Here.

Yang.

Six present, one absent.

That is Commissioner Kim.

Staff reports.

Item number one, staff report 25-223 presentation on new dwelling toolkit.

Adding a housing unit to your St.

Paul property.

All right.

Well, I'm looking forward to this presentation.

I also see congratulations is in order.

I'm like, I know there was some conversation over there as well, but from one expected mother to another, congratulations.

And welcome.

Thanks.

Yeah, good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Emma Brown.

I'm a city planner and PED, and I'm excited to provide an overview of the newly completed new dwelling toolkit.

All right, so this document is a resource to help property owners plan for, design, and build another housing unit on their property.

This could be an ADU, accessory dwelling unit, or a standard principal unit.

And these are in the H1 and H2 zoning districts that I'll talk about in a second.

Meant to be a living document to be updated continuously.

We want to really make this clear and easy for people to understand.

All right, so I mentioned that we are focusing on the H1 and H2 zoning districts, that these are the most prominent zoning districts.

You can see the yellow and kind of the darker yellow.

These were implemented in 2023 with the one to four unit housing study.

So it is now a lot easier to add a housing unit to properties in these zoning districts.

Need a mid-on lot size of 2,000 square feet or 3,000 square feet for two principal units, and then also it's very easy to add up to two ADUs for each single family home on a lot.

Alright, so starting with the introduction section, this provides a lot of helpful background information about uh zoning code terms.

So we have a lot of terms like principal and accessory, um, so that would be buildings, uses, and dwelling units.

So this helps lay out all of that.

Um help you choose between an ADU accessory dwelling unit or a principal dwelling unit.

All right, so this is a flow chart, um kind of like in those magazines, maybe not as maybe not as fun.

Um, but it does help you determine um if you should build an ADU or a principal unit on your property.

Uh so the unit types do differ in their maximum height and square footage, and uh whether you can sell the unit separately, and also the the occupancy limit.

So this walks you through which property type would or which unit type would be appropriate for your lot.

All right, uh looking at an overview of the process stages for getting your housing unit constructed.

So this walks you through planning to move in, and there's a section for each of these one through seven in the in the guidebook.

All right, so in the getting started section, uh walks you through the process of thinking about what you want for this unit, looking for inspiration, doing a sketch of your property, uh also discusses things to consider early on, uh like your neighbors, sharing your space with someone new, historic district rules, uh parking, and then also um considerations for connecting to utilities, which is a really important thing that needs to be looked at early on.

All right, learning the rules.

Uh, this section helps you understand the basics of your property, how to figure out the area of your lot, uh, the zoning district of your lot, and all the zoning standards for accessory dwelling units and principal dwelling units.

Uh also talks about other important regulations like design standards, parking, uh, fire safety, utility connections, short-term rentals, also variances.

So these things are likely to come up with your uh construction of your unit.

Budgeting and finance.

Uh the section lays out options for um for financing the construction of your new unit, um, summarizes different loan options, uh, has links to different types of loan programs that you might consider for building these types of units.

Section four, uh designing your unit.

This lays out options for designing your housing unit, talks about um purchasing a pre made plan set, different construction methods like site build or prefabricated modular housing.

Also talks about the different types of professionals that you might hire, an architect, contractor, different engineers.

Just to give people an idea about that.

Also the basic stages of designing your housing unit.

All right, permitting and approvals.

So this section discusses DSI's processes for building plan review, the permitting process through poly and site plan review, if that does happen to kick in, although it's more likely for larger projects.

This summarizes the process for hiring a contractor, what to include in the contract, the construction stages, and the inspection process.

Move in and rental.

This is a good resource to help landlords understand rental laws, the fire C of O process uh program, and things like uh setting the rent, leasing your unit, uh, managing your rental.

It lists the top uh residential code violations to help people understand that.

Um links to OFE's fair housing page, rent stabilization uh includes all of those topics.

All right, and then in terms of next steps for this, um we want to publish it on the one to six unit housing development web page, uh promote it a little bit.

Um also invite staff, DSI, PED, any other staff who who wants to review and offer comments, corrections, we're happy to update this and um keep it as up to date as possible and then yeah, continue to update as necessary.

Uh Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair.

Um I just want to say how much I love this.

I I my colleagues will remember this was one of our priorities last year in our uh strategic planning retreat.

It was one of the things that Chair Johnson and I worked on on the HRA last year as we were doing check-ins with PED, and as everyone will remember, we saw kind of the pros outline of this at HRA, but seeing it now in the actual form that it will look like online is just really um really great.

