stigma it some of it could be it it's more like where do they place this in their portfolio is it a house is it a manufactured house is it a a mobile home is it a you know it's more have they caught up with the financial packages for these things >> so I will tell you tonight's meeting is my fourth meeting on housing this past in the last five days. I mean, >> been talking a lot about housing, but but in the meeting we had today um with several mayors and um and the league um one of the mayors sent um a link on Champion Homes. >> That's this is >> which is, you know, that's the that's the >> So, they've got an interesting website. I mean, I've got it up now and it's just interesting and it talks about modular homes. that talks about um manufactured homes. It provides pictures. It's it's interesting. So, I'm not suggesting you all go there now, but but it's, you know, if you just Google Champion Homes, you can get an idea of what we're talking about. >> Highland is another uh manufacturer. Champion uh Highland and it's the third one. Kendall, do you remember? >> Okay. But those are the main manufactured. Um this one was built in Owatana. Okay. I'm showing you. >> Okay. We'll move on to legacy and that's Alicia's turn. >> So, get to hear from everybody tonight. >> Excellent. That's good. >> All right, switching gears. So, this is one of the things that Julie and I have been thinking about for the last Yeah. Nine years since I started at the city. Um, we get this question a lot. you know, how can we encourage folks to preserve their existing housing as affordable moving forward for the next generation? So, we've um put together this legacy housing initiative um handout because we're really trying to start an awareness kind of campaign that homeowners, whether it be single family, town home, condo owners, multifamily, they can already do this without any um financial assistance from the city. they may need a little help with um you know securing the legal documents or whatever it may be, but this is an opportunity that's available now. So with this um with this the city already in in many ways preserves affordability through its index units which we've talked about a lot where the maximum sales price is set over the years. um the partnership with homes within reach and through property for redevelopment which we just discussed the Welling Wellin Belmont um properties and the Roland properties. So those are all ways that the city can contribute but this is really aimed at um providing residents with the various avenues to pro preserve their housing for the future. So what this would look like is working with an individual property owner to determine what their um goals are for preserving the legacy in their existing housing. So you know they may want to um provide their home um you know through their estate planning or um they may be moving and they want to preserve their affordable housing. Now, I mean, there's lots of different ways you can look at it to those, you know, earning between 50 and 120% of the AMI area median income. Um, so what that could look like on the single household side would be um you know, working through Habitat for Humanity um the Twin Cities Land Bank, which they could sell their property to for long-term um ownership with that group. Um homes within reach again and then also they could just um on their own record a covenant on their property that would maintain their home affordable for the long term which we haven't um I don't think we've had one in the community so far but that that's what this program would encourage. Um and then on the multi-unit side, helping with um connect to organizations that are philanthropic that could provide the resources to um continue the affordability. So there's a kind of a a different menu of options that one could look at and it would really be on um the staff side to help them figure out what that option would be. Um, so we've done some research with the different um, communities that are doing some of this with and without incentives. Um, and currently what we offer is, you know, we have programs that help people preserve their homes through home repair programs and um, those types of programs, but there are other opportunities out there that help preserve the long-term affordability. So, um I think we'll show the video and then we can talk about some of the other options, but one of the options was the um housing legacy program in Boulder. And we'll cue this up for you. We hope that it works. >> We hope the volume works. I don't know. >> So, in Boulder, I'll just give them an overview. um the homeowner places an interim covenant on their property to rest restrict the future sales price of the home. A permanent covenant is placed at the time of a closing. So the home is required to be sold through the city. They sign a interim covenant and then at a different point in time when they're ready to um move the property over the permanent covenant is recorded. Um and then the city staff manages that transaction. So um when they're ready to um engage that permanent cover covenant, the city gets involved to do the um buyer requirements and and those types of things. And this is um the council member from Boulder who was elected to um enter her home into this program. So this is a video of this sound. Janice has done an amazing thing. >> This was the scene at the city council meeting where Janice Salaza was honored for her work with the city and unprecedented donation. >> Janice has selflessly decided to donate her home to benefit affordable home ownership through the housing legacy program. Miss Salaza's decision to take action with the city and give back to the community came from her deeply rooted belief in all of us in Boulder playing a part in helping one another. >> I believe that we all have a responsibility to each other. And as I've gotten older, maybe because I've had more time and more comfort, more ability, I've taken that sense of responsibility more seriously. >> So here's how the housing legacy program actually works. someone writes their will, they can leave their home or their apartment or whatever it is that they own to the city permanently affordable housing programs. >> Kurt Fernhoer, the deputy director of housing, explained how the program fits into the city's housing goals. So, the housing legacy program will actually allow us to preserve existing housing and it will allow um lowincome and middle inome people to live within our existing neighborhoods um and really give the same sort of benefits um that uh she received out of her house over those many years. >> Fernhobert also expressed his anticipation for more community members to follow in Daza's footsteps. Hopefully, she will um inspire other community members um to follow in her footsteps and to really take a very bold step in um creating a legacy um from what they've had in Boulder to benefit other families in perpetuity. It will stimulate other ways of thinking for people in terms of what they can do to become more actively involved in supporting a vibrant life of diverse groups in this community. The city council meeting concluded with the dedication of May 5th from this day forward honoring Miss Salazo, >> Janice Salazo, housing legacy day and cinco deayo and urge all members of our community to recognize this special. >> So that gives you a little idea of what we're thinking about with this initiative. Um, so one might ask, why would someone want to do this? Well, it preserves the legacy of >> wanting to keep housing affordable long term. Um, there's some other benefits. Um, the, as you saw in this video, the resident can stay in their home until there is a point where um, they would enter it into the the program. um the social benefit of preserving affordable housing. It stream it can streamline the sales process. So if you have it set out that you want to do this, you can get the paperwork set up ahead of time. Um and there's some benefit in that and there's also a tax benefit for those that are donating um their h not right preserving their