Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the regular business of housing and zoning committee meeting for June 2nd, 2026.

My name is Jamal Osman.

I'm the chair of this committee.

I will be calling in order for this meeting.

Before we begin, I want to remind folks that this meeting is broadcast alive to enable greater public participation.

They include real captioning to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community.

Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that all captioners can fully transcribe all comments for the broadcast.

We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clear to their comments.

We'll be using the speaker management.

So please sign up.

At this time, I'll ask a clerk to call the rolls so we can verify a quorum.

Councilmember Rainbow.

Warren.

President Schaefer.

Present.

Chavez.

Present.

And Chair Osman.

Present.

There are seven members present.

Let the record reflect.

We have a quorum.

Our agenda is before us.

I understand that Councilmember Warren has an amendment to our agenda, which is legislative directive related to the heritage park.

There are printed copies in front of us.

If there is any objection, we will add this to our discussion agenda on item 23.

Okay.

Now we will begin with the consent agenda.

Item 8, approve seven liquor license.

Item nine approves 24 liquid license renewals.

Item 10 authorizes an amendment to the funding agreements for stable homes, stable schools with MPHA.

Item 11, our contracted amendment for the arts fund initiative due to delays caused by Operation Metro Search.

Item 12 approves additional financing and loan debt modification to the Northview project.

Item 13 authorizes the revised home improvement guidelines.

Item 14 authorize a great street gap loan to Marcado Central.

Item 15 approves 11 appointment to the Minneapolis Advisory Committee on Housing.

Item 16 sets a public hearing for June 16 to consider mayor's nomination of Director Eric Hansen to the appointed position of Director of Community Planning and Economic Development.

Item 17 sets a public hearing for June 16 to consider an ordinance related to the tailgating.

Item 18 sets a public hearing for June 16 to consider an ordinance establishing moratorium on data centers.

Thank you, Chair.

I do have questions of uh perhaps our our licensed staff can answer on item two and item four.

Just could someone uh let's pull those uh item one and the two on two and four, please.

Two on four that's another concern.

Could you ask him to say what the items are?

Can you uh say what the items are?

Yeah, the the real simple uh uh chair Osman.

Uh number two, the 1029 bar is that for the the new number eight.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Do you have a different number?

Yeah, I got it.

I made a mistake.

You can jump in.

I'm sorry, just to be clear.

I I made a mistake.

It's uh consent item number eight, but uh sub item two and four.

Okay, and the consent eight after that.

All right, we're gonna come back to a okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Warren.

Thank you, um Chair.

I would like to um pull item number 10.

Um stable home, stable schools contract amendment for the um additional five million dollars that we are establishing there just for um discussion and then item number 16 item number 16 okay uh thank you so much uh we'll pull item eight ten and sixteen and then I think and Councilmember Sharvis.

Uh thank you Chair Osman I don't mean to pull it out but I just wanted to quickly uh speak in favor of item number fourteen the Great Street loan to Mercado Central at Lake and Bloomington and talk about the importance of this item and thank uh city staff for working closely with folks in Mercado as you all know this is a cooperative business that has been impacted particularly by operation metro surge and without this funding it would have been even more difficult to stay afloat um we know that this place is really important to our community members at large and it's a place where many people call home so just wanted to speak in favor of it and think staff okay I will um call all items for approval except uh a 10 and 16 all those in favor say aye aye and those opposed say nay the ayes have it and the motion carries now we'll return to items uh that we pull out item eight uh I'll call Councilmember Rainville to ask his questions staff thank you so my question on on two eight point two we'll call it is the 1029 bar are these the new owners or the old owners or you know has has it is this a transfer member rainville this is not a transfer there are no transfer of licenses this is a new manager application so this is simply that we have we background all the managers who are responsible for our on sale establishments so that is what this is this is the approval of a new manager for the existing license holders okay so new manager new owners not new owner just new manager okay there are new ownership likely coming but that is not what this is this is the new manager for the existing owners got it okay great thank you and then item four I just uh whoever prepared this this is in ward three not ward seven I'll make that correction okay thank you all right I will recognize council member warren for 10 uh oh I'm sorry we got to vote on eight um all those in favor say aye and those opposed say nay I didn't need to say maybe I think okay all ayes um all right moves thank you staff item ten is stable homes stable schools with I'll call council member warren thank you chair um I just have some questions um about what the new amount that is being offered um to stable homes stable schools we're adding additional funding what are our markers our measurements what have we done or what's happened that we need to you know provide additional funding to the program at this time uh sure uh through the chair um councilmember warren um the five million dollars was appropriated in 2020 as part of the 2026 budget process um we are currently just requesting that we pull it into the contract we aren't asking for any additional funding at this time, just what was appropriated in 20 as part of the process in 2025.

Okay, so these are funds that were already allocated specifically for the program and it's just being pulled in and appropriated.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, Councilmember.

Thank you.

Um my quick question on this is I I just want to make sure that we continue to track stable home, stable school, and the budget conversation that we have.

So we allocated this in 2026.

This will go towards 2027.

How does that line up in terms of addressing the fiscal cliff and what do we have ahead of us as we're taking this?

Sure.

What we have done with uh pardon me, uh Councilman or Chair Osman, Councilmember Chowdery.

Um what we have done is we've worked with Minneapolis Public Housing Authority to develop a three-year projection for the but for a three-year budget period.

And what we currently are projecting is that we will be able to remain within what we expect to be allocated before 26, 27, and 28.

Um, and we're working with the public housing authority to um ensure that um whatever comes forward in the 28-29 budget that we're able to um uh flex and be um be able to meet that the those budgetary restrictions were um authorizations.

Great.

Thank you.

And so we'll probably have to take that up not this budget year, but the following budget year.

Correct.

Okay, appreciate it.

All right.

Uh thank you, Steph.

Appreciate it.

I will uh move for approval for item 10.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

I see item 16.

Uh, councilmember Warren, do you have a question for Dr.

Eric?

Um, no, I actually don't have a question for Director Eric Hansen because it was just brought to my attention by way of the clerk that we are moving this for um the discussion at public hearing on the 16th of June.

Yep, so all right.

Thank you.

I'll move that item for approval.

Uh so the public heading.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right.

Um, joint consent with Minneapolis Community Development Agency Operation Committee Item 21.

Next, we have a joint consent item with MCDA operating committee.

It's it's it's a resolution that prove approves amendment to the city conduit uh bond policy and referring this matter to MCDA board of commissioners for content.

The Minneapolis Community Development Agency was the city development agency until formation of our community planning and economic development department in 2003.

It still exists as a separate legal entity for certain limited purpose and small number of CBED items require approval by the MCDA Board of Commissioners, in addition to the City Council approval.

City Council services the MCDA Board of Commissioners and the MCDA operating committee considers items prior to the MCDA board action.

If the committee approves this item, the full MCDA will be next Thursday to take a final action immediately following the city council meeting.

Are there any questions on that uh item?

I see Councilmember Schaefer.

Yes, thank you, Chair Osman.

I'd like just a brief presentation, kind of a layman's version about the amendments and um why these changes were being suggested.

Sir Miles.

Uh Chair Osman, Councilmember Schaefer.

Hi, I'm Miles Mercer and the manager of the business development team within CPED, and one of the things we do is administer the city's conduit revenue bond programs for nonprofit organizations and other commercial borrowers.

Uh a few several years ago, the city adopted this conduit revenue bond policy because we have revenue bonds both on the economic development side as well as on the affordable housing side.

And so this document lays out our policies about how we how we uh allocate those bonds, how we go about um considering them, how we go about issuing them, how we go about uh working with different borrowers for them.

Uh what we've uh so we've lived with these policies for several years, and one of the things uh that's in the policy relates to the admin fees, the uh the fees that the city charges the borrowers for closing these for applying for these deals, closing these deals, and the ongoing fees because these are bond issuances that are outstanding sometimes for 10, 20 plus years.

Um what we found uh as we've lived with the uh the guidelines is that when it came to the fee policies specifically, there were a couple items that were confusing as they were written.

And so the main intention of this amendment is to clean up and clarify that the bond fee policy, the the bond admin fee policies part of the document.

And so one of the things that's uh we'd be doing is on the economic development side.

Um there has always been a cap on the ongoing annual fee, which is based on the percentage of the bonds outstanding.

Um the language was written that that capped only applied to health care organizations.

Now the city's hospitals are some of the largest issuers in terms of dollar amount of this of these sorts of conduit revenue bonds.

But we found that there really wasn't a legal or basis to just restrict that to hospitals.

So that's that's one of the um things you'll see there is that we've been clear that that that that cap applies to any borrower who who might be issuing bonds in a in a quite large amount.

Um then there was a uh a couple of other edits to it.

Um being clear that um there's two categories.

There's the economic development bonds, and then there's the housing development bonds.

For the economic development bonds, we're also wanting to be clear that those are the bonds for borrowers who are coming under a 501c3 designation status, and though there is it is possible to have a housing deal brought forward by a nonprofit organization who is not using housing revenue bonds.

So it's a relatively minor situation, rare situation that we incur encounter, but we want it to be clear that um that the economic development uh authority applied to all 501c3 borrowers coming in to issue bonds under that authority.

Thank you, that's helpful.

So it was a legal scenario of making sure this cap applied equally across all people.

The other question I just had, just for my own knowledge, I mean, when we look at this bond program, what is the percentage of commercial to affordable housing or nonprofitslash nonprofit?

What would be our percentages either in dollar amounts that we bond or a total percentage?

Uh Chair Osman, Councilmember Schaefer, great question.

I don't have those numbers uh at my at my ready or off the top of my head.

Um I would defer to my housing colleagues to talk about the volumes of affordable housing revenue bonds that the city gets an allocation each year of those bonds that we then deploy to affordable housing projects around the city.

When it comes to the 501c3 economic development bonds, we don't have a comparable cap.