And I testing the limits of my vision a little bit, but I think I can read the text here, and it looks like it's written in a really plain language, you know, lay persons friendly, um, not the way that you normally see things written on city websites.

Um, so just really kudos.

And I'm excited that now I think we're planning next year to move into our pre-approved blueprints.

So it seems like they'll have a perfect home and link right on this.

I can already see where they fit in.

So congratulations, it's really great work.

Thanks.

Uh Commissioner Coleman.

Thanks so much, Chair Johnson.

Thank you for this presentation.

I echo everything.

I think this is really exciting.

Um, I just wanted to ask one question.

Uh well, I had two questions.

The first was about the pre-approved blueprints, because I know that there's been funding set aside for that for 2026 and um I assume that that is going on in this toolkit once those are ready to go.

But I also wanted to ask about um the financing section.

My understanding is that kind of the big one of the most significant barriers to seeing the ADU development that we're hoping for is that it's just much more difficult to finance than sort of a principal unit might be.

And I'm curious, uh I'm also like squinting to see what I see here.

And I'm just wondering if there's been any conversations within PED thus far about you know, ways that we might in the future work to provide more resources here.

Um, any insight that you can share there would be very helpful.

Yeah, yeah, Commissioner Coleman.

Um, so so right now, you know, I was kind of working with the housing team and seeing what if we have any programs that would apply to these units, and right now we don't.

Um, I'm not sure about about the future.

Maybe Jules can speak to that.

Um, but there are some some really good just regular mortgage programs that do work for these.

So that's what the what the guidebook does share.

Um, yeah, in the in the future, we we do plan to um see what what more resources we can kind of push towards these units.

Thank you.

Director McMahon.

Yeah, Chair Johnson, I'll just jump in and add to that as well.

Um, it's resources and its process, right?

It's ensuring that how are we looking at the building code, are we consistent with neighboring cities?

How are we sort of easing that process through?

Of which this is one stage, and this is a great first one because PED has done so much work on the zoning, and this is uh taking that very technical.

We change the zoning law, but how do you actually do it?

How do you, as a resident in the city actually do it?

And then again, it's resources, and then as this continues, looking specifically within our internal process and how we can continue to improve that to make it that much smoother.

Um Council President.

Sorry, Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair Johnson.

Um, to that point, I wonder if the funds that we're talking about putting into the small scale development program um in this coming budget, which I know is a new funding stream, might we might consider making ADUs um part of the small scale development program's eligibility.

I don't know how far along we are in determining those guidelines, but I think Ms.

Coleman is is really right to point out that um in addition to process, I think we hear most from people who just say I have no idea how I'll be able to afford one of these.

Chair Commissioner, uh to that point, right?

Looking specifically at our HRA properties and that small scale development on some of those properties as well, and how that might be something that we can encourage and move towards.

Yeah, I love that.

Um I'm allowing the question questions to take their course because some of the notes that I had um just kind of noted for folks' awareness as well with the proposed HRA budget, it has 500,000 right now allocated specifically for um for ADUs and then the pre-approved blueprint plan is like gonna also be in the housing trust fund.

The small scales development pieces that I think um we're also getting at were of interest to me too.

But I also would love to see the you know, just some of our projected expenses, like it would be nice to know what like how much would this cost.

So if someone wants to take this endeavor on what are we put what are we kind of seeing in the market to know like how how much are these projects really spanning?

Because I think when we're scaling our support or putting our resources to it'd be nice to know what we're scaling towards and just like how um expensive and expensive that would be.

So are there's some of the things that can be just provided for some of the additional context for like how if someone wants to do this project, what is it costing people?

Just generally out curious, and I see uh Yasm coming up, so I'll hand it over to you.

Thank you, Chair Johnson Commissioners.

Uh, also want to echo uh so much excitement about this toolkit.

Um, Emma worked really hard to make sure that it was you know accessible and written clearly, and I definitely think it's the first step, you know, down a path of opening up this type of development to everybody.

Um wanna say that like the ADU part is exciting, but what's really unique for St.

Paul is the primary unit.

Um, and I think it's something that we haven't been able to talk about as much.

Um, and I would encourage um the HRA to not only like look at the ADU portion uh for the funding, but to also look at the primary unit as well, because I think it could be um a really interesting way to you know open up small development.

Um we are working on a scope for the pre-approved plans.

