I' like to uh I'd like to call the meeting of the Richfield Housing and Development Authority of September 21st, 2026 to order. And with that, I'll have staff note tonight's attendance. And that brings us to uh the open forum portion of the meeting. Uh participants can share their comments here in person and at the municipal center by voicemail or email and may also request to participate virtually. Uh for more information on submitting comments, refer to the housing and redevelopment authority agenda and minutes on the city's website. Um is there anyone here tonight in the council chambers who would like to address the H? >> Yep. And if the speaker would like to to approach the podium over here and um I think there were some signing cards, but I think we were also requesting maybe that you write down your name >> and um and then announce your name and your city of of residence. >> Sure. And we um and we would ask speakers tonight to try to limit their comments to three minutes. >> Gotcha. Um my name is Tasha Austinorf. I live here in Richfield at 6800 Cedar Avenue South. So I'm on the east side of the city. Um, I just wanted to begin by saying, um, thank you members of the H for hearing a comment during this time in your portion of your meeting. I've lived in Richfield since 2017 and I have been active in city municipal service opportunities since 2018. I'm a former member of the City Human Rights Commission, which HR member Brett Stersa was chairing at the time that I was on that commission. And I've been an active member of ARDAP, the Richfield Disability Advocacy Partnership Group, for over eight years. When the city first developed the inclusionary housing policy, which I'd like to speak on today, I was first included in the drafting process and I contributed to what became the final version that was passed by the city. I was incredibly proud to see the city pass this policy and further to see that the state of Minnesota referenced these requirements for the development of state level housing policy. This work has been an immense achievement for the city in service of those who call Richfield home. It was brought to my attention that the H is discussing changes to this policy. Specifically, changes that would increase the minimum number of units in a project which is currently set at five units. I'm here today to encourage the HR to not weaken this policy by increasing the minimum number of units. But I'm also here to speak in support of eliminating the payment in LW clause for accessible units as was previously proposed during the last H meeting and in support of strengthening the Richfield policy to require affordable units to remain affordable for at least 20 years which has also come up um before this body before. As a scientist in my day job, my approach to planning and problem solving is informed and guided first and foremost by the data that's available to me. Some folks in Richfield may feel that these policies present a barrier to development projects that would otherwise go through successfully. Likewise, some folks may feel that the lack of development proposals in the first place might be due in part to some of these requirements. To these points, I would ask if available that the city look into how many housing development proposals the city has received since this policy was approved and how many of those proposals failed to move forward specifically due to requirements of the IHP. And also, has the city conducted outreach to housing developers to showcase available locations in Richfield that are eligible for housing development? And during that outreach, has the city received feedback from developers that the IHP requirements would turn them away from submitting any prospective proposals? I caution the HA and other Richfield residents to make policy decisions and form opinions based on assumptions or guesses, even if well-informed, logical, and well-intentioned. It makes logical sense to equate fewer requirements with increased attractiveness to developers. But I caution against the line of thought without corresponding evidence that the requirements were truly preventing barriers in the first place. It is a tough economic time for all development and construction, housing included. There are many factors that go into a decrease in projects. I support this process of data gathering and data informed decision-making in the development of policy. And if the city has been logging the number of proposals that have failed due to IHP requirements and/or feedback from developers, I would welcome that information to be included in conversations about changing this policy. Richfield is a leader in accessible and inclusive housing space, something which brings me great pride as a Richfield resident. I hope to see the city continue to lead in this space and further secure a more accessible affordable housing future for Richfield. So, as I mentioned, I support the HA maintaining the current policy minimum of five units, eliminating the payment in LEU option for accessible units and strengthening the policy to require affordable housing to stay affordable for at least 20 years. These requirements help further protect the future of accessible and affordable housing for Richfield residents while simultaneously strengthening the city's legacy as a leader in policy that is looked to not just by our neighboring cities, but by the state level as well. Thank you for your time. >> Great. Thank you. And are there uh additional speakers who would like to u participate in the open forum? My name is Fabola and I am resident of Richfield and also I the co-founder and the coirector Latina Tempana M and I'm here to support this project affordable accessible housing is needed to know more than ever and we need to put neighbors needs first ahead of the maybe or may not to be more active to developers. I oppose to admit Richfield's inclusive housing policies to increase the number of units that will be trigger the IHP requirements. I do support straining the IHP to require the affordable units stay affordable for the last 20 years which initiates is be the affordable houses policies for all the cities our size. I also support the series to recommendations on getting rid of the the in and payments that allow developments to put out the requirements accessibility units. Currently 5% of affordable units are required to also be accessible with roll in showers on the hills and on the metro shores when rich residents step up raise money and help our immigrants neighbors in their homes. We need families are still struggling with hes cost so we can turn around and support weakening our IHP. The city of Rivers has increased so many great programs to support affordable housings and weaken the HP will be a contradiction that um we are not in the line on Richfield's values. Affordable and accessive housing is a priority for so many Richville residents and we so proud of the HHP that the city's first pass in 2018. Community members were involved in the city first passing in the IHP in 2019 and the community should be involved and ask for input each time the city reviews all the policy. I know people who are struggling to payments the rent or find houses. Give you an example. I asking you not to vote to increase the number of units. It will be taking the trigger to the IHP and now screen the numbers of years of units stay affordable and do away the in payments to avoid buildings accessible units. Thanks for listening. Thank you. Um, other speakers. Hello, Chair