They're just not structured that way in terms of federal tax law.

Um I would say just on very rough qualitative terms, there's a lot more housing revenue bond issuances happening in recent years than there have been the 501c3 revenue bond issuances.

We we see occasionally one of the hospitals comes in every few years, it seems like to issue some new bonds or to refinance some old ones.

In the past, we've had some charter schools come in to get this this sort of bond financing.

Uh, so I would say it's been maybe anywhere from zero to four deals on the economic development side each year.

Thank you.

And and would the percentage of applications be twice that less than, you know, are you pretty much able to do every deal that you get?

I'm just kind of curious what the demand is.

Uh Councilman Rosman, Councilmember Schaefer, we're mostly we can do all the deals we get because borrowers come in with bond counsel with an underwriter who's already established the the eligibility and the feasibility of doing these things.

And so every once in a while there's there's a deal that comes through that doesn't pan out for some reason, but I think it's more often than not that the deals are able to go through.

And we are able to meet the demands of any applicants.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's very helpful, and I can follow up if I want to get more detail about the percentages.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see Councilmember Shabis.

Uh thank you, Chair Osman.

Can we get a little?

I'm trying to understand how this process works.

So we are operating under the Business Housing and Zoning Committee, and we also have authority over the Minneapolis Community Development Agency Operating Committee.

We're voting on this item.

It then gets sent to where, and then does it have final approval of the full city council, or how does that work?

I think some understanding would be helpful for me at least.

Refreshment member.

I'm new to the committee.

Yeah.

Chair Osman, Councilmember Chavez, congratulations.

You're all commissioners of the Minneapolis Community Development Agency, as well as Council members.

And so this committee operates as the operations committee.

We only use this once or twice a year for these bonds financing tools.

So the full council is the um is the MCDA, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency's Board of Commissioners, for of which um council member uh Osman serves as the president and council vice or council member Shadri serves as the vice president.

And so what you will do is go through the the city council meeting, and then afterwards you would have the operat you would have the full MCDA board meeting where you call yourselves commissioners and set of council members and go through this action.

Great.

Thank you, Director Hanson.

I appreciate that information.

Alright, Fice Chair Chowden.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

No questions.

This is just a request.

Would love to schedule some time with you, Miles, to just chat about this ahead of full council, just so we're really grounded in what this is, and that we can bring in all the commissioners so they're prepared to take this on.

All right, thank you.

Uh seeing no further, I will move this item for approval.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Now we'll proceed to other public hearing.

If you are sign up, please um sign up on the speaker.

Uh you'll be given um, I'm sorry, sign up with the city clerk.

You'll be given two minutes to address the committee, including uh quadra judicial hearing later.

All right, public heating item one.

Our first public hearing is a permanent uh permanent expansion premises for Mes T Zoe located at Ward 3.

I will ask Greg Alizon from Business License to give us that presentation.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Chair Osman, committee members.

I am Craig Eliason, district supervisor for licenses and consumer services.

Today I'm presenting an application from Mestizo Restaurant Inc.

doing business as mestizo, located at 337 13th Avenue Northeast in Ward 3.

The applicant is requesting to permanently expand its licensed premises to an outdoor patio located on private property, providing seating for 48 patrons.

The proposed hours of operation for this exterior patio will be 10 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

daily.

On May 12th, 121 public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 600 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the Sheridan Neighborhood Organization, Northeast Minneapolis Chamber, and Councilmember Rainville.

We have received one comment from the community expressing support for this application.

A review of any complaints, 311 calls, police calls, and any operating conditions found no significant issues concerning the business and issuance of this license.

The licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of a permanent expansion of premises for an outdoor patio located on private property.

This concludes my presentation.

At this time, I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I will now proceed to open the public hearing and see if anyone would like to speak.

I see Danny Guerrero if he would like to speak.

Come on up.

Well, thank you so much.

Um yeah, basically just requesting to have the opportunity to expand uh for these being my first uh new business and just to provide what I've been doing through my whole career, which is uh uh make a great food and uh on something that has the northeast neighborhood, which has been very lovely for me to be established in there.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Are there anyone else who would like to speak?

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and recognize Councilmember Rainville to make a motion.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I do make a motion to approve this of Mr.

Grow.

I just want to wish you all the luck and let me know when the patio is open so I can come out and enjoy that good food that you make.

Absolutely.

It'll be a pleasure to have it.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Um, with that uh motion for approval, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Next, we have a public hearing for on sale liquor with no entertainment license for the Blisbury Club in Ward 10.

I will ask uh again.

Uh, great, welcome to give us the presentation.

Thank you, Chair Osmond, committee members.

I'm Craig Lyson, district supervisor with licenses and consumer services.

And today I'm present presenting an application from Pillsbury Club Limited, doing business as Pillsbury Club, located at 100 East 22nd Street in Ward 10.

The applicant is requesting to add an on-sale liquor, no entertainment with Sunday sales and 2 a.m.

license to their existing boutique, hotel, and restaurant.

If approved, they intend to offer alcoholic beverages to their boutique hotel, featuring a small guest-focused restaurant and cocktail lounge with access to a small private outdoor patio providing seating for 20.

The outdoor patio is under construction at this time and will not be utilized until next year.

There will be no exterior speakers or music on the patio.

The hours of operation of the interior will be 9 a.m.

to 2 a.m.

daily, and the exterior, when completed, 11 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

daily.

On May 12th, 229 public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 600 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the Whittier Neighborhood Association, Whittier Alliance Business Association, and Councilmember Chugtai.

We have received four comments from the community.

Three supported this application, and one opposed the application, citing concerns about increased noise, traffic, and parking.

A review of any complaints, 311 calls, police calls, and any operating conditions found no significant issues concerning the business and issuance of this license.

The licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of an on-sale liquor, no entertainment with Sunday sales and 2 a.m.

license.

This concludes my presentation.

At this time, I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much again for that presentation.

I will proceed to open the public hearing.

And I see uh Norman Kolba here.

Yep.

Come on in.

Hi there.

My name is Norman, and I'm the owner of the building.

I just wanted to come up and introduce myself and thank not only everybody here on the council today for hearing my application and hopefully approving me, but also the past 10 months working with Alexis to get my application in front of you guys.

She's been incredibly helpful, and unfortunately, she wasn't able to be here today, but Craig has done an awesome job presenting as well.

Um this is my last application that I'm hoping to get approved.

So I just am very anxious and excited to be here and get the building open.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh, there anyone who would like to speak on this item.

Seeing none, I will close the public here and recognize Councilmember Chiktai.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll move approval of this item and ask for a second.

Second.

All right.

Um with that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Next, we have a public hearing for extended hours operation for university tobacco and vape, located in ward one.

I will invite uh Manager Emmy Lingo to give us presentation.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Osman and Ken Medivers.

My name is Amy Lingo, and I'm the manager for licenses and consumer services.

I'm presenting an application from Super Tobacco 1 LLC, DBA, University Tobacco and Vape, located at 2501 University Avenue, Northeast in Ward 1.

The applicant is requesting an extended hours license.

If approved, they attend to operate beyond standard hours for that area.

The current approved hours are Sunday through Thursday, 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Friday through Saturday, 6 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

If approved, the requested hours would be Sunday through Thursday, 8 a.m.

to 12 a.m.

Friday, Sunday, 8 a.m.

to 2 a.m.

There are no exterior business operations.

The Minneapolis Police Department in the second precinct has met with the application applicant and has signed off on the police security review form.

Public hearing notices were sent on May 12th to 37 residents, property owners, and posted on all buildings with four or more units within 300 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the Holland Neighborhood Association and Council President Payne.

We have received three comments from the community, all expressed concerns due to traffic and sound related issues.

Found that there are no significant issues concerning the business or the issuance of this license.

Licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of the extended hours license upon resolution of the related class of judicial items to be heard later.

This concludes my presentation.

At this time, I'll stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

Um I will proceed to up in the public hearing and see if there's anyone who would like to speak.

Um come on in and please state your name.

And right after that, if you can sign up with the clerk, that would be great.

Hello, this is Mohammed Amro, the CEO of uh Super Tobacco One LLC, uh doing business as university and Lowry Tobacco.

Sorry, I didn't hear the whole entire thing because I was at my way.

Sorry.

From the room to here.

So if you need any questions, anything, I'm here to answer all your questions.

Um, we're not taking any questions.

If you have any testimony that you want to speak to the council members about, so it's just pretty much we're doing business as uh university on Lowry Tobacco, and we got our security team here, and we actually did open until 2 a.m.

We didn't know about the the extended hours of license until we got another notification from the city.

So we opened up for almost like a couple of months.

Sure.

And uh then we got a notification from the city that we need to pull a pyramid or a license.

So we did work on that.

We had our security team with us.

We were so hopeful.

Everything was going smooth and fine, no problems, no issues, noise.

And yeah, so everything was going good.

That's why I applied for the license to see if we were gonna get it or not.

Thank you guys.

Thank you so much.

Um, are there anyone who would like to speak on this item?

Yes, welcome.

Please state your name.

Hi, my name is Hali.

I am security security guard at Super Tobaccos.

I have been working with them for over years.

And so far, uh, from my experience, the store is a value part to the community because they provide safe space for people to come and shout for their products, and also the store is really on the agenda of protecting the customer with extensive security system, also physical uh security deterrent also.

And with my time there, there's no major incident, and also the police call have been also reflect that.

Thank you.

Great to hear.

Thank you so much.

All right.

I s one more thing.

I think, yeah, just one more thing.

And uh we had a thing with the Minnesota Prevenue, and it's all paid right over here.

If you guys would take a look at it, we'll have you to talk to Amy.

All right, uh seeing uh no, I will close the public hearing and I will move this item without recommendation.

And um, all those in favor say aye.

All and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right, um, item item four is uh public hearing.