Sometimes they're called pre-approved plans, sometimes they're called permit ready, sometimes they're called there's kind of a lot of ways we're gonna come up with a standard uh nomenclature for that, but uh we're working on a scope right now, um, and hopefully we'll be able to get that going.

Uh ASAP.

And I think that there's other things you know we can do.

We can start talking to uh different groups about financing.

Um start talking about like what are all the tools that we have, what are other partners that we might be able to engage in uh in other cities, uh like Portland or um where the prices of real estate are very high, um, that has pushed a lot of interest in accessory dwelling units.

Um, and so I think here we have a little bit uh you know of a ways to go.

I actually tried to get one myself and was deterred because of the cost, it actually would have cost more than my house cost in Midway.

So uh for me that was you know uh eye-opening uh experience.

So um I wish I had had this toolkit when I had started that process, but there's a you know a lot of pieces to this.

We're excited to start uh pulling all of that information out.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate that clarity as well.

Um, because yeah, that's something that you know I'm just like how much does it cost someone who's wanting to explore these different alternatives, and I appreciate your point around the you know, looking at the full magnitude of everything and not just ADUs but also the primary unit pieces.

I'm sure that there are you know several things that I'll outline just different ways in the toolkit, which is what I really like.

Um, I appreciate all the visuals too, and just like examples that are given.

Um, and I think in many ways it'll be a learning experience, and so my hope is that with some of the initial investments and just also just as the blueprint and things come along, that that communication, especially with this body as well, of just what we're finding and what we're learning that we can do that together.

And so I'm looking forward to just kind of seeing what comes of it into 2026.

Any other questions from commissioners?

See none, thank you guys so much for um putting this together and all the work that's gone into it.

Um it's something that I have been watching for a while, and so I think this isn't clearly this is not gonna be the last time we have this conversation, but I thought it was really important and pertinent to get this in front of us.

Item number two, staff report 25-226 authorization to release the 4D affordable housing incentive probant covenant on 1048 Central Avenue West, St.

Paul District 8, Ward 1.

All right, so we are continuing on with our our lovely staff reports.

I'll be handing this over to Director U McMahon.

Yes, we have Rachel Final Sadal.

Yes, you have it.

I know.

Um, here to present on this.

This is um a really unique and actually exciting in many ways in that this is uh property is part of a large it's a community asset, really, um, historically in the neighborhood, and they oftentimes what we run into is folks simply go into non-compliance in the 4D program, and that's how it's managed, and this is really an entity that has come forward and um has a great project overall, and this is a component of it, and really reaching out to the HRA in uh forward action that is admirable.

Sorry, one moment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, such a job.

I'm gonna go from a very exciting topic like um ADUs to tax status.

So hope you're all prepared.

Um thank you, Chair uh commissioners.

Uh I am here today to talk about the 4D affordable housing preservation incentive program and a request that we have from a buyer and seller.

Uh and I will be referring it to it more specifically as 4D.

Before I begin though, I also want to note that this program is not currently open for applications.

This is typically the season where we would be open for new applications for this program, but we have transitioned this program to focus on compliance because all of our properties enrolled in this program have a 10-year compliance period.

So some of the things that I'm gonna be talking about is how we did enrollment in the past, but that's not the current status of this program.

So just to get us started, I have two slides about what the 4D program is, one slide about how the 4D program used to work, and then the requests that we have coming before the board.

So the 4D program is minute from Minnesota State statute that provides qualifying low-income rental properties and to have eligibility for a class redate, excuse me, class rate reduction in property taxes to aid the preservation and the sustainability of affordable rental housing in the state of Minnesota.

So that's really focused on NOAA properties.

And for tax purposes, most rental units are designated as a 4A or 4B status.

However, affordable rental properties that receive a public subsidy or tax credit of any kind can be classified as 4D by the state directly.

This is also referred to as a low-income rental classification.

So oftentimes you'll hear 4D slash Lurk be a thing.

Um there are approximately 19,000 total units in St.

Paul that are classified as a 4D or Lurk status by Minnesota housing.

That being said, for this specific program, um, cities could create a local program to so that unsubsidized affordable rental housing property owners may benefit from the same same tax class rate reduction in exchange for maintaining a deed restriction affordability for 10 years.

There are about 4,000 units located in the St.

Paul 4D program, which is included in that overall 19,000.

So the amount that this program specifically did is 4,000 out of that 19.

Properties that qualify for that tax rate reduction, um, as mentioned previously would be things with funding within them to make the units affordable.