Hansen and HR members. My name is Judy Mo. I am the director of the Richfield Disability Advocacy Partnership, uh, known as ARDAP. Affordable and accessible housing has never been needed more than it is right now. Some of you know that my daughter Raven and I were homeless for four months in 2019 because of the lack of affordable, accessible housing in Richfield. We were paying $1,300 a month to rent a one-level home in East Richfield. And we couldn't even find a one-bedroom apartment that we could afford where my daughter could also get through the front door. There are so many people who are in this situation right now. The National Lowincome Housing Coalition releases an annual report called Out of Reach. And according to their 2026 report, the Minneapolis St. Paul metro area has the highest housing wage in the state with a worker needing to earn $32.87 per hour or an annual salary of $68,370 to afford a two-bedroom apartment here. I also wanted to point out people with lower incomes and people with disabilities should be able to choose where they live just like anyone else. Which means they should have the option of being able to live in a five or 10 unit building and shouldn't be forced to only live in big apartment buildings because that's where the affordable accessible units are. I also wanted to bring up the enormous cuts to Medicaid that are coming down the pike. I don't know if all of you know, but Medicaid helps supplement rent for people with disabilities. So, things are going to get worse for people, not better. Richfield residents are so proud of our inclusionary housing policy, perhaps partly because the community was involved in the passing of the IHP in 2018 and in the amendment made in 2021. and the community should have been involved in reviewing the IHP this time as well. The goal of the city should be to prioritize affordable housing over developers comforts and profits. Why do we want or who do we want to be as a city? Do we care more about what some hypothetical developers think or do we care more about taking care of our neighbors? There is already a clause in the IHP that allows for exceptions on individual projects and the city has made changes to different things in the past in order to work with developers. You could worry about that when a developer actually brings a proposal and not weaken the entire IHP. Right now, I am asking you not to vote to increase the number of units it would take to trigger the IHP. And I'm asking that you increase the number of years units must stay affordable to 20 years or more to be more in line with other cities our size. And I'm asking that you do away with the inlue payments that allows developers to avoid building accessible units which has already been recommended to you by city staff. Thanks for listening. >> Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Sarah St. Louis. I am a resident of the city of Minnetonka, but I am have lots of friends that live here in Richfield, and I am also a certified ADA coordinator and licensed accessibility specialist here in Minnesota. I've also been in architecture for over 20 years. Uh I have also worked uh with Miss Mo over the years in helping to create the IHB plan that has been in place uh when she was wanting to do that because developers were trying to convince the city that it was too expensive to do accessible affordable units and uh with the help of my father who has been a GC for more than 50 years and we also put together costs to prove that the developers were lying to you and and that it actually doesn't cost hardly anything more to create those accessible affordable units. Another thing that I am with is I uh am with professional organizations um such as uh AIA Minnesota and affordable housing is one of their uh big commitments. So as architects in the Twin Cities, affordable housing is a priority for us and including also accessible housing. People with disabilities should not have to be shoved into an institution or preferred places of to live that the city deems appropriate for them. They should be able to have choices as the ADA states and the Scotas decision of 1999 also known as the Mstead decision which is that people with disabilities have the right to live, work, learn, and participate in the community of their choice. So denying them or trying to get rid of the 5% um accessible units to cater to developers actually harms them and is kind of in violation of the Mstead decision of allowing people to live and work where they want to instead of putting them where you you decide where they do. So it is very important that you don't change these things for things that are going to hap you think might happen or developers that won't. Developers have plenty of money to be able to do this. I know I've worked with them. It's about profit for them. It's not about what is right for the citizens of that community in which they are doing those things in. So, I'm asking that you please not change that and listen to the disability community and have them be a part of the conversations instead of deciding what you think is best for them because that is abbleism. Thank you. [cheering] >> Thank you. [applause] >> Are there additional uh people who'd like to speak tonight? Hey. Um, I was gonna try and write and speak at the same time, but I don't think I can. But my name is Ricardo Perez. I'm a resident of Richfield since probably 10 years ago. And um, I was part of the group that brought you the 2018 inclusionary housing policy. So, it's good to be back here tonight with you all. And I guess, you know, like for us it's very simple. You know, it's like we want more affordable housing, more accessible housing. And I know that for you things get more complicated when you're thinking about how to bring development to our city. But the idea that we're bringing to your attention today is doesn't have to be uh by replacing us. It doesn't have to be by removing choice from people to live in accessible or affordable housing units. We believe that the city can find better and more creative ways to incentivize development like instituting a cultural corridor or uh being able to sponsor more murals so that there's economic areas that get activated rather than changing protections for people who need them the most. Rather than trying to equal what other cities around us are doing, why can we become known for being the city with the most accessible units in the region? How can we be activated that way rather than just becoming another city that lower their requirements for developers to come and build? So I think we can stand out for the culture that already lives here rather than trying to bring new culture that we don't have today. So, please get creative. This is the easiest thing you can do. And we believe that we're more talented, more skilled to come up with better ideas that don't displace people that live here today. So, thank you. Let me write my name. >> Uh, thank you. Uh would anyone else like to address the uh H? Any any final comments from those in the chamber. Hi. Uh, good evening. My name is Amelia Gonzalez Savalos. I'm a resident uh I've been a resident of Richfield uh for about almost 25 years. Um and um I am here in support of um our community that faces uh disability and exclusion. I do not understand deeply the issue that is discussed tonight. But what I came here to say is that a few I will say a few months ago we were faced with an incredible amount of challenges in the city. And we also met those