Sidewalk cafe license for the yellow bird cafe.

Cafe in ward one.

I will have uh uh again, Amy, to give us our presentation.

Welcome.

Once again, thank you, Chair Osman and the committee members.

As earlier, I am Amy Lingo, manager for licenses and consumer services.

I'm presenting an application from Yellowbird Coffee Bar LLC, DBA, Yellow Bird Coffee Bar Northeast, located at 639 22nd Avenue Northeast in Ward 1.

The applicant is requesting a sidewalk cafe license.

If approved, they attend to operate 36.

32 seats on the exterior from the hours of 7 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

Public hearing notices were sent to 29 residents on May 12th, property owners, as well as it was posted to any residential buildings with four more units within 300 feet.

Notices were also sent to the Holland Neighborhood Improvement Association, Northeast Minneapolis Chamber Board, and Council Member Payne.

Council President Payne.

My apologies.

We have received one comment from the community in full support.

A review of any complaints, room one calls, police calls, and any other pertinent operating conditions found that there are no significant issues concerning the business or issuance of this license.

Licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of the sidewalk cafe license.

This concludes my presentation.

I stand for any questions.

Thank you so much.

I will proceed to open the public hearing and see if there's anyone who would like to speak on this item.

Seeing none, I will move this item.

I'll close the public hearing and move this item for approval.

All those in favor say aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The I have it, and the motion carries.

The last public hearing for 20 is for 2026 property sale round for Minneapolis Homeless Financing Project.

I will have Tara Thompson for presentation on this item.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Osman and Council members.

My name is Tara Thompson, and I'm a senior project coordinator with CPED's residential and real estate development team.

Today I will be presenting recommendations for the sale of city-owned property and financing through our Minneapolis homes.

Property purchase and financing programs.

Minneapolis homes is an umbrella name for a variety of ownership housing products that the city has.

We help households access home ownership through counseling and down payment assistance, create affordable ownership units through the sale of city-owned property and financing, and finally, we also help homeowners sustain their homes through loans and grants.

My presentation today is going to be focused on our create strategy of selling city-owned property through the property purchase program and financing for affordable ownership units through Minneapolis homes financing.

Minneapolis homes evaluation criteria are used to determine which projects receive financing awards.

Each proposal undergoes a feasibility and capacity analysis and is scored using council approved criteria.

The four primary criteria are cost effectiveness, alignment with local affordable housing needs, support for equitable wealth building opportunities, and inclusion of unique design features that advance city goals.

As it pertains to income limits per our program guidelines, the borrower's household income may not exceed 80% area median income or AMI.

As an example, for a family of four, the current household income limits may not exceed 104,200.

This limit helps ensure that homeownership opportunities are accessible to moderate and lower income households who have historically faced barriers in the ownership market.

The financing awards that we are recommending today may include one or both of the following funding types project gap and/or affordability gap.

Project GAAP represents the difference between the project's total development cost and its appraised fair market value upon completion of the project.

And the affordability gap represents the difference between the sales price and the mortgage amount the buyer qualifies for.

Developers select one of two equity sharing models at the time of application.

The first option is City of Lakes Community Land Trust Model or our CLCLT model that is secured through a 99-year grounded lease.

The second option is the City of Minneapolis model, also referred as the City PAH, and this is secured through a 30-year declaration of covenants, which renews upon each sale of the home.

It is administered by currently by either CLCLT or Build Wealth Minnesota and is eligible in all Minneapolis neighborhoods.

In November 2025, staff issued a request for proposals with applications due on January 15, 2026.

All applicable proposals were shared with impacted neighborhood organizations for review and comment.

Staff received feedback that the North Side Residence Redevelopment Council supported development on two sites.

One of those sites is included in today's recommendation, while the second was not recommended this round and will be remarketed in a future round due to underutilization of the site size.

Staff recommends funding 31 proposals supporting the creation of 73 housing units.

In the following several slides are what we are recommending to City Council for financing awards.

Each proposal reflects our commitment to expanding affordable home ownership opportunities steps that developers have submitted and are as follows.

And I'll just go through the slides to show you their renderings or plans.

In closing, the demand for Minneapolis homes program continues to be extremely high.

We've received 245 proposals from 43 developers requesting a total of 71.6 million dollars in funding.

Today we are funding 13.6 million dollars.

More than half of that dollar amount is being funded by Minnesota Housing Impact Awards that we received from the state.

Of the developers being recommended, seven are first-year developers.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you for your time and attention.

If you have any questions, I shall take them now.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

We'll have the questions after the public hearing.

Okay.

Appreciate that.

Alright, I'll proceed to open the public hearing and see if there's anyone who would like to speak on 2026 property sale around for Minneapolis homes.

All right.

See no one, I will close the public hearing and see if there's any of my colleagues have any questions.

Council Member Warren.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, Ms.

Tair, I just have a couple of questions for you.

I am ultra grateful for the Minneapolis Homes Program and the RFPs that are being put out to create home ownership opportunities.

Um what kind of work is being done specifically around post-purchase supports to ensure that although individuals are given access to affordable homeownership that they're able to sustain the homeownership opportunity opportunities that they take advantage of in this?

Okay, Chair Osman, Councilmember Warren, thank you for your question.

Um that's actually supported both in our access program where we provide educational resources to prospective home buyers so that they are informed about the home purchasing process and home ownership experience and what that actually entails.

In addition to that, as a part of our as a part of our approval process for home buyers, they are required to complete a home education workshop where they receive uh a certificate upon passing that.

So, again, that enables uh gives them the knowledge that they need to prepare themselves for for owning that home as far as maintenance and things of that nature are concerned and and payments and things like that.

What to expect as a homeowner?

Um, in addition to that, with our uh design features that we stipulate with the city, uh we take into account um uh energy um requirements uh to support uh economical uh sustainability while they're in the home, as far as uh energy bills are concerned, so the most green for lack of a better term approach uh to ensure that the bills are not so high, which enables them to be in the home as well.

Thank you for that.

What other um things are being done?

I saw that there were a number of multi-family units, also, and just keeping in mind that the city of Minneapolis does have a rental tiering system.

So, what types of things are being done to help educate um new developers, right?

Because these are individuals who are just stepping into this realm on how to manage their properties and manage, you know, tenants and the responsibility of having tenants so that again we can maintain the integrity of the community as well as the integrity of the property itself.

Chair Osman, Councilman Council Member Warren.

So our focus mainly is on the creation of affordable ownership units.

Um there can be times where uh an owner can purchase uh maybe a multifamily where uh they are renting, they are few and far between, just due to the affordability, um weighted against you know approvals with lenders and such.

Um so um with regard to that, we don't necessarily have um a program related uh specifically related to that because our focus is on ownership.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh thank you so much.

Consumer Service.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I was interested in the staff for their work on this today, and ask if I could be added as an author on number 33 and 34.

These are the ones in East Phillips next to Little Earth.

And that's a question for you, Chair Osman.

Oh, yes, cool.

And then the other thing I'll say is I think these programs are great and important.

And I think uh one thing I think we should do as a body is figure out how much land we have that is vacant in general, not just like homes that we have, uh, to address uncheltered homelessness.

And it would be amazing if we could um, you know, as a body say there are there's so much land that we owned in the city of Minneapolis.

And this isn't for you staff, this me talking to my constituents right now uh about how we could use vacant land, uh homes that we have in the city of Minneapolis to address uncheltered homelessness uh more uh seriously.

So uh this is important.

I think we need to make sure that more people have access to homes.

I'm very supportive of it.

And at the same time, I hope that as a body we work together to figure out ways we can use land that the city has, homes that the city has to seriously address uncheltered homelessness.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

So I think you're here.

Um thank you, Steph.

I know you put a lot of work on this uh and um the process of getting uh developers and and making sure that um the funding is alignment and everything is going well.

I do um I'm excited to hear that uh there are seven new developers that are coming in, and that's why the program is being created is to make sure that we're helping uh small developers uh had a good conversation with Dr.

Pert, and I appreciate his insight.

I do have a question.

You know, we are always every year, I think June 10 was last year when it came through.

This was like 22 properties.

Um, how do we because how do we ensure that uh those awards were successful and they have been built and now people are buying purchasing?

Select in in the city council, we we have to have no idea.

Um I know you track somehow what's uh developers, you know, success of developing that and meeting that goal, and even it it will be great to hear um the complete completion of how many properties and and even the success stories of families that are being you know housed and have that opportunity to purchase house.

Um thank you, Osman.

Uh, Chair Council Chair Osman um for your uh comments and your support um and uh yeah to answer your question.

Um I do believe we have uh the way home report that was um just uh issued that uh sheds light on um some on some of those outcomes.

Um and I will say that in the last two years um we have been doing um some house cleaning and auditing in terms of uh our projects, where they stand, how they're moving forward, um, because we are uh coming against up against timelines, and we also want to support, but also we need to enforce um a lot of our policies and timelines that we have to ensure that we are creating um uh these the outcomes of creating affordable homes and and getting people and families into them.

Um so we're on the tail end of that, also as we move forward with trying to uh push out um RFPs to support that um if Alfred wants to provide more information.

Welcome, Doctor.

Good afternoon, Alfred Port, Director of Housing Policy and Development at CPED.

In relations to your question, um Chair Osman, we once the projects are completed, the developers um move forward with um open houses, and most times they're inviting council members of the wards that the property is in.

Moving forward, we can ensure that they're um extending that invitation to all of you because it's not just the um folks in the ward that um participate, all of you are making decisions in this program and providing resources to support that.

So I'll make sure that that happens.

We'll also in future reports will also provide you more details about the um finished products and status of all of those projects.

Yes.

Uh no, yeah.

Thank you so much.

My point is I'm trying to get is that we are funding large properties, and you know, for us as a decision makers, we'll love to see how many have been successful.

You know, what are the some of the success stories we're seeing on that?