housing. Um, yeah. So, those are some of the the ways in which >> I go to the Yeah, there you go. >> might consider it. >> So, this is the the marketing piece, right? >> Yep. That's our marketing piece. Um, just hot off the press. >> So, our next steps would be really creating some marketing um plans and materials. And that might look like um more videos on on social media and things explaining what this really is and trying to get some interest in it >> and then working um with our legal team to figure out our documents to help with the declaration. So um just some interest in it and see if it's >> Yeah. >> sticks. >> Yeah. And I think it would have been perfect for the situation where we're dealing with that gentleman on well in Belmont who wanted to sell the city because he said, "I want families to live here." And he wanted to basically entrust his home and his brother's home to the city. And that was the promise we made. We would make sure it had some type of affordability uh tied in. So it would have been a perfect program for someone like him. Um, so that's kind of that's a good case study for that. So, >> and I think where the differences here at least with our um marketing materials is the city doesn't have any financial um investment into this program or >> other than helping >> other than helping with draft legal documents. And I think that um you left it fairly open because I think every situation is going to be a little bit different on what um we're trying to preserve with individuals, >> right? >> Comments. Um Rebecca, >> I just have I guess kind of a question over the years. One of the things, and I'll credit the mayor with this, but he's talked a lot about, you know, when we hear from residents who are maybe house rich and cash poor and they want to age in place, but they can't keep up, their income doesn't keep up with taxes or maintenance and those types of things. I mean, is there an opportunity? I mean, I think this is a great start, but you know, I think we might we could potentially get more traction if there if we provide opportunity for folks who want to stay to partner with the city so that, you know, there would be some level of assistance that keeps them in their home and in exchange they commit to, you know, some kind of covenant or affordability limitation. something that I don't need a response to that now, but something as we look forward and think about how we use that uh delivery tax money to, you know, is this a new initiative that really makes sense? Something along those lines. Kimberly. >> Um, yes. So, I was um just pulling up my notes from Tampa where I was in a housing uh discussion NLC. Um, and in Wilmington, Delaware, they talked about their legacy home project. Um, >> Delaware, you said? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, Maria Cabrera was the council member who presented if that helps. >> Thank you. Um anyway, so they talked about their legacy home project. Um and they were able to get one family to sell three properties. Um and all they had to do was they had to to name the project after those families were. So like there were plaques put on the house, you know, the Robinson house or something like that. time. >> But more importantly, they referenced uh an NLC example and I just did a a quick search on NLC for legacy housing and there's a the an article came up housing recovery recovery homelessness response and community resilience and look at US legacy cities. So, I think NLC has resources and examples of >> different cities and what they've been doing that might be helpful. >> Thank you. That's helpful. >> Other comments or questions? I guess my question always goes back to um if we if the legacy program happens and someone say hey I want to um put my house in the legacy program and these houses would be for sale and then someone else come purchase the home at affordable rate. Um will there still be like some type of covenant like the lease the 99 year lease again? Look, you know, >> depends depends on which way they go. >> So, if they go with Can you go back to the options? So you could sell to various companies, whether that be nonprofit Habitat for Humanity, whether it be the Homes Within Reach, where you would have a lease situation, or if you just want to go with the covenant, then no, that 99-year lease would not be part of the transaction. >> When you say covenant, what what is the covenant? Cuz I mean like I think of >> what does that mean by covenant? >> Can you define that a little bit better? >> I think we should use the city attorney in this case. So >> because I want to I just want to know what covenant is. >> I kind of got an idea, but I'm not sure. >> Be perfect at explaining it. Council member Kley, it's it is a legal document that a in this case a property owner could execute that would place some sort of restriction on their their bundle of sticks that's associated with real property ownership in some fashion. So restricting one of their uh real property rights in some fashion. It runs with the land u and so it applies u against subsequent purchasers of the land. It runs with the land, not the person who puts it on the property. >> So it's recorded. So it's recorded, correct? So >> property title, >> okay, >> would be discovered and doing due diligence on a title search by someone who would be interested in the property if they weren't otherwise made aware of it. >> Well, okay. I don't know. I guess I still don't quite I understand that it runs with the land. So I don't know. I guess I needed to go a little bit more deeper on like what does that mean that it runs with the land? Like >> restriction on appreciation. So it may say >> so it's kind of like >> you can't it can't appreciate more than I think some of them say 50% of the average appreciation in that period of time >> right >> okay so it's it's very similar to the land >> to retain to retain the affordability there's a restriction on the appreciation >> 99 you're not it's not a land lease deal a covenant is >> the whole package >> of the house is there's no land lease involved >> it's a covenant just to say you are committing to this kind of um >> agreement >> agreement >> and that agreement can be different >> for every >> there's no parameters. It just says here we're going to try to enact something that helps with affordability. Whatever works for that owner, >> right? It's up to the owner, right? Okay. >> It's their choice how they want to structure. >> So it could be 60%, 70%, 80%, whatever they choose. >> We got to get to a point where it's affordable though, >> right? Right. Right. >> Mhm. Yeah. So, >> okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah, it it does. I was just trying to figure out what does that mean for the person who, >> you know, potentially could purchase a home like that. >> Um, and what does it does for >> they get in at a cheaper rate, right? Yeah. And then they're having to sell at a cheaper rate. >> So, theoretically, yeah, their equity is not as much as a regular transaction if the market has a big jump. >> Right. Okay. But in Boulder, what's happening is people are buying up those h smaller houses and building million-dollar homes. And this happens here, too. So, the idea is preserving some of those existing >> single family. >> So, >> yeah. >> You know, >> or or condos >> or condos or it could be multifamily. There's lots of different >> things that it could be. >> Doesn't have to just be single family, >> right? >> You know, a couple of comments that I've got. I mean, I like I like this concept. I like I like the program. Um but I also um you know one of the things that I've talked about and Rebecca referenced it is um the um the opportunity. I mean there are people who you know don't want the the McMansion to go where their house used to be. They want to keep their house affordable. they like the way Minnetonka is and that's an incentive for them to do it um to do something like this and um to avoid that developer coming in and buying their house and turning into something they don't want it to be >> um but when you sell