So that could include like project based section eight, low-income housing tax credits, rental assistance units finance through rural housing services, obviously not relevant in St.

Paul, uh, rent and income restrictions at or below 60% AMI placed on units by state, federal, or local unit of government as evidenced by a document recorded against the property.

So again, that declaration.

Once a unit is enrolled in our 4D program, the HRA will qualify the property to Minnesota housing, which then classifies it as a relevant unit.

Um excuse me, classifies the relevant unit as 4D.

Once the state uh approval is granted, the Minnesota Housing certifies the units which approves the 4D status to the Ramsey County Assessor's Office.

And this is something that we also have to go through every year to ensure that there is compliance with that program, and so people can either keep their tax status because they're doing what they're supposed to, or lose their tax benefit because they are not compliant.

This amounts in most cases, uh, beginning with 2024, so payable taxes for this year with an 80% reduction to these units' effective property tax rate.

Um the reduction is prorated if only a portion of the units are rent and income restricted.

So the tax savings is redistributed to properties not enrolled in 4D.

So very high-level overview of the process.

This does not show the amount of work that the 4D program was for staff, but uh very high-level overview of what landlords would be experiencing if they wanted to enroll their property with the 4D program.

For one, the property owner would apply with the city for a tax exemption status.

Again, that would typically be happening in this season.

Staff would then be reviewing those applications to verify things like their unit mix was appropriately affordable.

Um, this would be something like a single family home is required to be a 50% EMI cap uh for an example.

And then it also we need to verify clear title of property and ownership.

So that is digging through a lot of different documentation about a property and who owns what and who owns an LLC and things like that.

Um if their property was approved, the landlord must sign a participation agreement, and then staff would record a declaration on the property.

As I mentioned, this is the legal document that allows them to claim a special tax status after the fact when we have lots of questions that come up about changes to someone's enrollment, and realistically in our program guidelines, we do not typically allow for changes in program enrollment.

There's two reasons, one big reason for this, and that is if a uh somebody sells their property and has a new buyer, what we can do is if that buyer doesn't want to participate in 4D, we don't remove the declaration, we just say, great, you don't have to be compliant, we're still going to try to do compliance work with you, but you lose your tax status.

Um if they get the tax bill the next year, they're not happy with it and they want to come back and be compliant with the program, they could then regain that status as the new um buyer of the property.

That being said, we almost never allow unenrollment from this program since a new property owner could just choose this non-compliance option.

However, when a 4D proper property is going to be purchased and planned for something like demolition or complete change of use, then the HRA, this body can consider removing the declaration so that the new owner has free and clear title.

So to my ask for today, just one slide.

Um 1048 Central Avenue West is a single unit that is restricted currently at 50% AMI, and it was enrolled in 4D in 2021.

This unit is a single-family home, it has about four bedrooms in it, but as I said, it's a single unit, which is why it's restricted at that level.

And the uh Xavier Properties, which is affiliated with St.

Peter Claver Church, is has a purchase agreement with the original owner of the property to buy 1048 Central Avenue West in Ward 1.

And as you can see by my little bit of blurry um Google map here, it's the target property is surrounded by all the other property for St.

Peter Claver school, church, and another worship building that that church possesses.

So they would like to purchase the property to demo the house or repurpose the house to expand their school space and make room for up to 60 additional early education uh early childhood education students, and this comes as a part of a master plan where they're going to be improving all their facilities to expand for more students.

Um and the HRA is being requested by Xavier Properties to release the restrictive covenant on 1048 Central Avenue West so that they can have free and clear title to pursue what they need to with this property.

Take any questions.

Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair Johnson.

Uh, thank you for the informative presentation, and I think the background is really helpful.

Um, fully supportive of this ask.

Um not surprisingly, I'm a super big fan of expanding early childhood education opportunities for students, so this is really great to see.

I actually have a question about the previous slide where you mentioned that we almost never allow unenrollment because a property owner could essentially unenroll themselves just by not complying with the provisions of the program.

Who is checking in every year to make sure that property owners are still complying so that if okay, us.

Okay, so we nobody is not complying and still getting the tax benefit.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

And I guess um just a quick question and for clarity.

Um I think looking at the looking at the actual proposal itself, you know, I didn't raise too many flags or anything from from our office as well.

But one of the questions that we just wanted to make sure we understand um, like what are the are there any sort of financial implications of the decision?

Like what exactly when you think about this decision and what's in front of us, you know, yes, there's perks of being able to uh provide 60 additional um students a space to learn.