challenges with an incredible amount of community and unity and clarity about our values. And so I know that there is a deep divestment that is coming from the federal government that services uh basic needs and dispersement of uh our tax dollars coming back to cities and municipalities are facing severe cuts. And so the business of the city continues to balance budgets and make sure that the priorities are in place. And so I'm here just to share a fair um a fair alert because this is these are the moments where all of us are challenged that impeted against each other. when there are cuts that are coming from the federal government, when there is less than what we need because people are not paying their fair share. I would I say the wealthy few are not paying their fair share. And when our budgets for basic needs continue to be on the line, then it's the role of local government to create solutions that avoid creating deeper problems. And so again, I'm not entirely clear about what is the direction, but I know that we have brave and knowledgeable neighbors that know what those solutions look like. And my ask is to provide time and space for some troubleshooting that further exclude people in our community. I know that at least in the neighborhood city in the next door city in Minneapolis, there are thousands of kids that are not coming back to public schools and they're going to face shutting down of public schools. I don't know what's the number for Richfield, but I know that we will be on the same boat at some point. Um and we also have this consistency of uh issues when we are told we don't have enough. So that's what I'm asking. Um in support of my neighbors that showed up for our families when we needed it. um what is the time and the space to continue to look for solutions to avoid to go back to business as usual because these are not times for business as usual. We're not in peace times anymore. Um and so I know that you have an incredible challenge ahead of you. I know that local government is facing incredible challenges and also this is where we actually don't like we see each other consistently. We drive by each other. We live by each other. We don't have to look at the issues from a screen or from a a newscast or an anchor through the television. We go and ask our neighbors. And so that's an invitation uh for that space. Um I know that Richfield became a safe place because we made it so we made it. The people here made it. Local government made it. And so the the next ask is how can we continue to further continue to preserve it as a safe community for our neighbors that also need it the most at this moment. So that's all I came here to share. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Hello. Uh, my name is Zanton. Uh, I am a resident here of Richfield. I live at, uh, 7544 Bloomington Avenue. Um, I'm coming to speak as an ally to the disability community. Um, a 26-year ally of the disability community. Um, one of the things I find as a neighbor in Richfield, as a citizen in Richfield, I was honored to move into this community, uh, eight years ago was the fact that we had one of the first inclusionary policies around development, uh, which was so advocated for, um, and has been a standard in the state of Minnesota that other cities have looked to. Uh, and uh, you know, I've heard talk about what we can do as a city to maybe entice developers here and keep our policies, uh, you know, an arts corridor, stuff like that. Those are great ideas. Um, I think that the big thing that we can do is we can look to other communities that have embraced being a community that dis people with disabilities want to go to. For instance, the college that I chose uh in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Whitewater, it has been a staple to advocate that they are an accessible campus and they advertise that as part of being a student there, that they want every building to be accessible and that they are making every building accessible for students. And that has been their policy since I went there in 2000 for college. and they continue to do that. They continue to update, renovate, and make it the most accessible school in the nation. People choose to come to that school because of its accessibility. I want and I feel that Richfield we could do the same thing if we advocate how keeping this inclusionary policy will benefit our community benefits the developers and we promote ourselves as an accessible city. People are going to want to move here. People are going to want to be our neighbors. Developers are going to want to develop here. That is where our goal needs to be. How do we keep this policy and how do we develop it so that developers don't see it as a hindrance, they see it as a positive that we are bringing more people into our community who want to be our neighbors. Thank you. [snorts] >> Uh thank you. [applause] >> Any additional speakers tonight? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I do know we did receive some communications via both voicemail and email. And I'll ask uh Mr. McKinley to uh Thank you, Chair. Yes, we did receive three emails as well as one voicemail. We did have one speaker who also left a voicemail, so I'll make sure that's noted in the minutes. Um but I'll go ahead and read those three emails now. I'm going to read them in the order they were received. This first email says, "Hello, this is Ben Whan, former city council member and neighbor in Ward 3. One of the first things I did in local government was advocate with neighbors for the inclusionary housing policy that Richfield passed in 2018. Our motivation and idea was that Richfield should not be subsidizing market rate homes that were unaffordable to a median income resident in Richfield. Nearly every development proposal was asking for city subsidy in one form or another, and we expected that they use the financial help to also build affordable homes our neighbors need. As you consider potential changes to the inclusionary housing policy, I understand that this is a balance. If your requirements are so restrictive that no new homes are built, that also harms lower inome folks. But I also think the presumption that the that a lack of development means we must lower our standards is also flawed. Our city government has ample opportunities and relationships to hear from developers and landlords. What we have long struggled to build is ongoing input from our renters who make up one-third of our city. Have you each door knocked an apartment building to ask them about the impact an affordable unit has? Have you talked with the people who were forced out of crossroads when they were illegally discriminated against by new owners? If you haven't, there's a documentary called Sold Out about that one, which I consider required history for someone on our H. Our inclusionary housing policy is not what is allowed in Richfield. I'm sorry, excuse me. Our inclusionary housing policy is not about what is allowed in Richfield. Market rate housing will always be allowed. This policy is about what you are using our taxpayer dollars to subsidize. I am happy to subsidize affordable homes for my neighbors, even at a much higher per unit rate if that is what requ what is required for it to pencil out. I am uninterested in subsidizing a private equity firm's investment property where they profit off cost burdening my neighbors. Having affordable units that are guaranteed affordable for a generation or more is life-changing. I ask that you