something you lose control so so this is you know the legacy um piece I think um really makes a lot of sense but one of the things that I've this idea that I've had for a number of years now is the fact that senior citizens want to stay in their homes. I mean, I had an aunt who said, "The only way you're getting on me out of this house is in a box." And she largely pulled that off. Um, and but you know, they they want to stay there and but houses as you age are less safe for you. There are better places, but they don't want to go to the old folks home. They want to live in their home as long as they can. And so I think that sometimes there might be an opportunity for government entities to step in and say, "Okay, we are going to help you stay in your home. We're going to go through it and make sure it's safe. We're going to put grab bars and ramps and things like that to make your house more livable. The quid proquo is that you are going you we are going to give you a value of your house today and you can stay there as long as you physically are able. Um there are costs assoc associated with the improvements that we provide. We're not going to charge you for those. We're going to keep track and we're going to attach that to your home. So we value your home when you sign up for the program. We make improvements to enable you to stay into in it longer because that is going to be way cheaper for you and your heirs. The longer you can stay in your house, the cheaper it's going to be. But it does cost something. We're not going to charge you out of pocket. Um but then when you move, you agreed to let's say you stayed there 10 years um and you stayed there 10 years longer than you were um able to or would have otherwise been able to. We're going to tally up all the cost, the snow shoveling and the lawn mowing and the home improvements that we did and we're going to subtract that from the price that we agreed to when you signed up for the program. Um we're going to we're going to pay the city back for those costs and then your house is affordable because um you you sold it at an agreed to price a long time ago. So you preserve the affordable housing which saves a future family a lot of money but it also saves the senior citizen who lives in that house much longer a lot of money and and it it does two things. Senior citizen wants to stay in their home as long as they physically can and the the future homeowner gets an affordable house and we don't have McMansions all over Minnetonka. Now that's that's a big program. There's a lot of moving parts there >> and then they may not need the ramp or the grab bars and all all of things, right? >> Well, that's right. But but I mean estates may but but it does it does it does solve it does solve a number of problems. So I mean and the other thing is I think if there was a mechanism and I don't know if we could use our LAA dollars for this or maybe an organization like Homes Within Reach or Habitat when you're when you have a relative die and you're the fortunate person who inherits that house that's that's that's a nice gift. It's an asset but it's also a problem. you've got a house that you have to get rid of and frankly you don't care how much you get for it. You just want to get rid of it because you don't want to deal with you know caring for that property and so you know I think taking advantage of those real life situations to create a supply of homes and um is is an opportunity for our our you know partner organiz organizations but also cities. Um, and I was even wondering when I read this is would it make sense to take some of our affordable housing trust fund um, money and say, you know, if you put your program, if you sell your house to Habitat and or Homes Within Reach, the city's going to throw in 10 grand. we're going to we're going to give you an incentive to do that to build that supply of homes because I can tell you as um as a board member um that's the challenge finding finding homes for these organizations and if we did that and said you know we could take some of our 40 I don't know if it's legal but if we could take some of our but we don't worry about that right we got we've got a we got a good city attorney um you know but if we could use some of our affordable housing trust fund monies to provide an incentive for people to put their home, you know, because I want to preserve the cheapest affordable housing we can come up with is naturally occurring affordable housing. So, anything we can do to create incentives to to preserve affordable housing makes sense. It's money well spent. It's a good investment. So, I'm done now, but I have a few ideas along these lines. >> Got it. >> Mike, >> just to add to the idea of generation here. Now he knows Mark >> I'm hearing the conversation this is a good one I think about the upcoming metro cities legislative committees Minnesota city committee starting >> another idea to throw out there and you'll know this better than perhaps Eric as well >> going back to Rebecca's point like trying to find a all good points I think about Rebecca's comment about is there a way to if this then that kind of scenario and what comes to mind for me is should we be advocating perhaps a change in state law for tax abatements. Could Could there be >> a way to look at tax abatement scenarios where homeowner you you know 10 years worth of tax abatements in exchange for >> you know your house being put into a program to some attractiveness and they're looking at >> the originating owner or whatever. >> Yeah. property tax abatement scenarios where that's the incentive for the homeowner where it's getting tough to stay in their house and so providing some of that property tax incentives might be an exchange where they keep their they stay in their house the city ends up with the house they stay in it and >> and it stays an affordable house we can do that today >> think so >> yeah because you can do a >> tax under the tax I don't know the tax eval that third qualifies >> but you wouldn't get the county portion or that you could only tax evate the city portion. >> City portion only the city portion is correct. >> But even that would make a difference for a lot of people. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> State statute was there. >> I mean we frequently as council members get the question and and and we hear from people who talk about being taxed out of their homes >> and and I know I mean I talked to Kent Carlson the mayor of Deep Haven. He said we've got this time and time again. You've got relatively modest homes in Deep Haven, but they're really expensive and the tax as your value goes up, your taxes go up and and they have people that are just fit to be tied because they have to leave their home that they've lived in for 30 years uh because they can no longer afford the taxes. They're retired. They're on fixed incomes. And you know, and that just that slays me. I mean, that just kills me as a as an elected official that we we um you know, so if there was a way to slide, you know, do something that was in the public interest that could avoid that problem and enable people to stay in their houses longer, I I think that's that that's figuring that out is would um is uh probably difficult, but but worthwhile. I'm going to put these ideas the tax abatement the senior I'm going to put those on future programming considerations and it should have been in the EIP not in this discussion but we'll add it to we'll add it to >> we can talk about it at the right time >> well because I don't want to lose track of because these are programs that have to be developed you know >> yeah this is not >> yeah this is not something we can enact like in this >> right >> iteration so what they But I don't want to lose because I think some of those ideas are really >> working on some of this stuff. >> Okay. I'm gonna We have about 10 minutes left. Mayor, we have four subject matter to come. >> Okay. >> All right. Not doing very well in time management. >> Okay. >> So, I have the next one as ownership >> update on our ownership