Are we accomplishing um our goal, which is you know, have an opportunity for folks that are uh might not go to traditional banking just to purchase housing, but now they can purchase uh based on AMI qualification and so on.

So yeah.

If I if I may add, um, Chair Os um Osman, we also, as part of the obligation that we extend to the developers, they once they sign um the contract and close on the project or close on the on the contract, they have um 12 months to complete the project.

Um so most times those projects are completed and sold to develop um to property owners, I mean to homeowners uh after the 12 um month period.

If a situation arises where there were complications during the construction process, we have the opportunity to extend um to ensure that the project is successful and the home buyers are successful.

Okay.

And one last question, and you you answered this, but in more um my colleagues in public about um why are we now seeing more lower AMI like 40% instead of having like seeing 80% uh if you can kind of explain your thinking of that?

Yes, um Chair Osman, the program affords um as as um Tara mentioned, our CAP is 80% AMI, but developers can come in and serve households at a lower income tier, and if the their proposal presents itself that they're wanting to serve households at 60% as an example or 40%, um the the affordability gap is increased.

The challenge with finding households at 40% is the income that's needed to support the sale price of that home is sometimes challenged, whilst also talking about um figuring out what the credit more than this, because we're just providing development gap assistance and then affordability assistance, but the the home buyer, the prospective home buyer still has to go out and secure mortgage through a financial institution.

We're not providing the first mortgage product.

So the developer, I mean the homeowner has to be mortgage-ready um to enable us to reach that.

Thank you so much.

I uh Vice Chair Chowry.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

That was I have the similar question.

Um I would just plan on following up offline, just to have a longer discussion ahead of the final vote.

And then the last thing I wanted to say is I believe that.

Um what was stated by the director of sharing uh what happens to the projects afterwards and getting invitations to understand what our impact is out of this committee.

Very much support that really interested in having that type of follow-up.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you very much.

Alright, thank you so much, Steph.

All right, uh, see no one else.

I uh someone else on that.

I think so.

That's it.

All right, I will move um this item for approval.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right.

Uh our next quadratic judicial item are for the same business we just had of the difference license verification.

Therefore, I will combine this items to allow license holder five minutes to address the committee on behalf of Lysin.

First, I will have Amy Lingo, manager, to give us a little bit of presentation on this item.

I know this was the tobacco.

Please.

Thank you, Chair Houseman and committee members once again, third time to charm.

Manager Amy Linger for Business Licensing.

Um the applicant is not in attendance, but this is a standard state mandated process.

Um, so the revocation has come to us from the Department of Revenue, and the only way to cease this revocation is uh two ways the withdrawal of the license or to receive a tax clearance letter from the state.

The applicant has been working with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, and we are awaiting that tax clearance letter, which we think should be coming in time for the full council next week.

Sure.

Thank you so much.

So this requires a public hearing, I'm sure.

Yep.

So I will proceed to open the public hearing and see if anyone would like to speak.

Seeing none, uh close the public hearing and move this item without recommendation to allow license holders for more time on Thursday and June, uh Thursday before the council on that motion.

All those in councilmember.

Yes, Councilmember Chowder, please.

Uh thank you, uh Councilmember Osman.

So we had that, let's just like get on the same page.

We had the earlier item that we're moving forward without recommendation as pertaining to this business, and now we have this quasi-judicial revoking the license.

Could we just get an update about how things relate and what's going on here?

Through the chair, Councilmember Chowdhury.

So we are going to have them all happen at the same time.

If the tax revocation process is not cleared up, then the extended hours application will be removed.

It will be um inactivated.

But if the tax revocation process is corrected in time for next week, then those items will be removed, and then we'll be able to move forward with the extended hours application.

Okay, that's great.

And it looks like the gentleman that was here dropped off some documentation to the clerks that had to do with finances.

I'm not sure if that's the case, but he made it seem like it.

He paid.

He offered, but we did not accept it.

I have copies in my email.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Uh all those in with that motion.

All those in favor say aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right.

Next we have a discussion item presenting the exclusive development for the People Way Project.

I will have Miles Mercer from CBET to give us more presentation and give us information about this.

Welcome.

Good afternoon again.

Uh I'm still Miles Mercer, manager of business development in CPED.

Uh I'm a member of the team that has been working on the city's process to identify a group to develop the People's Way property at George Floyd Square.

The action before you would designate Minnesota Agape movement as the city's development partner for the site, and authorize an agreement to give agape exclusive development rights for two to three years.

It has taken longer than anyone wanted to reach this recommendation.

The People's Way is a complex site with many stakeholders and a topic of significant sensitivity.

The city has taken a careful, deliberate approach to the review process.

The People's Way is located at George Floyd Square at the intersection of Chicago Avenue running north-south and 38th Street running east-west.

Some background.

In September 2024, the city issued a request for qualifications to identify a community-based owner to redevelop the People's Way site for community use.

There is more detail in the staff report on that process.

One thing to note is that a request for qualifications is different than a request for proposals.

In an RFQ, the city evaluates the qualifications of a team that will subsequently work through a planning and community process to develop a project concept.

In contrast, in an RFP process, the city evaluates a specific development proposal against objectives.

Today, we're asking you to approve a development partner, not a specific development concept.

Agape provided a concept for the site of a six-story building.

They have already realized the feasibility challenges of such a building and are scaling back.

Agape will need to do more analysis and community engagement to formulate a viable development concept.

The RFQ document had criteria for evaluating applications.

One criterion was relevant experience of the development team.

Agape has assembled a team for its project.

While Agape is rooted in and serves the community in multiple ways, member of Agape's team bring experience with real estate and development.

The team includes VY management, fidelity healthcare, new generations, mobilized design and architecture, and sheer innovations.

More recently, Agape has been working with architectural firm HGA on revised design concepts.

City staff believe that Agape has put together a team with relevant experience.

Members of that team are with us today.

Another criterion of the RFQ is how well a group's intentions for stewarding the site would achieve the community values stated in the RFQ.

Here they are.

The community values stemmed from the community visioning work the city did on George Floyd Square more broadly before issuing the RFQ.

And the stewardship intentions we considered included project idea and approach to the memorials, community services, and community engagement.

The city engaged the community on the applications in multiple ways.

The groups presented their visions for the site at a community meeting held at Sabathany Community Center.

Presentation materials and videos have been available on the city's website.

City staff organized and attended many other meetings in the community to gather feedback.

A summary of the community's engagement activities is an exhibit of the staff report.

And the city used a community survey.

The respondents to the survey showed greatest support for the elements of another group's application.

City staff took the survey results into consideration as well as the other community feedback we heard.

And community input was one of the multiple criteria in our review.

Staff heard a des from community a desire for the applicants to work together in some way on the People's Way.

The other applicants also have strong connections to the community and could bring skills that could benefit any project at the site.

City staff believe that Agape is willing and able to engage the other applicants, the community, and all stakeholders at George Floyd Square on the future of the People's Way.

Looking ahead.

If you approve these development rights, the city would enter into an exclusive rights agreement with Agape based on the term sheet attached to the staff report.

Under that agreement, Agape would have two years to complete a list of predevelop pre-development activities to advance their project.

Such activities include feasibility analysis, design, cost estimates, fundraising, and through it all, engaging the community.

If Agape makes progress on those activities and needs more time, the CPAD director could extend the development rights for a third year.

Two initial years plus potential extension is a typical time period for exclusive development rights awarded by the city council in recent years.

Many projects end up taking longer than that.

Any of the applicants would have received and needed that amount of time.

Agape and state staff will also finalize the terms for the sale and development of the property, including a sales price, minimum improvements to the site, construction timing, etc.

City staff would return to the city council for a public hearing and approval of those terms that would be the basis of a redevelopment contract.

During the development rights term, the city will continue to own and maintain the People's Way site.

Until the property is sold, the city will continue to need to fund and maintain the property and maintain the property.

After executing the redevelopment contract and meeting its conditions, including agape securing full funding for the project, only then would the city transfer the property to agape and they would begin their construction.

There's more work to do to get to that point, and there will likely be more twists and turns.

But let's get started.

City staff would like to move forward with agape.

The agape team and I are happy to address any questions you have.

Thank you, Mr.

Mercer, for the presentation.

First, I want to recognize that Councilmember Soren Stevenson has joined our committee, and he is also first up to queue, so I'll recognize you, Councilmember.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chowdery for allowing me to speak.

Could you speak into your microphone a little bit closer?

You're sounding a little quiet.

All right, sorry about that.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I am here, I'm not a normal member of this committee, but I am here along with Councilmember Chavez because I represent the area of 3744 Chicago AV, also known as the People's Way.

I asked to speak today to express my concern with the mayor's choice to award Minnesota Agape Movement exclusive development rights to the People's Way site.

Before going into my reasoning, I want to bring uh in a description of this place that we're talking about in a recent letter, the George Floyd Square Community Visioning Council described GFS, which the People's Way is a critical part of in the following way.

The community created this spirit, people come with offerings, artists created symbols of resistance.

Five fists mark the entrance of the square from four directions, and one at the very center of the intersection.

Artists also created memorials to George Floyd and to the people killed by police action.

The Say Their Name Cemetery and the Morning Passage, written names on the Chicago AV, are part of this.

For the past six years, community keepers of the square have curated the offerings, planted flowers, and kept a closed closet and household goods exchange at the People's Way.

These caretakers meet every morning.

Our community experienced tragedy, pain, and devastation.

The vision to see 38th Street thrive has now evolved into being the epicenter for a global racial justice movement and becoming once again the birthplace of black and brown excellence in Minneapolis.

Yet what is most important is the well-being, mental, spiritual, and physical health of our community as we still face all the challenges before us.

With that description of this special place in mind and the necessary recognition that we need to be thinking about the place holistically, where the people's way and the street reconstruction are not separate, distinct parts, but all a part of a broader, interconnected site.