continue to apply the inclusionary housing policy to as many units as is feasible and that you continue and you consider lengthening the number of years those units must remain affordable. I want Richfield to be a place anyone can call home and stay here as long as they'd like, not an exclusive enclave where anyone can make less than six anyone making less than six figures must look elsewhere. Thank you, Ben Wallen. All right, this is the second email we received. I would like to voice my support for the IHP. Specifically, I support the current number of units that trigger the IHP at five, that the inloo charges, I'm sorry, inloo clause gets eliminated, and that the affordable units stay affordable for 20 to 30 years instead of 15 in order to be aligned with other cities our size. I would also like to state that I support urbanism and am proud that Richfield is interested in adding more apartment buildings so that more people can live in our wonderful community. I truly support that. However, I am disappointed that we seem to be so singularly focused on the goal that we are even considering throwing low-income and disabled people under the bus in order to achieve this. Weakening the IHP would show people that we support big big developers over our neighbors, that we care more about urbanism as a concept than the people who actually live here. There are many other ways to try to lure developers here that do not involve weakening the IHP or the accessible housing policy. I urge you to listen to the community members and do more research to find other solutions. Please do not sacrifice low-income people and people with disabilities in hopes that developers will find our city more appealing. Thank you, Katie Hanstead, Richfield resident. The last open forum email we received is apologies for being late, but I want to express that I do not support weakening our current IHP. If anything, I want it strengthened further. When so many of our neighbor neighbors are struggling to pay rent, this isn't a time to lower requirements for building affordable and accessible housing. Jamie Plow, refield resident. Those are the comments we received. Thank you, chair. >> Uh, thank you. Thank you for reading those. Uh, we have quite a few folks in the audience today, so I'll I'll offer one more final chance to address the HR before I move from the open forum. Okay. I don't see anyone, but uh Commissioner Sel, >> I um also wanted to note there were two um emails that were attached in the packet and were posted publicly and I think that's why they're not being read, but I just wanted to note that they were here and the entire H received them. >> Thank you for that comment. All right, with uh with that, we will move on in the meeting to approval of tonight's agenda. Is there a uh a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? And that then next we will move to approval of the minutes. Approval of the minutes of the housing and redevelopment authority meeting of August 17, 2026. Is there a uh a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Second. A motion has been made and seconded for approval of the minutes. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Well, tonight we don't have any presentations or items on the consent calendar or public hearings. That moves us directly to resolutions. Uh first resolution is consideration of a resolution authorizing the execution of an acquisition and rehabilitation funding agreement with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and sale of 7039 Fth Avenue South. And with that, I will ask for the staff report. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen. Uh Assistant Director Urban will present the report. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen, members of the HA. In 2002, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity cooperated on the purchase and sale of the property located at 7039 Fifth Avenue South to an owner occupant as part of the HA's new home program, which is a home ownership affordability program. Habitat built the home and included a repurchase policy if that home was ever resold within 30 years of the original sale. The HA also provided the home buyer with a $40,000 second mortgage loan lean that was uh due upon the sale of the home or forgivable after 30 years. In recent months, after nearly 20 years um nearly 20 years 24 years after purchasing the home, the homeowner told Habitat of their intent to sell the home. Habitat is interested in buying back the home to renovate it, add another bedroom for a total of four bedrooms, and keep the home affordable. Habitat has conducted a review of the property and developed perform of rehab work needed before resale. Habitat will complete the rehab work using their volunteer model and then sell the house to a household earning between 50 and 80% of the area median income. and Habitat will sell the land to the West Henipin Affordable Housing Land Trust to ensure long-term affordability. Habitat is asking the HA for funds to assist with rehabilitating and ensuring the long-term affordability of the home as they did not budget to repurchase or rehab the home this year. They are requesting $80,000 from the city's affordable housing trust fund and that the HA reinvest the $40,000 loan repayment into the home. Habitat is able to also use Minnesota housing impact funds and some private funds totaling an additional $80,000 to complete the work on this home. Assisting Habitat in completing the rehab and placement of the home in an affordable community land trust will maintain an affordable housing option in the community, rehabilitate housing, create a four-bedroom affordable housing opportunity for a large family, and offer long-term affordability through the community land trust. Approval of the acquisition and rehabilitation agreement would direct the HRA to spend $80,000 from the trust fund and the $40,000 in loan repayments to rehabilitate 7039 Fifth Avenue and maintain it as an affordable home. As we were not aware of this opportunity when we were preparing the budget for this year, it also is not in the HA's budget. However, there are adequate funds in the trust fund to meet this request. Uh and also I just want to point out that the agreement was prepared by our H legal council and there are we're still working on some last minute edits. They are administrative in nature and so we would just point out that we would let the HA uh attorney along with the executive director finalize that agreement. And uh that ends my report. I'm happy to answer any questions. We again recommend that you approve this agreement. And I would also tell you that Betsy Starkson, the real estate development manager for Habitat, is here and available also to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. >> All right. Any uh any questions for staff or the uh uh the real estate representative? >> I have one question. Chair Hansen. >> Uh Commissioner Young, >> if I may, if if uh the construction costs go over budget, how is that handled? >> That is a good question. And Betsy, would you be able to come forward and talk about how that works with you? Good evening. Thank you so much for having us and thank you for considering this investment. Um, we have quite a bit of experience in this rehab model, this acquisition rehab model. So, but of course this is a a proforma. you know, we've walked through. There is always potential, but we can make adjustments as we go. I think that um our biggest cost savings come in using our volunteer model for doing a lot of the work. So, we are able to be fairly nimble in um in making those adjustments. Habitat is um contributing to the cost of the rehab as well and we can, you know, make those adjustments in our budget as well. Okay. Any uh additional questions? I guess seeing seeing none, uh is there a motion? I'll move to approve a resolution authorizing the execution of an acquisition and rehabilitation funding agreement with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity or the acquisition, rehabilit or for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and sale of 2039th Avenue South. >> I will second that. >> All right. Um any comments from the uh the H? I guess seeing none uh all in favor of the motion before us say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. So that uh brings us to actually now continuation of the uh consideration of an update to the inclusionary house housing policy and uh from last meeting. And with that, I guess I will turn it over to staff for u maybe a summary or a recap. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair Hansen, and Assistant Director Urban will help with the staff report as well. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen. Members of the HA, as you recall may recall, back on August 18th, uh you the HA considered several updates to the city's inclusionary housing policy, which encourages the inclusion of affordable housing in development proposals. One of the proposed changes was to increase the minimum project size, triggering the IHP, from five units to 15. Commissioners requested additional information about why 15 was recommended and voted to continue discussion until the September meeting. So, the minimum uh IHP project size varies from Richfield's five units to 20 units in several of the communities. And I included a chart that lists what those requirements were uh or are and the different communities and how they compare to Richfield. And then also um gave some examples of what the smallest projects the different cities have encountered using their IHP. Um earlier today, I hope you saw the email. While I also included additional information that Commissioner Hayford Olirri requested on what was the length of time uh all those different cities require. So of the suburban cities that I surveyed two have experiences with smaller infill developments. In Minnetonka a 10-unit all affordable town home project by Habitat for Humanity actually is under construction. and in Adina, a 15-unit all market rate development actually reduced its size from 20 units to 15 in order to fall under the minimum IHP project size. The city amended its zoning ordinance in recent years to encourage missing middle housing and wants to encourage this smaller infill development. The significant increase in construction costs since the IHP was initially adopted makes it especially challenging for smaller projects to be economically feasible without significant subsidy. Outside resources are available to finance affordable units. However, these resources are typically targeted to all affordable projects and those with more deeply affordable units. Awards from these sources would also likely qualify the project for the 41 tax classification, which as we know shifts the tax burden onto the city's existing affordable housing. So, 15 units continues to be staff's recommendation for a revised project size, but it is ultimately a policy choice um for you. Um we had shared already you've heard several comments um that have been submitted about the length of affordability. Um if again if you would like to lengthen that period of time that's that's a policy decision. Um let's see what was I just to make a point some things that you might want to think about some of the things that we've discussed in the past. Um, back when we were discussing the hemple request for the 40 tax classification, you did express concern with how long the 4D tax rate would be apply applicable and at that point you were comfortable with that 15-year period. I would talk um explain that when there are housing uh tiff districts 4 isn't automatically triggered. So, you may be more comfortable supporting a longer period of time in those cases. Um 15 years is currently the minimum and most tiff districts do take longer than that which means the affordability period is longer. We could also extend the required affordability past the time of a t diff tiff district the maximum of which is 26 years. However that loses our best means of compliance. We would no longer have the ability to withhold a tiff payment in order to ensure that the project is in compliance. Again, the primary purpose of this update was to make the policy consistent with the 4D policy and also some zoning ordinance changes that had occurred since 2018. We also feel we are proposing two changes that strengthen the IHP. We're removing the inloo payment option for accessible units and we're adding a 15-year term of affordability for owner occupied housing. At the same time, we were looking at that five unit minimum and are proposing to increase that to 15. again recognizing the financial reality of those small projects and how difficult it is to get them to work at that small size. So with that again I'm happy to um take any questions. Um I could also run through the other uh uh updates uh but I thought we were all kind of in agreement on what those updates were. So happy to again answer any questions. >> All right, we'll uh open it for questions from the H. Commissioner Hayford or Liry. >> Uh, one question is just procedural because we did a motion to continue a motion was on the table at the last meeting. Do we act as though that motion has been made or do we remake the motion for this meeting? >> I would just remake the motion. >> Thanks. Um, my other question was just curiosity. The smallest project approved 38 units in Richfield. Is that the one that didn't go forward, the Beacon one, or is that okay? >> Correct. That's the Astro Commons that didn't receive funds. Okay. All right. That's all I have. >> Other questions? Commissioner Young. >> Uh, Chair Hansen, I'm trying to get my head around this idea of a five-unit multifamily rental building being built in Ridgefield or anywhere for that matter because construction costs are really high, interest rates are high, and to make to make it work, rents have to be much higher in order to pay the debt service. I have some background in real estate. I know how proformas work and it's really hard to get it done. So, what I'm trying to get to is whether or not we have these requirements. Are we going to get a five unit multifamily building rent rental built here in Richfield? I mean, it seems to me like what I know of re real estate construction, it's almost impossible. What What do you think? Have you had developers propose it? Have you had developers come and talk to you about these small buildings? What has your experience been? >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Young for the question, Atri. Um, so the the Portland roundabout parcel is probably the best example that I can think of. So, in the 18 years since that's been vacant and available for development, um, I went and looked back. We had probably eight different proposals that have come before us. There were a couple five-unit developments. It's been a long time. It was probably 12 or 14 years ago. And at that time, it was proposed by someone who would have done them as affordable. Um there were also [sighs] um yeah, there was also a small town home project. That's the other point to make too is that it would apply whether it was ownership or rental. So we we did have some town home proposal. Um and then we've had various sized um multifamily as well for that project. Another example is we did do a development at 76th in Sheridan and was five units. That also has been quite some time again before costs and interest rates went up so much with the pandemic and co Yeah. Um and that there was a significant subsidy even at that point. um which again is a policy choice and and we we have some funds right available to to make those choices and we certainly do invest a lot of our funds in affordable housing. But yeah, at what point is a project um does it become too expensive per unit to to sort of justify spending public dollars? Um you know, are we getting are we getting as much for our money that we could perhaps directing it in a different way? So one more thing. So it looks like from the table you provided us the smallest development in the other cities was 10 units. >> Correct. That was in Minnetonka, right? And that it's an entirely affordable development that Habitat is is I think it's under construction. Um maybe it's completed. Yeah, it's 10 town homes I believe. And it there was a significant subsidy. Um city of Manitonka um are going to have higher costs there, but it was close to $600,000 per unit in subsidy. So a lot >> it it's it so you are right. It is very much a challenge to do small projects right now. >> Thank you. Uh additional questions, Commissioner Stersa. I'm curious why the recommendation is to only um start the minimum of 15 years for owner occupied units and not rental units. >> Also, I'm curious um does this does the city council review this as well or is what happens after the H reviews this? >> Thank you, Commissioner Cersa. So, it does apply to both rental and it already applies to rental and we had not had it in there for owner occupied and so we actually had a a town home development where it's just the initial owner that qualifies and I feel like that given our investment that that just doesn't count enough that we need to have a longer period of affordability and it should be the same for ownership as well as rental. So, that's where that's coming from. And yes, this is also a policy of the EDA and the council. Um it's pretty rare that it applies to any EDA support, but we just feel to be uniform. We want all three bodies to um acknowledge and accept this. So it will go next to city council and that would be on October 13th. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you for that question. >> Additional questions? >> Uh Commissioner Supple. Well, um, Commissioner Stersa asked the question I was going to ask about the rental versus the home ownership. So, I was going to make a motion, but I didn't know if that was an order. >> Um, I guess if we completed our questions, we'll entertain a motion. >> So, I would move to adopt a resolution approving an update to the city's inclusionary housing policy, but I would change the affordability requirement for both rental and home ownership from 15 to 20 years. So, it's extended. I think there was agreement on that. And at this point, I would say I would like to stick with the five units because I was coming in thinking about saying 10, but I was persuaded by some of the people who said maybe we need more time to think of some creative ideas and we could always go back and change it, but once we change it, it's hard to undo it. So, I'd like to leave it at the five-year minimum or the five unit minimum, excuse me. So, that would be the motion that I would put forward. Is there a uh second? I guess not. a second. Um, I guess the motion fails as stated. >> Um, I will move that we adopt a resolution approving an update to the city inclusionary housing policy, including an extension to 20 years instead of 15, but leaving the staff recommended minimum project size. >> I second that. >> And just to clarify for my second, I meant to apply that to both owner and rental. Are you >> I I second that also. >> Okay. Um chair, if I might add to the discussion. I think I think that was convincing. I think it's a helpful exercise to look at what other cities are doing and I certainly appreciate the members of the public who came tonight and reminded us that we can both look to our neighbors and we can lead our neighbors and I think that's really important. What struck me is the sort of benefit of choice and the benefit of creating diversity of housing options. The only situation in which this change, what's proposed by staff and what I support, would be a detriment to people who need accessible housing or affordable housing would be if either we were getting so many projects that we were running out of money and we couldn't afford to support them all or if these projects were going to be built anyway and they're not doing the affordable units because of the policy change. And I don't think either of those is the case. It's a slow development environment. Um, and the smallest project we've had is does come close to five units is 38 units. And that one wasn't even financially viable. So that tells me that we need to be looking for more ways to support these small projects. And I think it's important when we think about these housing goals, not every change we make, not every action we take satisfies every goal. On the last vote, you know, I was like thinking about, you know, that's that's a a great thing. It's also $120,000 for one unit. that might not satisfy my personal goal of like efficiency with our public tax dollars, but it meets an important goal of affordability. It's an aside to what we're talking about right now. Right now, this, you know, if we are successful in getting 5 to 15 unit size buildings, we're maybe not meeting our goal of of increasing the amount of income restricted and accessible housing. And I appreciate that. I think it's important we continue to reduce that. But we are meeting other goals. We're meeting goals of projects that are not under 4D that contribute to our tax base and that pay their own way in city services. we're getting benefit of difficult sites that can sit empty for years and decades and be a detriment to the neighborhood and getting projects on there. Um, and we're getting the choice of smaller, you know, smaller units that exist in neighborhoods. And I I did really appreciate Miss Mo's comment about the need for that for accessible housing as well. And I acknowledge this action doesn't satisfy that. It's a really good point though, and I appreciate you bringing that up because I think people do need choices in where to live if they're in rental housing, whether it's smaller or larger units. So this action would not solve every problem, but I think it is a step in the right direction and it allows something that we are just not seeing in Richfield. We are seeing and occasionally in other cities. And just one specific response to uh Commissioner Young's comments. There is a developer in Minneapolis who has some actually pretty comparable projects on single familyized parcels that does like sixunit buildings. And I think that is exactly the sort of thing that we haven't seen in Richfield because both our zoning code and our subsidy policies didn't support them. And I'm hopeful that by changing those things, we can get that in here, not as a replacement for these larger projects that provide a lot more units, but as an additional