programs which was in the EIP and it's coming up again. So maybe >> do you want to was there something specific on ownership that you wanted to talk about? So the down payment assistance programs or rehab programs or pathways, you had it rated kind of high, so I don't want to skip over it. If you had >> anyone, what are your >> comments, interests, anything you want to know? I mean, I think that I think the point's still kind of floating from the EIP discussion just about, you know, if we can't if we're not getting houses and, you know, are we be are we making the best use of funds that but that I think is a conversation perhaps even for next year, >> right? Are there houses out there to do the program? >> And and I really think in some ways, I mean, all of the things we just finished talking about are related to home ownership. And I think we are all committed to finding ways to help people own homes in Minnetonka affordably and and we're interested in creative approaches to that. I just got a comment in regards to um I don't know if this would be under home ownership, but um and I talked to Mike about this several times and y'all know my thing and I'm not going to go into how how you say just keep talking about it, but um my thought process is always going to be how can we influence programs? If we're funding the programs, then we should be able to influence them. And so if we if we continue to um help fund land trust or um homes within reach, then I think we should be able to influence how they do the program and just make it more equitable for the people who's purchasing the homes. That's going to always be my argument about it, but or statement. So, if we're talking about equity and we're talking about um doing things different, um that's just my comment. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else? >> All right, Julie, back to you. Our next subject is >> HIA natural occurring affordable housing >> housing improvement areas. >> Yes. So um I'm not sure other than you know kind of the two most recent projects. The last one was under I mean it's under construction right now. $12 million of improvements. Bill is at Chasewood. If you're not familiar, if you ever are down in that area, you can see the construction going on. Siding, windows, uh roofs, um you name it, it's being done. >> Amazing. >> It will be great when it's done. Um how many prepayments do we have on that? >> There were uh 49 prepayments, which >> so 50 out of 170ome units prepaid their assessments. So, uh, that was how much assessment for >> for the $12 million of improvements. >> Yeah. They divided up amongst all the folks. How how >> about $72,000 a unit. >> Oh, they paid it up front. >> Yep. >> Oh, wow. >> From people. 49 of the 170ome. >> Anyway, um kind of an interesting project. And the Cloud9 continues to pay their fees uh for their 4 was it 4.2 million? around there uh for their project. We still haven't quite paid off the we internally financed Cedar Ridge. If you remember a long time ago, we did the Those are probably the most affordable >> uh condominiums in our city. They range from 110 to 150,000. They're right at Cedar Lake Road. So, um that one's still in a payoff situation, but they'll be paid off pretty soon. Bye, Jason. Thank you for coming. Um, so we continue to see I I can't remember how many inquiries have we had this year for from homeowners associations. >> A handful. Usually about two or three a year. >> Two or three will call us. >> Call back. >> So we'll get a call from like I we had one on Plymouth Road where they had a sighting problem and they weren't able to finance it internally. We haven't heard back from them. Breen with they had how all their streets needed to be done. we haven't heard back from them. So, there's just a lot of um contact with our town home associations. If you remember that we have about 4,000 folks living in condominiums or town homes and I had an interesting exchange with someone who was interested in buying at the villas. It was an email and she was indicating that why is the city supporting why are we subsidizing uh projects like this? And I said for for like maybe investors to buy these units and then make big money on them, that sort of thing. And I said, well, we're not subsidizing the city's not in these HAS. There's no city money going into it. We're the conduit for financing. So there there's definitely a misunderstanding when the city's involved. They >> for some reason folks think that >> there's some kind of city money, >> right? The city's paying $12 million to improve these. We're not. We're just we're collecting the money for them to do it. It's just so there's some >> I think we have some marketing to do and some understanding to do, but there this isn't the last of them and I don't think we've seen the um the highest hia. I'm sure there's larger ones out there that we'll continue to um we'll face in the next coming years. So, just uh a report on that. >> Thanks. So, council, any questions? Uh Kimberly, >> I just have a really quick question. I hope. Um so, are there laws in place that cover um HOAs and like what they charge and how much they charge? >> No. So there are laws about HOAs and planning for future maintenance improvements and they are required now to to forecast all of that and get their fees to line up with their forecasts. There are no um parameters from the state that say you can't be a certain percentage or you can't charge more than X or there is nothing like that. The homeowners themselves decide through their boards how much they should have but there is some thought to the improvements anyway and how much they have to charge to make those improvements happen so we don't end up with a chase. Yeah, >> that's partially correct me if I'm wrong is I mean part of going back way to the earlier discussion the reason that we've got a condo moratorum essentially is because >> these buildings were not properly projecting their maintenance costs and I mean it's all tied to together some of it >> my opinion on the the the condominium warranty law. >> Warranty law was more about predatory um litigation at year 9. >> Okay. >> So, they built the condo year nine, throw a bunch of stuff at the builder to fix, then insurance companies wouldn't insure the builders anymore, and then it became a huge snafu from the contractor. So that that is how the that's how that came to be. Um yes, associations weren't planning properly prior to what year did that pass? The HOA law 95 something like that. Is that right? >> The amendments were 2017. >> But the but the original law that you had to get your >> plans in order was an early probably late 90s early >> and it's still a bit of a mess. I mean, there's >> associations are still trying to catch up. Well, in this building first or housing first meeting that I had the other day, I mean, we said, you know, the one thing we probably can agree on is if we could get some change to the condo warranty law um that would increase the production of housing, we we would like that, but but the reason it got put in place was, you know, people were abusing the law and using loopholes and and um it took away the incentive to build more contract. Did you have a comment further? >> So unless I change that warranty law at the state level, they will not get >> Yeah, it's going to be tough. >> Yeah, but everybody's tried to change that. >> 10 years, nobody's been able to change it. >> So, quick comment on this. I mean, when we did the Chasewood thing, um, we basically saved 188 units of housing >> that probably would have gone away in some way, shape, matter, form had we not done that. And, you know, this is a beautiful tool. I mean, ideally, it's just interesting. I mean, I've I've been around doing this long enough. You see developers develop things and then they market properties and they want to sell them. They want to sell them effectively. So, um the developers when the HOA gets formed, they like to have low monthly fees because I mean, you know, you want you want people to be able to afford to buy the place. And then if