And then also just wondering what's the financial is there a financial trade-off at all from this declaration or I would say not anything beyond like staff time to have to prepare something to remove a declaration from from this um body, but there is not there's no like money from any of our budgets going into this property property.

Yep.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

I don't have any questions.

I just want to just make comments since this is my ward and just no have stayed on the record that I did have a chance to talk with uh the the great PED team and and get a crash course on the 4D program that I have great interest in, you know, um learning more about in the future.

Uh but I did also have a chance to talk with the development team, um, um a community leader, faith leader, uh Father Chris, uh who is the um pastor at St.

Peter Claver, and for some people who aren't familiar with St.

Peter Claver, it is a community asset, it's a school, it's a church, and it's a historic uh Ronda community asset that's existed for um all of my lifetime and and and beyond.

Uh so this uh the plan for this technical process is to help them reach their renovations and expansion.

Uh so if anyone have been to that site, it is very historic.

You see, you see it in its brick, you see it in its space.

Um, and uh some of the members from the church, including also um Pastor Chris or Father Chris have mentioned you know an interest in wanting to be able to host large community events, uh interest in hosting funerals, weddings, birthdays, and um also connecting the school um um uh more with that church.

So I'm in support of this change.

You know, um for sure we want to make sure uh we're making decisions that preserve as much housing as possible.

Um I also had a chance to um confirm from um our staff that the owner will be assisting with a relocation plan um for um the tenant there, so and that that's something that they have um uh recommended um and it's required, but they have you know uh volunteered um to do so.

So you know, I'm you know in support of of this um item, and I do appreciate um you um Chair Johnson for asking like what is the technical ask um because sometimes we kind of get drawn into the you know the the minutiae of it and um I just want to be really clear that this is a very technical um step that the city is making to support a expansion for this site.

Thank you, Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you so much, Rachel, for being here, and we appreciate your time and this will be an action in front of the council when we get back on the subject.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Item number three, staff report 25-227 resolution endorsing amendments to the Minneapolis St.

Paul Housing Finance Boards 2026-2027 qualified allocation plan citywide.

Okay, over the last couple of weeks, Commissioners, you would have had probably several conversations about this particular item.

This is the staff report, which will also be in front of us for a vote on the 5th.

Um I'll hand it over to Director McMahon, and I'm sure Director Antagna will be here shortly to present on this item.

Yep, as Director Anton is getting everything set up.

Um noting again, right?

This is a staff report with discussion and that the action will be taking place on November 5th.

So the proposal is to amend the qualified allocation plan to allow for increased capacity to support additional housing development in our city.

And the reason for this request right now is to take advantage of recent federal tax law changes that happened after the QAP was last adopted and really utilize this increased capacity once it's available in January of 2026.

Um just noting too, right?

Post-COVID, downtowns are facing really unique challenges in financing the development of additional affordable housing, and our downtown in particular is facing a unique set of circumstances for financing housing, all housing, including affordable housing.

So also proposing to use the increased capacity from these federal tax laws for downtown projects with a federally required affordability requirement.

So this change would allow projects to move forward downtown that either otherwise wouldn't be able to move forward at all or would require substantial additional public subsidy to move forward.

And Director Antagna has a lot more details and information for you all.

Thank you, Director McMahon.

Chair Johnson Commissioners, my name is Jose Tonda.

I'm the housing director at PED, and I'm here to discuss the proposed amendments for the 2026-2027 qualified allocation plan, the QAP.

I will start with background on the tax credit program to say that the program was created by Congress in 1986 to provide to encourage the production of affordable housing by providing uh tax incentives to affordable housing investors.

In Minnesota, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency received a tax credit from the IRS.

Then we also have suballocators and the Minneapolis Sample Finance Board is the suballocator in charge of tax credits for projects in both Minneapolis and SEMPAL.

Federal rules require suballocators to set guidelines for the tax credit allocation.

This happens every two years when the joint board meets to review and update these guidelines on the priorities.

And last time the these priorities were approved by the finance board.

They were first recommended by the HRE on June on May 14th, then approved by the Minneapolis Temple Finance Board on June 11th.

As you may remember, changes included expanding the eligibility of housing tax credits, expanding services, and redefining the equity and cultural integration criteria.

Now we are proposing since then, Congress also passed the new tax law, and the new tax law give us uh capacity to use more capacity to use um bonds and tax credit uh to fund affordable housing projects.