option in our city. So, I think this is a step in the right direction. And I think this change well balances some improvements for the reasonable like extending the period of affordability and the other changes staff described while still inviting realistically inviting this new type of housing in. >> Additional uh additional comments Chair Hansen, I would say that I think we have a better chance of getting affordable and inclusionary units with the higher threshold at 15 than we do with the lower threshold because a project is naturally going to be larger than a five unit project with today's construction costs and interest rates. So, I I'm comfortable supporting this. I uh I feel for everyone who spoke tonight. I I I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but I think the facts of the matter in construction and real estate are just different now than they were precoid and we have to adjust to that now that we're in this environment. >> Commissioner Cersa, >> I would echo the comments that are made and I would like to thank you all for speaking tonight, the phone calls that I received, the emails that I received. Um, it is so heartwarming to see such support for affordable housing in the city of Richfield. There are many cities that would receive comments if there was a proposal like this suggesting that affordable housing doesn't have a place in their community. And I'm proud to live in a community that fights hard for affordable housing. Um, I am on the H because I support affordable housing. It's deeply personal to me. the comments that were made tonight deeply resonated with me. So, I appreciate people showing up and advocating for what matters to them. Um, as a member of the H, um, I also support a diver diversity of housing. On the planning commission, we heard over and over again that we wanted, um, to support smaller apartment buildings. And in the environment that we're in right now, we're not going to see smaller apartment buildings if our affordability requirements far exceed our neighbors. Um, I will say that I think even with I will be supporting the 15 and what is on the table right now for discussion. Um, even with those changes, Richfield remains a leader in this space. Whether it's F five or 15, Richfield remains a leader in supporting affordable housing. Um, and I'm proud of that and I will be supporting this. >> Okay. Additional thoughts? Uh, Commissioner Sel. >> So, I think 15 is still too high. Like I said, I originally was thinking to propose 10 because we have a lot of units that are buildings that are like 10 to 12 buildings and I think that we need to have that accessibility and that affordability there. Um I think 15 is too high. So I probably will vote against this, but I do appreciate the difference of opinion because not everybody has to agree on everything. And I appreciate everybody that came in and testified. Um, I would have maybe voted for 10, but I can't vote for 15. Thank you. Well, I guess I would just like to say that I consider myself to be a strong advocate for the inclusionary housing concept and I understand the great need for it and um I always feel that as a commissioner here on the HA that that my role is to speak for the benefit of Richfield and and my support to this won't be like to try to like support the interests of developers because that's that's not my role. My role is here is to advocate for the good and the benefit of this community that we know as Richfield. But I do worry about that if if we have a threshold that's quite a bit different than our neighboring communities, maybe that means there small parcels of land that uh a developer looks at and um and they pass on it. And maybe what we end up with is instead of um a small uh apartment complex, it could be an infill project. What we end up is with zero new homes. And so um I guess with this, I know that I guess I trust staff that they kind of know the market conditions. They're they study this stuff every day and they know the market conditions that we face and um we know the the challenges of construction costs. So, I will uh be voting in in support of this. And I guess with that, uh seeing no further comments, um all in favor of the motion before us say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Okay. That um that now brings us to >> uh Chair Hansen, can I ask a clarifying question? >> Yes. >> Um now that this is going to the council, if it passes through the HA and then the council doesn't support it, what happens? >> Commissioner Stersa, that's a good question. I I would suggest that we would perhaps have to schedule a work session where you'd come together and and have the conversation. So that that's off the top of my head what I'm thinking, but we would discuss that. Thank you. >> All right. Um then we will next move on to the uh executive director's report. Thank you, Chair Hansen. Apologies. Um, I I I don't have a specific report. Sorry. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you much. Uh, H discussion items. Uh, Commissioner Sel, >> I just wanted to update the HA. Um, I was approached by um, Lupe Development, the group that is looking into um, redeveloping what used to be the American Legion site, and they requested a meeting with um, with me. And so I asked um, executive director Palman to join me this afternoon. And so they wanted they said they wanted to have a reset and to just talk about where how we move forward on this. And one of the things they talked about is that they're going to need our support for various programs that they can apply for funding and various things like that. And one of those deadlines was coming up on October 15th. And we explained that that's not enough turnaround time to get the information, have um the consultants look it over, have policy makers weigh in on it. So, they got us the information today for the financials. Um, the next policy deadline they have is coming up in January. And so, I said I would bring it forward to you all if you thought we it would be okay to schedule a work session and start going over some of those financials and start the process. And I guess I would be in support of that, but I wanted to see what you thought because I didn't I don't think we can feasibly do it by the October 15th deadline. So I I'm opening it up for discussion. >> I'm fine with the work session to hear what they what they want our support on. >> If I may ask, are will they be presenting their financial information to us or will we just be reviewing what they provided? They provided the information today and gave extra copies to executive director Palman and then you can correct me if I'm wrong what the next processes but I believe we'd start analyzing the data and then give it to policy makers. >> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Supple members of the board. Yes. Typically um in a request for financial uh assistance or support for financial assistance in this case um we would ask the developer to submit an application or an escrow so that we could involve um Ellers who's our financial consultant and we would have them help us with that analysis. So we will work with the developer that will be next. We will request um that that they um put down an escrow to pay for that review. We will review that with Ellers and then between the developer and staff we will present that to you at a work session. >> Well, I guess I would certainly support a work session if it supports the process. >> All right. Thank you. Um, executive director