you know, if the HOA is $200 a month versus $1,000 a month, it's that much more affordable to that many more people. So they have a real incentive to keep the HOA fees low, but the reality is you need you need to plan ahead and you need to build reserves to be able to pay for the things that are inevitably going to happen. And so you know then you know the the developer goes away and you know the HOA is confronted with reality well we don't want to we don't want to increase the taxes on ourselves and they get themselves in trouble. I mean, it's really important for a condo association or a homeowners association to build sufficient reserves so that when the roads need to be replaced or or the elevator needs to be replaced or the roofing needs to be replaced, they have the money to do it. And when they don't, >> they know it's not an option anymore. I mean, they can't, >> right? But but it was that way. I mean, absolutely. Breenwood came up. I mean, we all know, we've heard from the Breenwood folks. >> Um, and now they're taking a different approach. But but I mean this preserved affordable housing that could could have gone away. >> And didn't I understand that that it wasn't all just sort of lack of maintenance over time >> or attention that that there were some like the original developer just sort of left some things out of the construction to begin with which are less likely to happen hopefully less likely to happen now because they would be inspected differently. So my understanding is that there was missing it. >> Maybe. Yes. Maybe. No. We still >> inspect. But that was the inference. That isn't what happened. They had water intrusion and they didn't maintain, you know, they weren't keeping track of their sighting and water got behind the siding. I mean, that's >> that happens. Um it wasn't because it was built wrong. It was because they didn't maintain it properly. >> Can I ask a question? How how I mean this has been a great tool for us. How common is how commonly is this used as a tool elsewhere? >> I would say uh any of the suburbs who have era uh 1970s town homes and condos are using it. >> Is that nationally or is that just here? >> Statewide statewide. >> Um I would say the most active user ha is St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, >> Bloomington, >> Bloomington, Burnsville, um, Brooklyn Park, and there's one other city. >> Richfield has done any. >> Yeah, it may be more limited, but Ridgefield as well, but anybody who has this era of town homes definitely is using it because they have the same issues that >> Yeah. >> All right. Anything else or do we want to go? Julie, you want to take us next? >> Subject is rental registry. That was last. And then there's um other rental >> issues >> uh >> questions, >> short-term rentals. >> Okay. >> So, we do both at once. >> So, what do you guys want to know about rental registry? You know that we having people register. You want to pull up the Oh, there you go. Okay. You go, Kendall. Just give a little overview on this slide. >> Quick review. Uh we have um a rental registry program and uh so far um of active registrants we are in um we have 531. This is the first year of renewals. So as a renewal comes in their old registration becomes expired and the new one becomes active. So uh we keep track of that and make sure once one's been renewed it's not doubled up. So we're maintaining that um on our dashboard. Um, and so that's equaling about, what does that say there? 8,588 units or so. >> Um, and there was some more attached statistics in the uh, report as well. >> Um, from some analysis that we have um, looking at kind of the question here of short-term rentals and long-term rentals. Um, based on our registration, we have 16 short-term rentals that were um that are currently active. Um, and then the rest, the 515 remaining are all long-term. Um, and so that's short-term rentals are only about 3% of the number that we have. Um, and then so far there's been in 2025 184 new registrations, so new people registering their rental properties. Um, and then 266 renewals. Um, and yeah, we're mostly up to compliance with most of our rental building or multif family buildings. Um, but there's still a few out there that we keep bugging to do it. Um, but we're almost to 100% compliance. Yeah, I might need to have Julie call. Um, but yeah, so we're doing better on that end, too. >> So, >> thank you. Interesting. >> Any >> you had some questions, didn't you, Paula? So, I have a couple of residents um who live next to um the short-term rentals. And I know it's not a huge population, but um other lakeshore communities, lake communities also don't necessarily have a huge percentage of their um residences on lake shore and also are having issues. Um, so everything from, you know, open gas canisters being stored right by the lake, you know, to noise to, you know, parking boats and noise and, you know, by the time something gets resolved or somebody comes out to resolve something, it's shifted to the next batch of renters. And so, um, the house next to me was just show sold and is being built as a short-term rental. We have another one, um, three houses down from me that is on the market. So, more and more and there's others that are, you know, in our little community. And, um, the the problem is is that, you know, it's kind of the small houses. kind of tied in are are being sold off and then being um purchased by investment groups or people and then being rebuilt as as this. And it's you know caused a lot of trouble and issues in in communities around the lake. And I just did a quick um you know bit of research for our lake communities and out of 10 uh communities on Minnotonka, six of them have now banned or have 30 um day minimums on on uh short-term rentals because of this. Um, in fact, Weisetta right now, which did licensing originally a few years ago, is now having it listening sessions um on face um they just announced it on Facebook. They have one for owners. Now they're having it for residents because of the major issues that they're having. I think they only have like 20 total um in Weisetta. And um and that I think that's in in in preparation for an ordinance change probably there. So that'll be seven out of 10 uh communities on the lake. And then um Excelsier only allows um people to do short-term rentals when it's their primary residence. So you can't have investment groups do that. >> Um I think Tonka Bay um they only have like 300 people. um they can only do it if they obtain a short-term rental license from the city. And Minnetonka Beach, which is 200 people, um requires uh registering annually and having a designated rental manager, but those are really really small communities. I just did quickly Edina and Egan have outright vans. Prior Lake has a 60-day minimum for the short-term rentals. Um, so the issue is is that yeah, I know we don't have a lot of people right now, but I, you know, just kind of like with our encampment policy, maybe getting out in front of it. I'd rather do that than, you know, having neighbors, more and more neighbors come to me because I've had a number of people come to me over the last, you know, few months really worried about, you know, who's going to buy these properties and, you know, people who are already dealing with, you know, really a lot of disturbance on um because of, you know, VRBOs that aren't being kept up properly. they're just kind of, you know, it's going to kind of ruin the community or, you know, people are worried about that in the end. So, and then, you know, it drives up property values even more than it is. And then people, you know, the whole, you know, for for those of us who have been there 30, 40 or more years, then it keeps driving the tax base up when you have these short-term rental and all of that stuff. So, all the attendant problems. So I would love um if if there's a willingness among council to you know kind of take a look at this and revisit because a lot of these things have changed just in the last couple years as this has become an increase >> and and I'd ask