A successful project at the People's Way needs to be in alignment with the values, vision, and spirit that the community formed, stewarded, and fought for the preservation of George Plate Square.

I'm concerned that awarding Minnesota Agape movement exclusive rights to the People's Way site ignores the clearly stated community input, organizational capacity for development, feasibility of the project, and issues with the proposed timeline.

First and most importantly, after so many years of community engagement, the community input during the selection of the city, during the selection process, sorry, the city commissioned a survey to understand stakeholders' opinions about redeveloping the People's Way site.

The survey collected close to 800 submissions from mine and Councilmember Chavez's constituents in the area and found that overall the community found that Rise and Remember's proposal was most closely aligned with the community values.

58% of respondents agreed with the Rise and Remembers project proposal, while only 36% agreed with Agape's vision.

We cannot ignore what constituents are clearly asking for.

This project will not be successful without the support and input of the residents who live, work, and build community and care for George Plate Square.

When it comes to organizational capacity and feasibility, I'm concerned that Minnesota Agape Movement may not have the right experience and support for carrying out their proposed project.

Their specialty is not real estate development or memorial sites.

They do not have experience in site development.

And when it comes to the city's proposed timeline, the term sheet that was given is for a two-year pre-development phase with more than 10 requirements to meet in those two years.

If agape is unable to complete those terms in two years, they could then choose to apply for an additional one year extension.

If the selected group takes the full amount of time allotted for the pre-development phase, which includes raising funds for the project, it means that the construction would not begin until 2029.

And in the case that Agape doesn't complete the terms, the city would not sell the property and would start the process over.

Three years out is simply too long when our communities have been waiting for years to get to this point.

Our constituents have clearly asked for this project to be made a priority and to see investment in George Plate Square and the 38th Street Corridor sooner.

I also want to share the perspective directly from community members.

Michelle Gross from Communities United Against Police Brutality, C O A PB, said the following: we write to express our strongest possible objection to the turning of this important site over to the Minnesota Agape movement.

The future of this site has been the topic of discussion in literal dozens of community meetings.

Overwhelmingly, the community has stated that we want Rise and Remember, the Floyd Family Foundation to be granted the rights to development and operate the building.

The selection of Agape is particularly painful given their role in accepting almost $360,000 for COVID funds to force open the intersection of 38th in Chicago.

Another community member wrote to me saying it is such a disservice to the community to clearly go against our wishes, which was well documented in the 2025 City Commission survey that was conveniently withheld until recently.

Rise and Remember has proven the past six years to have the whole of the community and families' best interests in mind, putting in thousands of hours into community engagement and have shown they are beyond capable of following through on large visions and projects.

Listening to the community is critical here.

Last year, the city council and the administration followed community input and survey results for the street reconstruction, and they should do the same for the people's way.

After six years of near constant community engagement, we need to treat that engagement with the respect and follow through with what my constituents have asked that we do.

For all of the mentioned reasons and more that have been raised by my community, I urge my colleagues to please return this matter back to staff.

The proposal in front of you does not reflect what the community wants.

The proposal does not meet the timeline expectations that the community of the community, and there must be development support around the community developer to ensure that the project will actually come to fruition.

Lastly, if we're going to take time to get community input, we need to listen to the community and center their vision.

I know that the Minnesota Agape movement is deeply embedded in the community and has a deep history in South Minneapolis.

Referring this back to staff is not a rejection of that history, it is a recognition that the best path forward for the People's Way is a project that the community is asking for and has the best chance of being successful.

Thank you for your time, and I do want to thank all of the committee members for having such respectful and uh productive conversations with me about this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're not gonna take applause during this meeting, just so we can continue our business.

Thank you, Councilmember Stevenson, for your comments.

We'll go to next in queue, Councilmember Chavez.

Thank you, Chair Charlie.

I'd first like to make a motion to refer this item back to staff and ask for a second.

Second.

Uh thank you.

I am thankful to be here united with Councilmember Stevenson as both him and I represent Ward 8 and 9.

I think that we have spent the last few days hearing very loud and clear from our constituents.

But before I begin my comments, I want to begin by reminding us that George Floyd Square is a sacred space, and that the people of our wards are the folks who built the people's way through years of grief, organizing and hope for a better future.

The process into the selection of development rights must be transparent and they must have community buy-in in order for the people's way to be successful in the future.

The community that we represent was previously promised that a selection of a developer would be made in May 2025 for the People's Way at George Floyd Square.

Unfortunately, that decision was delayed by an entire year, and much of the feedback that we have heard since then is that our community has been frustrated and has distrust in this process.

In the lead up to May 2025, the City of Minneapolis commissioned a survey to understand stakeholders' opinions and redevelopment of the people's way.

The survey results showed us that the path being ushered forward by the city today is not in alignment with the community.

Overall, the community found that Rise and Remember's proposal was most closely aligned with the community values that Rise and Remember garnered the most strongly positive reactions overall, especially in how they address Memorials and plan to work with the community.

And I'll say that again, plan to work with the community, which is the most important part.

Further, those who took the survey felt that Rise and Remember was most likely to honor the site's significance and foster community ownership.

Despite what the survey results have showed us on the council and the community, and despite these results being ready in April 2025, a decision was made to go against the community by choosing agape.

Councilmember Stevenson and I are urging our colleagues to oppose this proposal and to support this motion to return back to staff.

That way we can address the issues at hand and build a people's way proposal that actually affects our community.

Thank you, Councilmember Chavez.

Again, no applause.

We just got to get through our business.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I just have a question and thank you Agape movement for putting together this presentation.

I greatly appreciate it.

And I hear my my council colleagues as they are articulating that they would like to refer this back to staff for additional research.

I would like to see a comparison contrast of what the development rights and the plans look like for uh Rise and Remember versus this was very detailed.

It had a lot of information.

Um, during the course of the presentation, I did speak to uh my council colleague and ask, was there a another presentation of such in this manner with reflection of the other organization?

You know, so that we're equally as formed.

I wasn't a part of the survey.

I live in the North Minneapolis, so if we're voting on something that is going to be cohesive, I would like to have more information just to make a well-informed decision and support the the community in whatever aspect they need to be um supported in with this.

So if there is, you know, a presentation that that could be brought as we're referring this to staff.

Is that part of that process that they'll could you reiterate your question again?

If we're referring it back to staff, is there going to be a compare and contrast presentation that shows who's who and what's what and who's doing what, or how does that's the question?

How does that work?

I I believe not.

I will lie on is that something to be requested.

Dr.

Hansen, too.

Oh, we can make that.

Somebody, somebody say some.

Chair Osman, members of the committee.

I forgot to introduce myself earlier.

I'm Eric Hanson, I'm the CPED director.

Um so you could request uh information.

Um the body would have to have to refer it back to staff as has been moved by uh councilmember Chavez.

Um, the staff is putting forward its recommendation for a Minnesota Agape movement for these exclusive development rights.

All right, is that it for you?

Well, I'll lean then into the judgment of my colleagues and the wards in which they represent of how um to proceed.

I'm just saying in support of your decisions.

I I think it would be good to see multi-comparison contrast.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Uh Vice Chair Charlie.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I just wanted to speak uh to why I support referring this back to staff today.

Um, let me just step back on where we all agree in the space.

We all believe that there should be a good project at the people's way that represents this community and stewards the needs and the values of everything that George Floyd Square holds, and everything that community is trying to memorialize, especially the loss of black lives at the hands of police and police portality across the across the world.

Like we all agree on that, and I think that's a very important place to start.

I think another place that I think we do have strong alignment is the fact that this is a decision that needs to be made with democratic support from the community.

After all, it is called the people's way.

And we often held up over and over again in that conversation.

I think it was ultimately right the community survey and what the needs are were of that people because it was so immediate and important.

And I ultimately was the council member that swung her vote and brought several council members along for that project, even though that was really difficult, even though I upset several of my constituents who had reached out, and I would feel very much that I would be going back on that commitment to community voice if I were to support um this application for exclusive development rights that did not see to have broad community support in the survey across several questions, especially around stewardship.

And there were um several several areas in which these projects were scored, and a pattern that I saw repeatedly is the applicant that's before us, um, did not meet a lot of the categories around community stewardship and the questions around stewardship.

And I think that's so important.

And I know that there are concerns about the project partner that we have having experience in development and support.

And I think that's something that needs to come secondary because that's something that the city of Minneapolis in our wisdom and in our expertise can provide and supplement.

But the thing that we can't provide and supplement is trust.

We lost that trust in that community a long time ago collectively.

We just did as an institution.

And here's our opportunity to repair it.

So we have to go with a group that does have that trust built in because we can't supplement it.

That's that's the thing that we're after, people's way, democratically supported by the community.

And so I don't know what that means for who ends up getting um getting this uh exclusive development right and partnership with the city, but what I do know is I don't see it here with the applicant that's before us, and I also do think we have some need on this council to hear more about how decisions were made and see if there's an opportunity to negotiate and talk about what could be brought forward so we can move together on this in one voice.

We're just not there yet.

Thank you, Council Vice Chair.

Taori, I'll recognize council member Schaefer.

Yes, thank you, Chair Osman.

Um, being a new council member, I do not have um a strong opinion on uh which of these entities should be moving forward.

But I do have some concerns with um just some questions of being new and uh things that were disclosed in the paper that I don't see addressed publicly, things around financials, things around code developers that dropped out.

Um so I don't know if those are questions you can answer directly, but for me, if we're bringing a project forward and there's questions that have been reported on, and we don't have that information in our presentation, either rebutted or circulated with council members prior to asking us to make a big decision like this.

I feel like that's a lack of information.

And so I appreciate you um answering those.

Sure.

Uh Chair Osbund, Councilmember Schaefer, I think I know the media reports that you're referring to that raise some questions.