Pamlin, were there any other questions that we were going to ask? I think that was the main one. >> I think that was it. I'll just mention that uh our calendars are quite full for the rest of the year particularly with uh the city manager search and so uh the the meeting may come at on an off day not on a not before a typical HA or council meeting. We may have to look at other dates. Um and so I I I guess I would look to you to your openness for that. Chair Hansen, may I ask one more question? Yes. >> Are are we doing this in order to try to get to that October 15th deadline for them or are we doing it to help them get to the January deadline? >> Um, well, we kind of pointed out that it takes a couple weeks to do all the analysis and by we'd run out there's no possible way to do it by October 15th. And so they did say that might postpone when they begin construction by putting it off. The January deadline is for I think for Henipin County funding, but we thought [clears throat] at least we can get the process moving forward even if we can't make the October 15th deadline and we know that it could possibly delay, but we can't go back in time to get the information sooner. So, we're going to go forward with what we have, but I didn't want people to be blindsided and I wanted to make sure people were okay with going forward with it. Okay. Any uh >> other discussion items? >> Well, two items. One, just our non-counsel HR H members are probably aware, but the land use approvals went before council and they were approved with generally the conditions recommended by staff. Um the developers also asked about after the fact his intent to apply for H funding and did not give a very clear answer on that question. Um, the other thing was just something I wanted to mention actually from our inclusionary housing policy item. I didn't want to muddy the waters since we had a, you know, a difference of opinion and a debate, but one thing I just wanted to point out that I thought was good to see in that policy change was reducing the area of that policy where we have discretion, where we're ruling by exception. Uh, previously was 5 to 19 units was the squishy exception territory and rather than increasing that to a higher thing, we kept the max the max discretion at 19 and is now 15 to 19 units. And that's something we've been doing throughout our policies, I think, with land use and with with subsidy. And I think it's really positive because tonight we had the the pleasure of people who really support affordable housing showing up to support things. But the reality is, uh, like Commissioner Stersa mentioned, sometimes people who show up are not in support of affordable housing. Um, and when you have things that are sort of squishy standards, up to discretion, up to that individual decision, the hope is always that you're going to be contextsensitive, but the reality is that it can often result in unfair outcomes. um and sort of the whim of of people who may or may not have positive motivations for affordability or for other city goals. So, um I just think it's a positive thing to see us making, you know, clear, fair rules. We might disagree on exactly what those rules can be, but I think the process is good. >> All right. Any uh anything else? >> Chair Hansen, I did have one item that I forgot to mention. Uh the Richfield home tour is coming up on October 3rd. Uh folks should be seeing postcards in their mailboxes soon. Again, this highlights uh uh projects that have primarily been funded by the HR, our transformation loan home programs. Um it's a great place to get ideas for remodeling that you may want to do in your own home and an idea of how our services um play out in the real world. So again, that's on October 3rd from 1 to 5. Yes, thank you. You can check your postcard to be sure, but I believe it's 1 to 5 on It is for sure on October 3rd. Thank you. >> Well, I know that tour is always a great way to get inspiration of uh what is possible with uh kind of updating and refreshing homes. So, certainly look forward to that. All right. Um I guess that moves us to approval of claims. Uh is there a motion? I make a motion to approve claims. >> I'll second. >> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded to approve the claims. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? And that completes the uh business for tonight's HA meeting. The meeting stands adjourned. still wonder. >> All right. I will u call to order the meeting of the Richfield Economic Development Authority of September 21st, 2026 to order. Uh staff will note attendance tonight. And that uh brings us to open forum. Um it looks like we don't have anyone in the council chambers right now to speak to the uh EDA. Uh did you receive any communications via other means? >> Thank you, President. All of the communication that we received was presented during the HR meeting and we'll make a note of that in the ADA minutes as well. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, that brings us then to approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? >> I would move to approve the agenda, but I want to pull item 7A off the consent calendar because we had an amendment to it. So, we can't just do what we did before. We have to do the amendment all over again. >> Second. Okay. Um, so I do we have I'll >> I second Commissioner Supple's motion to approve the agenda with that amendment. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So with the uh agenda um presented with the amendment all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Uh then we have approval of the minutes of the regular economic development authority meeting of August 17, 2026. Uh is there a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion to approve those minutes. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded to approve the minutes. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Uh that brings us to I guess the consideration of items removed from the consent calendar. Um so I guess with that I will ask for staff to uh to lead us. >> Yes. Thank you, President Hansen. And once again, Assistant Director Urban will present. And uh uh President Hansen, members of the I'm happy to represent the staff report unless you feel like you have the information and would like to move to discussion or any questions. I could try to not fumble so much with the latter half of the report this time. >> Sure. I would suggest we move to questions and discussion. >> Yep. It's uh any um any questions? Okay. Um would someone like to make a motion? I will move that we adopt a resolution approving an update to the city's inclusionary housing policy with the one change from the staff recommendation that we would be changing the period of affordability from 15 years to 20 years for both rental and owner occupied housing. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any um uh any comments from the uh EDA? Okay. Then um all in favor of the motion before us say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Nay. >> Okay. And that um brings us right down to the executive director's report. >> Thank you, Chair Hans. President Hansen. I do not have a report. >> Okay. Uh EDA discussion items. Okay. Seeing none. Um, is there a motion for approval of claims? >> So moved >> and second. >> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded to approve claims. All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? And that completes tonight's business for the EDA meeting stands adjourned.