I mean do do you have a recommendation because you've clearly done the research and you're being in you know I'd say you're being the most heavily influenced you have a thought on what you'd like to see the city do? >> I would like there personally to see some sort of policy. I would, you know, leave it to staff to kind of look around, but I think either a 30-day or the homestead, what Excelsier is doing, I think Weisetta is looking at >> one of those. >> I mean, do you have I mean, based on your research, do you have something that you would lean that you would recommend? >> The one of one of those two, I think. Okay. Because um like Weisetta only has one that's a homestead, you know, that is doing and people who if it's their homestead and they're doing it out of their house, their neighbors are around so they, you know, do policies. So I could see either doing that or a 30-day minimum. >> Okay, great. Thanks for that. >> Yeah, if if if >> I'd support that. >> Yeah, >> I'd support the whole have it be the home owner >> homeowner homeowner. Yeah. Yeah, that would be the >> I I mean I I like even maybe even a hybrid or something cuz I think the 30day I mean just we're doing this huge rehab at our house. We should have moved out but part of the issue was where do you move right? I mean so there is a need there's people who are dealing with fire and that kind of thing. I mean I think there is a need for a interim length rental a 30 or 60 day rental situation. >> I get when it's turning over week after week, but >> yeah, that gets old. >> Yeah. Yeah. That or you know, like I said, the homestead when people own the home, you know, like I just stayed in an Airbnb in Columbus and we had, you know, >> all sorts of things about no partying and all of that stuff. But the problem with Lakeshore property as oppo opposed to, you know, kind of a a condo in Columbus or Minneapolis or St. Paul or even in Minnotonka, you know, people are usually just based there to go see the city or go to a conference or to a concert. Whereas, you know, when people are on the water, it it gets drunk and loud. Um, you know, sometimes dangerous, >> right? >> Um, you know, that sort of thing. And, you know, >> beach house says party. >> Yeah. >> Regardless whether they're beach houses or not. >> Yeah. So anyway, >> any other thoughts, council? Thank you. Yes. Um Kimberly, >> certainly. Can you remind me of um rental? Well, so like our the inspection policy like and how that ties into the rental registry. >> So when you have a rental property and let's just say there's a complaint about some issue in the house. So, it's handled through the property maintenance code, um, international property maintenance code. The city council adopted that a long time ago. Um, and that's the ability to get into someone's home and inspect it for whatever purpose, whether that be livability, running water, heat, etc. Um, we don't differentiate if it's a short-term or it doesn't matter. And in fact, it can be an owned home. doesn't and one of the um occupants wants to report something. It doesn't matter to us what the situation in the home is. So rental or not, it's it operates under the same law >> and that's complaint based. So someone complains and or we see something >> or you see something. >> Yeah. That's egregious and and a health safety violation we have to take care of. Yep. Um, so like the the fire department does >> they do multifamily and commercial inspections. They don't do individual home inspections, >> right? And if they see something that doesn't fall under their inspection, they would tell you. >> They would let us know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Most everything that they're in a let's just say an apartment building, most of that is covered under the fire code. There are a few issues they might refer to us. Maybe there's a housing issue. Um maybe there's mold or something that more falls into our territory. So sometimes that happens. >> All right. Are you done? >> I am, but I'm not sure on the direction, Mike, on the short term. >> Okay. Um, and so council, yeah, I think we staff would look for your direction on when do you want to address a short-term rental ordinance? This would be an ordinance. >> It would have to be >> 25. Something you want to tackle in 26. You have 25. Our next agenda item is looking at our study session award plan. Is there something you want to bring back yet this year? I think that's what staff would do from you is what's the timing? And then I would look to also Julie and Eric also capacity in terms of things we're working on now and what the capacity is to turn us around yet this year >> and and really it's is it more of a seasonal summer issue than or is it year round? It is my only concern is that you know there's more and more properties going up for sale >> and so what you know blowback could there be if people buy it and there isn't one >> and then we do one like not till 27 or 26 you know that that I guess >> that's up to you I mean I think that's what you're asking right when do you want to do it >> yeah when you want to do it basically when you want to do it >> well I mean I guess if if you know we we people can't if there's a grandfathering issue That's what I'm not unclear about legally. So, um, if if it can be >> right either way. You could do it either way. >> Yeah. I mean, I, you know, as I look at it, it'd be nice to have it ready for next season. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think that's So, what what's what's that take? So, but you don't have to do it in October. You could do it in February and still have it ready for next season. So I mean it really comes down to bandwidth. But I think um you know kind of targeting in that context >> if it gets done if we can have it done in the next >> you know what whatever it takes you know for us to pass an ordinance and then and then give it 60 days to be effective or 30 days to be effective whatever you know get it you know have it in place what by April 1st >> we could target first quarter of >> that's I was going to say that seems like what we're shooting for >> I think let me talk to uh the zoning consultant too Because depending on where he's at with his schedule, let's see where that lines up too. >> Why have to do a separate, you know what I mean? Could do it all at once is my point. >> We'll come back with you on some >> options. Some options >> what that could look like. We hear that exactly what you're saying. Council >> and then we can come back with some proposed dates and then in terms of public engagement during dealing with public engagement, immediate take something we want to get feedback from the council >> owners >> draft draft something put it out in Minnesota matters I assume some level public engagement on it because that's what we do with ordinances get feedback on it that can take some time as well >> usually this could be a three to four month process even if we started it in a couple months >> yeah right I understand that thank you council for >> yeah and then and then the other thing too is I mean you know with the with the LMC you know being aware of neighboring communities and consistency because I mean, you know, I mean, I think there's just those in inter relations so that we want it to make sense. We don't want to be an outlier. We want we want to have a good policy that holds up and also makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Got it. So, >> thank you. >> Got it. Yeah. Thank you. to Paula's question just to clarify for Eric like if we do something against let's say it's the first quarter of next year if there is a home that's sold the ordinance is could still apply and there's no grandfathering is that >> right >> okay great >> well you could write it either way is my what I was saying before >> but but why would we why would we want to grandfather in bad policy >> I don't want to predetermine what your outcome will be so >> fair I was saying before, >> but we don't have to grant them. >> You don't have to have to, >> right? >> Okay, that's clear. >> A