Uh, one of the questions was about agape's tax status and that there's reported tax issues with them.

Um, uh Minnesota Agape Movement is incorporated as a 501c3 organization.

They have their eligibility termination letter from the IRS.

We have a copy of that letter.

They were incorporated 2023.

Uh any nonprofit organization has to file annual 990 forms with the IRS when that organization has revenues, has something to report.

We have a copy of Agape's 2025 990 filing with the IRS.

Um, what I've learned is that there's different types of 990 forms, and for those organizations that have less than $50,000 of revenues, there's a simplified almost like postcard type form that an organization could submit, and that was Agape's case.

So the form that we have is that 990 form.

My understanding is is uh also when organizations file that form that that 990 form might not show up in some of the typical nonprofit database organizations like charity navigator, for example.

So it's understandable that one wouldn't have found that online just by doing a search.

Uh I think another uh question that you raised was about their development team and development partners.

Um there's been a couple of things that have arisen about that.

There was an organization, the development consulting consultancy that has worked with CPED before on particularly our affordable housing projects, was listed in the additional application.

But like most development teams, sometimes people cycle in, sometimes people cycle out.

So our understanding, and it's been some time for a while, is that particular firm, the landing group, is no longer and it has not been part of Agape's team.

There was another report that had a quote from a member of their team who said something to the effect that I haven't heard from them in a few months, which we think is totally understandable because it has been several several months since we had been in touch with the groups, and so it's understandable to us that Agape hadn't been in touch with all of their development partners over the last few months, and that there was some catching up to do when the news came out that the recommendation was with Agape.

So those are the two that I think I can address right now.

Thank you.

That's thank you, that's very helpful.

Um you mentioned the the visibility was on around 2023 and again in 2025 around the financials.

Would the COVID money been included in those reports that you have visibility or was do we have visibility on the money that we have used and invested in this organization to date?

Yes, Councilmember Osman, uh Councilmember Schaefer.

Um, my understanding, and this is from looking at the city's accounting uh contract system, Comet, is that the city has had uh contracts with the legal entity, the Agape Movement LLC, and so the city's previous contracts were with that um entity.

Uh that was formed earlier than the IRS termination letter that we have from 2023 for Minnesota Agape Movement nonprofit organization.

So the the city's contracts for um various services, various sourced services was with the agape movement LLC.

Yeah, you mentioned IRS termination, that was when they terminated from an LLC to a 501c3.

Is that what you're referring to?

Uh Council Member Os and Council Schaefer, I don't I I don't think I said termination.

Um, determination.

Sorry.

Sorry if I did not enunciate.

Thank you, that's clarifying.

Do we have information around LLC information available from that time?

Uh Councilmember Schaefer.

Uh, Councilmember Osman Customer Schaefer, I don't have that at my fingertips, but that's something we can look up at the secretary of state's office, that sort of thing.

Well, I I just think if we're heading into a partnership, we should have visibility on our partnerships in the past with that organization.

And so my preference in seeing how this would move forward.

This is just I'm gonna support the council member for this ward in his request to move it back to staff.

But what I would like to see coming back would be having an understanding of who can we make as our primary partner that has um the ability to build with a co-partner that is the consultant or something that we have a viable.

I know you've said there's a team of seven.

Um I don't want this to be a major project for CPED the next three years.

I want this to be able to something that you can oversee a team that's gonna work together.

You've got somebody that can take the lead and you can touch base with, but we need a competency here that leans into the ability of the community to lead, but also is somebody that can that has a track record of building stuff.

So, I mean that's my reason for sending it back.

It's not like I I don't like this organization over the other.

I just have questions about why why we didn't have a broader information and um a better um lead on how we're gonna roll this out.

If I may, Chair Osman, Councilmember Schaefer.

Yeah, um.

So you said a couple of things there.

So the People's Way, I think, is inevitably going to be a major project for CPED over the next few years, given its significance and the challenge, it is a challenging site to develop.

We're we've already bought this site, it is going to be a lift for the city and for CPED.

In terms of development partners, we issued a request for qualifications.

We advertised that to the world.

We got four applications, one of which subsequently withdrew, and the three were the finalists, and then really it became down to two of the organizations.

We deal with the applications that we've received.

And so at this time, the applicants are who we have to select from.

The development skills and capabilities that they bring are what we have to select from.

Each of the applicants formed a team because none of none of these organizations themselves alone would have the skill set or the capability of pulling off any sort of development here.

Agape has developed a team as I explained.

I think Agape would admit themselves, they do not have experience.

It's evident they do not have experience with real estate development.

But they brought and and part of our RFQ was we encouraged anybody that didn't have that real estate experience to partner with others to form a team that does.

All of the applications, all of the applicants did that.

And we're left with Agape's team.

We reviewed their the qualifications of the team.

We find that they do have relevant experience.

Is it the best that we would have liked to see?

No.

No, but it is what we have.

I appreciate that.

Um and then just one other final question.

You know, all of us that stand up here represent the taxpayers.

And I would like to have an understanding from CPED.

I mean, we've bought the land for 200K.

What do you foresee as the, you know, how much of a funding are you anticipating that we're gonna have to invest in this site ourselves?

How much do you see coming from other sources?

And who's doing that advocacy?

Is that the chosen qualifier, or is that the partner team, or is that CPED?

Um I'm just to have a I'm just don't understand quite sure.

See how that lays out.

Uh Chair Osman, Councilmember Schaefer, I appreciate your concerns about fiscal matters.

Uh the city has, as you said, spent 200,000 in acquiring the site in the first place.

We've spent at least several tens of thousands of dollars doing some environmental investigation, making sure the fuel was out of the fuel tanks, um the other sort of things to stabilize the site, if you will.

Um the city also, since we bought it, has appropriated money for property maintenance management of the site.

The current budget is 100,000 uh annually.

Um the last year, I think we used about 40,000 of that, and that pays for things like regular monitoring of the site, removal of rubbish.

There's some stormwater fees that we have to pay to likely be some, or well, maybe there'll be some assessments for the new street to pay.

So that that the city is currently budgeted 100,000 a year, and we would be seeking that money as long as we own the property.

We are responsible for maintaining it.

That's on the maintenance side.

On the development side, you're bringing up a good question because any development here is going to need to do fundraising, whether that's from uh private sources, from philanthropic sources, and or from public sources.

CPED has experience uh well the city offers its own sort of public financial tools for economic development projects, and we have experience helping to secure or helping to apply for or helping to understand public sector financing tools from other levels of government, whether that be the county, the Met Council, the state, maybe even the feds.

And so uh we wouldn't CPED staff's role would be to be a thought partner to whoever we're working with to think about, given the specifics of their project, given the specifics of the costs, the types of costs, the magnitude of the costs, we would think about which public financing tools are relevant or not to a particular project.

And some of those are tools that the city itself may be able to offer through an application process.

Some of those things is where the city acts as the applicant and it passes through the city from other levels of government.

You can remember your presentation about environmental cleanup grants, and then some of them an applicant would apply to another level of government directly.

And so we would assist whoever we're working with in what sort of public financing tools could be relevant to a project.

Okay, my reason for just bringing that up is we've all heard loud and clear that we've spent a lot of money already on this site.

We've seen that newspaper article after newspaper article, even you know, culminating in the vote last December.

So what I don't want to see happen is another one of these situations.

We need something there for the community as soon as possible in the most fiscally responsible way that lets the community lead.

And I don't I'm I'm just um hoping that you can hear that loud and clear and show us a plan of how that's not gonna happen again before we approve anything.

So that's my that's my spirit.

Great.

So if I may uh Chair Osman, Council Member Schaefer, I hear you loud and clear.

Um I think when you refer to increasing costs in this site, I think I assume it sounds to me like you're referring to George Floyd Square broadly and the fact that there is a city public works city street infrastructure project where the city is responsible for infrastructure funding infrastructure projects.

I would distinguish this as being a development project where yes, the city or maybe other public partners may provide financing tools to a project, but it is really up to the developer to assemble the financing and the funding to pull off a project.

That's why I've emphasized that they really need to come up with a viable development concept.

It's not going to be a six-story building.

Um it could be something smaller, it could be leaving the site largely as it is.

I think there's a range of possibilities, and that's really what if Agape is selected, they would really have to dig into is what's really feasible to to build here.

I would say in terms of the fist the city's fiscal risk, if you will, it's about continuing to own this property for an undetermined amount of time and the amount of cost that we put into property maintenance over that time.

All right, I will recognize council member councilmember Warren.

Thank you, Chair.

Um if you will, please.

Um, so my question is um who is the current receiver who is receiving the hundred thousand dollar management over site control that is that is currently governing the land as it stands right now because the city acquired it for the 200,000, and you elected to state that you've been investing 100,000 in um annually of you know ensuring that this space, the people's way, formerly the Super America gas station is then managed and controlled.

So who currently is the receiver and has site control of the property as it stands?

Councilmember or Chair Osman, Councilmember Warren, thanks for the question.

I the um the city is responsible for property management, and just one clarification the the appropriation for property management is a hundred thousand dollars.

How much we actually spend can be much less than that, and what we found in 2025 is it was less than that, it was about 40, 40,000.

Excellent.

Who are you paying though?

Yep, thank you.

Right.

Thank you.

Um, so the city city, CPED in particular, has an inventory of all sorts of development property.

Everything from the People's Way to the former Kmart site at Lake and Nicolet, too.

You're evading the question.

I just want to know for this specific project, whom are you cutting a check to monthly for the ground maintenance of this specific location?

I'm not asking about Kmart, I'm not asking about nowhere else, just 38th Street in Chicago.

I bring that up because we as a as a department have contracts with property managers to manage all of our properties.

Excellent.

And Chicago.

There's an organization called Building Better Futures.

So that's one example of the cost is that call it that on-site monitoring.

There can be other sorts of property management costs.