registration or a license is >> is registration >> different so that they you're not under a legal obligation to grandfather and like you would with some sort of, you know, zoning entitlement, land use entitlement that runs with the land. >> Okay. Right. >> Very good. Thanks for that. >> Anything else? There were there were two more questions that I heard today from Mike and it was about the affordable housing trust fund and something else >> sales tax >> sales tax we have >> CBDG CBG >> and CBDG sorry >> thank you >> so let's go through the easiest first LAA which is our sales tax local affordable housing >> aid I remembered but >> $800,000 >> $800,000 is what our allocation is I did put in there, we talked about when during the EIP the uses. So if you caught the little language in there that says you can't replace funding. So like pathways, we can't replace our funding for pathways with that money. So you can't do that. Um can't do our down payment assistance program with that because it's not new. Um, so as we talked about as a group, I mean theoretically we would go and have um like hopefully one project will assist, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think because it's newer dollars, the state has some pretty reporting requirements and we prefer one or two projects >> for ease of capture. >> So that's that. It'll sit in the fund. It's good for four years. So, it's not like we're under the a deadline at this point. Uh, second one was affordable housing trust fund. I don't know, somebody was asking about where we got that money from originally. That was you, Kimberly. Okay. >> So, originally we had 4.1 million in tip pooling money. So, our districts pulled all the existing tip districts pulled money, pushed it into uh this special fund, the affordable housing trust fund. Most of that was from Boulevard Gardens, if you remember, that had a big balance in there. But all the tip districts produced two pooling and that helps that balance. The um >> and that was done by special legislation, right? >> Which allowed that pooling. >> Yeah. Yeah. We couldn't have done that without the legislation. Then on top of that, we got repaid from a 1985 special loan, something we had done. Somebody lost track of it. >> What was the cliffs? Was it the cliffs? 2.1 million. >> 2.1. Sorry. Nobody >> they didn't knew. Nobody knew it was there except for we got repaid for it. So that's what Good Title Work was doing as Eric. So we had a um we had a hold on the property for that loan and there was a a stipulation they pay us back if it was refinanced or sold. That's how we got 2. So it was $6ome million dollars in the end. We're actually down quite a bit. We've been spending it. So >> yeah, >> a good project. >> 2.9 million. >> Yeah. >> So >> So the special legislation is is >> through 26. We can do this >> through 26. Okay. You have to spend all the money out of the affordable housing tote, but any transfers in from those poolled funds have to go in by 26. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> CBDG. Who wants to do that one? >> We have a slide. >> We have a >> if it'll work. >> We have a toss up. >> Who wants to do that? >> It's kind of like game show. >> So this before we go on. So, so to transfer in has to be before 26 >> and as >> but it's been such a great tool to have to have and so what do we do what what do we do about that? >> Well, it was something that was proposed last year at the legislature and did not get approved. >> Did not get in the tax bill. did not get, >> but there's a lot of things that didn't get in the tax bill. We're gonna and we're going to go to back. We're going to go to bat again, right? >> Yeah. We've already mentioned it to our legislators that >> I think they thought it passed, but >> I think they were getting mixed up with opus. >> I I will also mix say that when I go to these housing meetings and we talk about this stuff, I beat the drum for affordable housing trust funds hard because it's such a great tool for us. And so I'm hoping that we can see more cities in the state do that and really give a boost to affordable housing. >> Trying to promote it as a statewide I mean it's really not state money. It's local money and it's school money and it's all about but my point was if it works for Mitanka anybody who has TIFF pooling money available to them should be able to use it for housing. >> Yes. >> That's our argument. >> That's our argument. >> Okay. CBD and then we're done. I'll do the quick um overview. So, prior to 2018, the city was an entitlement community within the CDBG program. So, HUD directed all of the funding directly to Minnetonka. It was roughly around 100,000 for to do rehab loans and then there was a portion of about 20 to 30,000 a year for public services. and the city held its own public hearing to determine which public service agencies received those funds. So it was rehab and then public service dollars. Then during between 2018 and 2024, the city joined as a direct um allocation city um into the urban county consortium. So cities elected to direct their CDBG funding to the county. the county um distributed the rehab funds, the money was still the same, and then also held a larger public hearing from which cities participated on the um committee to determine who scored and received the public service dollars. So, the public service agencies were still getting funding instead of having to go to every single city and ask for their CDBG dollars. It was all done in one meeting. and it was still kind of our one pot of money. >> Yes. >> Um the new 2025 and onward is the Henipin County Consolidated Pool. And what this does is it is membership of the the direct or the urban county consortium um cities. Some are choosing to join this year, some are choosing to join next year. All of the dollars will go into a fund which is roughly 745,000 a year and they'll still run the various programs. But in addition to the 100,000 or so that the city had for our rehab program, we we now have access to a larger pool of funding. And then in addition, all of the program income from the cities that are in this um new pool is up for grabs. annually. So there's in addition to the 745 as loans are repaid and coming in, those dollars are then available um for special projects. And we've the city has never had access to those dollars in the past. So the the county is committed to keeping our um four or five loans that they were doing a year as a baseline. And then in addition, we can apply for >> special funding for things like maybe our manufactured home or >> that we've never had access to. >> Right? >> So that's kind of the difference in the evolution over the year. >> The thing that people don't maybe gather is when those loan payments, repayments happen. So if you don't stay in your home long enough, that loan is not forgiven. So you stay in your home for 5 years, you're having to pay back the fund. Those funds come back here. And when we were our own entitlement city, we'd have to reissue those funds within a very short period of time. Well, to find the new programming for those dollars was really quite a headache. And in fact, the county found out the same thing. They have the same problem in that middle circle. That's why they went to this more expanded circle so that they would be able to get the money out the door sooner, be compliant with HUD's requirements and so forth. So, I mean, that's another a more administrative issue, but that's behind the scenes what's happening as well. So, >> because HUD will penalize counties and cities for not spending the dollars in time. >> Right. Right. >> And we're not talking like three years. We're talking six months. >> You know, it's not a long period of time. >> Well, it's kind of like it's a year, but it takes six months to get get it all >> you know that it's there and it's then you've got six months then there's six months left to spend it. >> Correct. >> Yeah. It's kind of >> it's a >> lot of work. A lot of work. >> And then we don't have any local staff anymore either, >> right? >> The HUD staff are no longer there. >> So, >> I can tell you when we did it in the first circle, that was always a long meeting. >> Having all those having all those people come and basically ask for money. >> Yeah. And it was minuscule amounts of money. That's the thing. >> And that was painful. >> Mhm. Yeah. Here you have 3,000, you have 2,000. >> Oh, boy. Yeah, it was really >> Does that make sense, Kimberly? Or >> It does make sense. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I was just when I read through it, I couldn't quite tell the difference between the different iterations. So, >> and now did you calculate Kendall? It'sund how many public service dollars? 125. >> Yeah. So, um there was a a question about the $125,000 in the report under that CDBG section. Um and so for clarity, you know, when we were a direct allocation city, so between 2018 and 2024, um they're on that committee that the cities were on to choose those public service um entities and and support those through those CDB CDBG dollars for public service. Last year specifically, $125,000 from that supported Minnotonka residents. So those are organizations that work in and around Minnetonka that support the residents. So residents were getting supported through public service funds from that and about 125,000 of that was working in direct throughout Minnitonka to help the residents in >> which it used to be 30. >> Right. Well, and I would I would say that you know our our staff is well known. We do a lot with housing. We're know I think we get because of the excellence and the hard work of our staff, we get more than our fair share because they know that Minnetonka will use the money and and I think we benefit from the reputation of our of our staff. So, we end up getting more money because of that. There are other cities that don't have staff. They don't have the commitment to affordable housing. They don't have the success. Our success is getting us more money. >> Thank you. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. No, I'm not going to correct that. >> She's like, "No, we are at >> Thank you." >> All right, Julie. Do your team have anything else? >> No, we're done. I think unless you something else. >> All right. I think council, any any questions that you we didn't get to? >> Sorry, we ran late. >> Well, it takes two to tango. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. >> Last comment. Um I when I talked when I was at NLC and at the community economic development committee meeting um I did ask about um social housing and I I just you know they said they're they've done a quite a bit of research into it. I'm going to follow up with that. I'll I'll share that. just leave want to leave one thought and you know thinking about how much um funding that we're you know that we've spent on you know the twin homes or that we spend as part of the Mills church um and then I was thinking of that in the context of Doran and the 44 units that I remember them saying it was a $13 million to build that and so I was thinking 13 million you know if if for some reason that was city funding to do that and you it was social housing that would 13 million to help 44 families or people versus So, I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things. I think these are great, especially the manufactured. >> Um, but I would love to kind of explore um that option. I'm happy to, you know, kind of forward that information um from National League and just, you know, bang for the buck at the end of the day if we um you know, need to really up our affordable housing game depending on what happens with condo legislation and all of that stuff. that might be another um tool in the toolbox that people are really interested in because again just for anybody who hasn't heard me beat the drum on this um social housing which is prevalent in Vienna and parts of Scandinavia um you income qualify in but you never income disqualify out >> and so you that tends to be more rental but rents tend to be around 10% of your income. um they float with your income. So that kind of pays operational expenses and it means more mixed um diverse communities both um you know in many ways including socioeconomically and um people are able maybe not to build generational wealth through selling of houses but they have a lot more disposable income to create you know through investment in other ways. Um so it's hopefully something that we will I know multiple communities in the US are looking at that now more and more seriously and hopefully you know that's something we can eventually take a look at as well. So no action there just kind of comment slashinformation. >> Thank you. Anyone else? All right Mike I'm going to turn it back to you then because we get to talk about our next meeting. >> Yeah. Thank you Brad. Uh, next meeting is August 18th and so we will be doing general fund budget for the evening. So you'll see Darren and I back in front of you. We had the night off. So thank you and housing post. >> Well done. Thank you. >> So we'll have budgets in August. The other thing that was not on our schedule, but I'd like to I think I anticipate the August study session like tonight. Hopefully two hours with budgets. We will have about 30 minutes of time. no more than that to bring in our consultant is our consultant. Something that Miranda Sarissa and I have been working on with our employee engagement survey. So about 18 months ago, we did an employee engagement survey. First one we've probably done >> ever. >> Ever. >> I'm going with ever. >> So that's a while. >> I'm going with ever. >> Ever. Important certainly important part of understanding our our staff, our culture, etc. had really good results 18 months ago. Couple things that we worked on that came out of that survey. We just did our second one. Got the results of that. Really good results. We thought it'd be just important just to show that to you. >> Um you hear you we appreciate all the um recognition that you give to us as staff and the work that we do, but I think also it's important for at least us to show you what employees think about working here. So we'll have our consultant just give you a high level overview. >> Great. >> The employ engagement survey we did and you'll get a kind of a look under the hood a little bit on our our organization a little deeper. So we'll do that in August and then have those on me. Um September we've got the zoning rewrite updates team back for that along with the 30 minute open time in September. October we have opus >> and then our infrastructure rate study and asset management study is coming at that time. Uh we and then one other item that will either come September October and it was scheduled for tonight uh which was a conversation on youth programming and so I can say this because Sarah Wesley has said we could say this. I think many of you know that our assistant recirector Sarah West has been diagnosed with cancer and so she's been out for about a month now and so she was really kind of leading this employee excuse me the youth programming conversation. So just with her absence and other things that Kelly's managing with her absence, we pushed us off off a little bit. I've also talked with Kizzy because they know this is a topic that is important to Ky and we're going to come back actually a little more comprehensive other than just youth programs. So we're able to build more into our ACE programming work that we do with Hopkins. We'll look at our depot uh and then we'll also look at uh employment opportunities and how we do our internships here at the city. So it be a little more holistic approach about the youth in our city just beyond just the programming. So that will come back either September, October. >> Great. >> Very good. Any questions anyone? >> Well, thanks everyone. Uh thank you um community development. You did an did a you did a great job and it's I mean housing is such a huge topic. We're not done talking about it, but but I it really it was exciting to see some of the ideas and uh new opportunities. >> Thank you. >> So, thank you all.