So for example, if there's a utility bill, we would pay that utility provider.

Like for example, if it's the city of Minneapolis for stormwater fees.

And so I'd say a bulk of the money is going to our property management vendor, but there could be other sorts of recipients of the property management funding, depending upon what the expense is.

Okay, we're gonna stop right there and not dig a hole for ourselves because we know that the city don't pay itself.

So as a Ward 5 council member and property owner for the numerous amount of properties that are owned there, let's just stop right there.

But okay, so Building Better Futures is the recipient of said funding that is um put out there the forty thousand dollars last year and what have you who currently has um if they're being the one who's who's in charge of keeping this play place clean and doing that or whatever, who has site control over the property now as it stands like what's what's being orchestrated there?

Uh Chair Osman, Councilmember Warren, the city has site control.

The city owns the properties.

I guess when you say site control, that's what I think about, but I think who's permitting the businesses to be there and are saying that these businesses on this site are because I listened to my council colleague as he was saying people were running clothing stores and they were getting different needs met on this actual site.

So who is managing and governing the site now?

Because the city is not down there governing the site.

It's pretty much being ran by the people.

That's some organization.

Who is that organization?

Who are those people who are managing what's happening on those grounds?

Because if the city has site control over it and they have ownership of it, then you should treat it like you do every other property and just put a big fence around it and say that nobody has access to it until we're ready to have someone do with it as we say do with it, because that's what we do everywhere else.

Councilmember Osman, uh Councilmember Warren, I thought I'd jump in here and reframe how we took ownership of the people's way.

So back after the murder of George Floyd, community held space in and around this area and took control of what was a safe way and turned it into the people's way.

The property owner of that real estate did not want to sell it to anybody else except for the city of Minneapolis.

Why?

That's up to them, but that's what it was.

And it was it was the the desire of this body and the desire of the mayor for the city to purchase the property.

That's where we went and we negotiated a $200,000 cash, and then there was a there was a donation for um the property.

We came to this body and we talked about how we would operate and manage the people's way because there were there were things happening in community.

Community were coming gathering every day.

They had the people's closet, they had other things that were, you know, gardening that was happening.

And the the approach was either you could add the approach of put a fence around it and do what we do with some of our properties and and um and it's not all of our properties put a fence around, but some of them we do put a fence around it and say, get off, stay off.

But we decided to take a more um uh community-centric approach to it, and we allow things to happen on the property.

And we me we manage and we know there's a risk to having people do things on the property, so we've had to do things like cut the water off, we've had to re-um uh secure the building, we've cleaned cleared out the building, you know, to make sure that there isn't um, you know, opportunities for bodily harm, but we've basically just led it as a kind of a laissez-faire area.

People have been using it since they've been doing community meetings on a regular basis, and so the city and CPED is the one who oversees it.

We have that, you know, property manager.

So when we need snow to be shoveled, we send out somebody to shovel the snow.

We need something to be picked up, we send it up, but it's really on an as needed basis.

Thank you for that.

And there's no business opportunities or businesses operating on there.

There could be people who are selling things, but they're not officially a tenant of the city, they're not operating with a business license.

We have had that issue with people vending on the street.

Our business licensing group has been out there.

We've been talking with the businesses in the community, but we have we have taken this scent because we're trying to balance what the community wants with this and the fact that we own the property, and so we did not want to put a fence around it and close it off together.

Thank you for that, Director Hansen.

I appreciate that.

My other question is when was the last time that the structure itself was inspected for the stabilization of the of the building itself?

Do we have enough time of three years to wait for the development and and land acquisition of this?

Uh I understand that there were some bodies up in the building at some point and whatever other kind of things going on.

Yeah.

So that has to do with the land acquisition, that didn't have to do with folks just wanting to sell it to you because they was generous, but go on.

Yeah.

Chair Chair Osman and Councilmember Warren, we do not have a structural assessment of the existing uh former gas station building.

I would like that to be included within the report, then if we're referring it back to staff, there should be a structural assessment because if you are talking about someone taking land acquisition or taking development of this, then they should know what the condition and the foundation of the current structure is as it stands, in addition to what things need to be done, if we're looking at bringing that existing building up to code or expanding on top of that building, what those things are with respect to that that building and that property there because otherwise you're not making a balanced sale from the city to a constituent, whomever it may be who's looking to obtain the development rights of said property.

So all of those things should be disclosed, the current condition, the stabilization, what it's gonna cost to remove those tanks that you've emptied the fuel out of out of the ground, all of those different things, and if we're going to move into having a new applied structure there for whomever obtains the development rights, it would be wise and you know fair for those individuals so that we're not hustling backwards right to disclose all of these informations in regards to the current structure of the property.

If I may, Chair Osman, Councilmember Warren, what we do have are environmental investigation reports of the site, which were necessary to buy the site in the first place to understand what if any contamination might have happened as its use as a former gas station.

We have made those reports available as part of the RFQ process.

I'm happy to share those that happy reading with you if you if you would like.

Can I jump in, council member?

Yeah, I will like smiles.

I would like the staff to finish his answers.

Okay, you can ask questions.

Yeah.

Um when it comes to the structure that's currently there, a reason that we have not done a structural assessment because it has been an open question whether that structure would be needed for whatever future unfolds at the people's way.

If a scenario unfolds where uh becomes it proves viable that building a new building is feasible and it's what is everybody agrees should happen, then we would not need that existing structure and it would be demolished.

Okay, another situation is that it could be um reused, maybe renovated as part of a development proposal, in which case we would need to do that.

So we didn't want to jump to doing a structural assessment of the property until we knew that we needed to do it.

And I would point out that that is an example of the sort of activity that any developer would do during their period of development rights to us to assess really what they have at the site.

Excellent.

Thank you for that.

So what is it currently zoned for and could be zoned as class what?

Commercial.

You're asking me outside of my area of expertise about city zoning, but I uh the zoning does allow for commercial.

I can't remember the specific class of it.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't have any further questions at this time.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much.

I I put myself here.

I want to kind of circle back about the item here.

I do want to thank the staff for their work on this.

I know it's been very tough to manage the MT property that has a lot of things going on around it.

I think you guys did a wonderful job.

Thank you for not fencing.

Thank you for managing the way it's it's been managed.

And it's definitely very important for us to make a decision and making sure that uh development takes place that is the community is happy for and community welcomes it.

Even if that development is not as magnitude as we always wish to do, it could be something small that community appreciates and just relying on the council members from the ward.

Um I think this is community-centered approach is very very important.

Can not put something that community does not uh appreciate or all welcomes and for the city looking at their development on the way they look things that you know we can give exceptional about something that might not cost us as millions millions of dollars to build, but something that community will appreciate that will bring the um historic of events that took place here that people can appreciate visit.

Uh, you know, I talked about the overall George Floyd Square.

Um, I think that there could be so many things that could be done by the state and and and the city and and everyone else to bring this uh place, uh a place of remembrance, a place of that uh that what happened there could we can never forget.

So again, I uh just close it down there and thank the staff and uh uh for that for their work.

And I know it's not um it's not an easy process, but I will rely on um what the community wants, and that's what the council members from the ward have uh brought it up and and and made that very clear.

I will recognize a couple more members here um that are um on queue here.

Uh council member uh Vice Chair Chowder, please.

Okay, thank you, uh Chair Osman.

Um thank you, Miles.

You're doing great up here.

Thank you for taking the time to answer our tough questions.

Really appreciate you and thank you to staff for their work on this.

I know it was a long process, even if I don't agree with the the recommendation.

Yeah, put in a lot of work.

Um in that vein of not agreeing with this recommendation.

I think it's really important that we get clear on the action that we're taking up today.

I personally believe that it's clear to me that this is not the applicant that I think we should move forward on, uh, especially coming back to community support.

I think that actually needs to be that needs to be number one for the people's way.

That just needs to be number one for the people's way.

And so I wanted to take some time to ask um attorney shutt uh a couple questions to make sure that we do what is intended.

Um, so attorney Shutt, if I may ask you a few questions.

Um if we are to return this recommendation to staff, are they able to bring a different applicant forward through the chair?

Councilmember Chowdhury, it would be inadvisable for staff to modify their uh decision based on the current process, and I say that only because the current decision that they've made is pursuant to an RFP process, which was outlined, um, the evaluation process was outlined in the RFP that was made public.

Um there were particular factors that uh staff was to consider in their evaluation of this proposal and in coming to a decision.

And I believe um having conversations with staff that they have done so in coming to this decision, and so um it's unlikely that you would get a different opinion from staff given that they have followed the particular evaluation process that was set up in this RFP.

Um there's not really a way to deviate from the evaluation process given that it was outlined in the RFP.

Thank you.

That feel that feels pretty clear, and like there's a integrity to the RFP process that they have to maintain, and then this body needs to make a decision on the recommendation.

And so if we were to make a vote to deny this recommendation, that would allow for a new process and a new applicant to come before us for recommendation to choose.

Do I have that correct?

If you were to vote to deny this recommendation, um, it would be up to staff to uh make a determination on how to proceed from that point, but one of their options would be to pursue an additional RFP process.

Okay, and then if staff decided among many of the choices that they need to make, because I go back to where we have agreement, right?

We want a good project here that the community trusts.

Um, if they choose to go through a separate process, will Agape movement be considered in that given the council's denial of recommendation if we were to pursue that?

Yes.

So if they were to start a new RFP process, it would be like wiping the slate clean and starting over from square one.

That RFP process would have its own evaluation criteria, which I assume would be different than the exact same evaluation criteria you're seeing here, but it would be open for application to anybody who meets the um eligibility requirements of that RFP, and then you know, staff can step in if they'd like to um that um elaborate, but generally speaking, staff would then evaluate anybody who proposed a proposal in response to that RFP based on what the new evaluation criteria in that RFP are and give you a recommendation that's the bet best fit for the proposers based on that new evaluation criteria.

So if agape were a proposer and they um met whatever requirements for proposers existed, then they would be up for evaluation.

Got it.

But it would probably be this is just me speaking on behalf of myself.

I would say it would be inadvisable if this body made a decision to deny the recommendation once to bring it back again.

I mean, we've say that again.

You need me to speak up.

Uh I would I said that it would be inadvisable if this body made a decisive action to bring the same person forward.

I do feel like it would make sense for us to make uh a clear choice here for staff to take back and for us to continue down the process.

Um those are my comments.

I know my colleague who represents the area um is in cue, so that's my comments for now.

All right, uh Councilmember Travis.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I'd like to withdraw my motion to refer this back to staff and to make a motion to deny this proposal.

If I can get a second, please.

Second, all right.

Um seeing no one else, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll with that motion.

Can you clarify what we're doing?

The motion is to uh deny this item for approval.

Councilmember Rainville is absent.

Warren for final considerations.

Nay.

Schaeffer, uh nay.

Chavez, aye.

Chiktai.

Aye.

Vice Chair Chowdhury, aye.

And Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are four ayes and two nays.

All right.

That motion passes.

Thank you so much, everyone.

Next item is um leg legislative directive for heritage park.

I'll recognize Councilmember Warren.

Would you like to speak on this item?

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, I have before you today in your pocket the legislative directive for Heritage Park properties here in North Minneapolis.

And I'm just gonna start by saying colleagues, today I'm introducing this legislative direction directive because the conditions at Heritage Park have reached a point where inaction is no longer acceptable.

Um what we are seeing at Heritage Park is not simply deferred maintenance, it is the deterioration of housing conditions that are currently directly impacting the health, safety, dignity, and stability of the residents in the fifth ward.

We currently have approximately 200 units offline, and one of the most worst housing shortages our city has faced.

Families are living in uncertainty while buildings continue to decline around them.

Residents have reported serious concerns, including persistent moisture intrusion, mold exposure, roofs with active leaks, and visible deterioration, unsafe and unsecured vacant units, poor lighting conditions, infrastructural instability near and around Bassett Creek, road deterioration, and a shrinking electrical infrastructure.

These are not simply cosmetic issues.

These are conditions that affect whether people can safely remain in their homes or not.

And while emergency inspections have taken place, residents are still asking the most basic question what happens next.

On May 11th, a community meeting was held with residents, stakeholders, and public agencies, city departments, people showed up expecting transparency, accountability, a roadmap forward, and what they received were concerns acknowledged, but very little continued communication afterwards about timelines, responsibilities, relocation planning, and what's actually what actions are actually being taken.

The lack of follow through has deeply um frustrated myself and my community, being that this was already the expense of too many broken promises, and I have to plainly say this, and I mean it very seriously.

Um the home and promise was broken, so the promise was never supposed to lead us here.

The promise made to this community was that redevelopment would create safe, sustainable, and thriving housing for North Minneapolis and North Minneapolis families.

This was supposed to represent investment, opportunity, and long-term community care.

Instead, many residents today feel abandoned by the very systems that promise transformation.

This directive is about accountability and responsibility.

Restoration.

We cannot continue operating in silos while residents are left navigating unsafe living conditions without answers.

This directive also recognized that some residents may require relocation due to mold exposure.

And I believe that we have already relocated three families as it stands, but I did just receive an email about three more additional families that need to be relocated, and they are not small families in size.

So these are larger units in the five bedroom units that appear at Heritage Park.

If the relocation continues to become necessary, it must be handled with dignity, transparency, and support, not confusion or displacement without communication.

We also need to confront some of the broader policy failures that have allowed the content conditions here at Heritage Park to deteriorate to this point.

So stronger enforcement tools, clearer receivership authority, earlier intervention mechanisms, and accountability standards for distress, multifamily housing.

Because no community should have to wait until the conting conditions become this catastrophic before systems think about whether or not they want to respond.

And this council has the responsibility to ensure that it happens.

Today is not the end of this conversation, it is just the start of it, and it being more coordinated and transparent in the urgency to respond to prevailing housing needs and protect residents in ward five and restore community trust because we deserve that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember.

Uh recognize Councilmember Shaves.

Uh thank you, Chair Osman.

If Director Hamilton could answer a question for me.

One, I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Warren, for bringing this forward.

I feel pretty appalled hearing what is happening in your community, and I think this needs to be addressed.

I see the timeline here says August 4th, 2026.

That is a long time, and I think that I know that you're working really hard, and what I'm hearing is some of these things need to respond as soon as possible, and want to make sure that CBIT can respond quicker than this timeline.

Chair Osman, Councilmember Chavez.

So this is a negotiation with the council member around multiple departments.

So I think we should frame it.

And uh the city is not the owner of Heritage Park.

We have uh financial, or we're we're a lender for the project, and we are uh an enforcer of land use regulations and um land use regulations and um property maintenance codes, and then we have you know the public infrastructure that is, you know, some of it is in private hands and some of the public hands.

The um the former owner of this property has been in conversations with the city for many years without giving us adequate information about the conditions inside.

They have since left that position.

It's in a receivership.

So now we're starting to get information.

We're starting to get our rank services department in there and looking at all these things and uncovering the situation and then figuring out what the um uh the needs are at Heritage Park.

And I appreciate that August doesn't feel like oh it feels like a long time from now, but it is going to come really fast when it comes to as many things that we need to do in this um legislative directive.

But we are already working with the receiver, we're working with the property manager, we're getting into into um into the units.

We're working with the council member and her office, and you know, we appreciate the public meeting that she has held for uh the residents of Heritage Park.

But yes, it is it's all hands on deck for this, and it'll take us that time to get uh a response.

Okay, I'm assuming that you'll provide our colleague here, Councilmember Warren with information as soon as you get it right.

It wouldn't have to wait till August 4th.

I just think there's a lot of things here that could just be addressed, and my colleague has been talking about this in committee and council.

Chair Osman, uh, Councilmember Chavez.

We will have like the official formal back to the council, but we're in contact with the council members' office on a regular basis about what's going on and and taking in um uh ideas and trying to problem solve them quickly because the conditions are just not um they're not they're not acceptable to the city.

Cool.

Well, thanks for answering my questions again.

Thank you, Councilmember Warren, for bringing um attention to the issues impacting your ward.

I think it's honesty just really messed up, and I hope this gets addressed as soon as possible.

Right.

Uh five Sister Stroud.

Yeah, thank you so much, Chair Osman.

I'll keep it brief.

Councilmember Warren, I'm so sorry you have to deal with just like what sounds like a bunch of mixed up bureaucracy that everyday people are facing, and I'm so sorry your residents have to be in conditions that make them feel unsafe that impact their health.

Um I know we've had conversations about ways that we can support the north side, and I'm happy to be supporting this today, and I want to I want to take some time to better understand what's happening in Heritage Park, and I'm sure others on this council would too to just get briefed on it, and I want to be able to, in any way that you need be helpful in other actions that we might need to take out of this body, um, or even ways that we can highlight this.

Um, I just genuinely, if I was in my ward and I had to deal with um property ownership and situations that led to such adverse outcomes for my constituents, I would not want to be alone in that.

So I just wanted to state that here as we take up this item.

Thanks again for bringing it.

Councilmember.

Thank you, Chair.

I also um wanted to highlight that um council president Payne has requested to be a co-author on this um body of work um with me, and that um this will go before um numerous different um committees, so you will hear this as there needs to be report out um through several different committees with respect to um you know public health and safety, um the climate and infrastructure, um, with the numerous things that are happening within um Heritage Park as it stands, and um there has been several meetings that have been taken place through city departments around Heritage Park, but my office has not been previewed to those conversations, nor have we received a report back, Director Hanson.

So if there is information or cliff notes or whatever, you know, with conversations and stuff like that, the the better that we can, you know, all be looped in with this would be greatly appreciated because I haven't been invited to any of the bimonthly meetings that have taken place um since before or after um the community meeting in which I held.

So this is very important.

It is something that is very pressing, and I agree with what my colleagues said.

I thought that four months was too, I mean, March for August 4th was too long of a time because there had been so much conversation that had been done, and I believe that um there were um the inspections started at the property in November of last year and completed on February of this year, and there were four different types of inspections, and I do have those inspection reports.

However, the you know, the synchronicity of getting the departments to work together and figure out how with this four months of warm weather, we can get 36 roofs completed there so that people are not living in molding conditions like that's that's huge.

Every day that it rains or something is going on with the weather, my heart sinks because those are families with children and elders and people who deserve so much better, and I it it's difficult for me.

Like I get very upset, and then I come to work and I'm ticked because still there's no, you know, there's no solution for that.

You know what I mean?

And I don't, I'm I'm, you know, that's wasn't the home and promise.

So the home and promise has been broken.

This land has now become a cycle of perpetual harm, and I am extremely frustrated.

I am very hurt and upset because these are public dollars, and it's a public property, and it should not be utilized to produce this mass volume of public harm that it has on the community.

So that is all I'm going to say.

The sooner somebody can report back to me, the better I would feel.

And yeah, that's where I'm at with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Do you would you like to make the motion to move this forward?

I would like to move make the motion to move this item forward.

Second.

All right.

I um we'll just say thank you so much for bringing this forward.

I think that it's very, very important to uphold landlords and a lot of residents, especially me.

I get a call every night for different issues with the properties.

But when they get this extreme, it's nowhere to go back.

It's very difficult.

Um, I think we need a better system to hold accountable a lot of landlords.

We're trying to do, you know, altering the uh tier three uh license and show on, but um uh I hear you and and we are the only hope for some of the residents that are out there, and I'm happy to work with you and I would love to be co-authored on this item.

All right, uh seeing no one else uh on that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The eyes have it, and the motion carries, and seeing no further business before us with no objection, I'll declare this mearing adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.