So we are proposing to update these uh the QAP guidelines to reflect the language in new federal tax law that lowers the minimum tax exam bond amount issued for a project from 50% of the basis to 25% of the basis after January 1st, 2026.

Staff is also proposing to allow downtown housing projects using uh tax credit to be eligible for the qualified contract rule on the federal IRS requirements after 15 years of affordability.

And finally, we are proposing to revise our 4% uh tax credit scorecard to prioritize office to housing conversion projects.

We think that approving this change will ensure uh we can fully maximize the increased capacity and ability to help with additional affordable housing uh projects in SEMPAL.

As you know, post-COVID, uh, downtown projects face a unique set of challenges that impact the whole city.

And we think that having a thriving and active downtown benefits all communities in our city.

I would like to step back to talk about the pre-pandemic era year and just uh show you this uh chart that is uh the real estate inventory product mix of the largest 30 US metro area in 2019 before uh the COVID pandemic.

I know uh the city of St.

Paul isn't included in these 30 cities, but this is reflective of the state of uh our real estate in Sample as well, uh, with most of the uh most of the share of the office building located downtown.

In this case, we have roughly 70% of the office building uh buildings downtown, and we have a roughly um 10 to 15 percent of multi-adfamed rental located downtown and a smaller share of uh retail uh rate retail space downtown, which is less than 10%.

Now, um, what happened is that COVID hit and the pandemic uh led to significant significant decline in office occupancy.

We have we are facing uh we are dealing with abandon and abandoned tower office towers as well as unfit infrastructure, um overall fuel economic activities leading to crime and high crime and safety issues.

And this is based on cell phone track tracking in downtowns in North America.

And cities like Salt Lake City, Bakerfield, Fresno and El Paso have exceeded their food traffic compared to what it was before the pandemic.

And the same university updated their research in 2024, and they actually broke down the data into the little circle there, it's the overall downtown recovery rate.

The square is the recovery rate during typical working hours, 8 to 6 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

And the diamonds recovery rate are outside the working hours after 6 p.m.

and weekends.

And you can see that a lot of cities have, when it comes to activity after, I mean downtown traffic after working hours, a lot of cities have recovered pretty well.

But what you will notice overall looking at these two charts is that most of these cities are in warmer climate.

And the researchers gave gives uh give us other reasons.

For example, downtown recovery depends on lower commute time and a lower share of jobs in technical, scientific and professional fields.

Downtowns that have sectors like education, healthcare, entertainment, accommodation and manufacturing where workers are on site every day, tend to recover faster, while those with longer commute times and higher densities fare the worst.

After work hour activities surging in many downtowns, almost a third of downtowns have more activities on weeknights and weekends than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Almost all of these downtowns are in the warmer uh regions, suggesting that reason weather, uh pleasant weather helps attract visitors and shoppers downtown.

And finally, downtown's uh pre-pandemic activity come from residents as opposed to workers when the city has a bigger share of its population living in very close proximity to downtown uh job locations.

Now we asked the question what are other do other cities that are not listed here or not on top of this um uh ranking are doing, like New York, Boston, Chicago.

And New York is looking at looking to rezone areas to facilitate more conversions with significant interest from developers uh despite the challenges of converting newer buildings.

So according to the urban land uh magazine, the future of downtowns will depend on the ability to adapt to changing landscape of work and commuting, as well as their commitment to long-term projects that build mixed-use downtown with a strong residential presence.

Uh Boston, Boston is offering 75% of property tax break to developers.

13 buildings in Boston are considering such conversions with a goal to both reduce vacancies and increase housing.

A single successful project can positively impact uh its immediate surroundings.

According to Mayor Michelle Wu, the program will help take advantage of the opportunity.

We have to rethink downtown as a space where people from all over come together to collaborate, create, live, and play.

And finally, Chicago has embarked uh on a large-scale project involving 10 city blocks backed by over 150 million in uh dollars of in subsidies with a portion of units designated as affordable.

Reinvent our downtown as a mixed-use neighborhood and the Brooklyn institution thinks that office to residential conversion is one big way to redefine who and what downtown are for.

And Director Antagna, could you share if any of these proposed cities and their solutions and their approach includes the low-income income homeware tax credit?

I'm sorry, does it include Litech and their solutions?

So, like looking at some of these descriptions, and not seeing the direct link between Chair Johnson Commissioners.

These aren't uh these cities haven't considered LITEC, but they do have resources to invest other than LITEC.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

So the the cities that we are proposing, like the city that were brought forward just as what other cities are doing, they're not currently changing their life tech.

They're not currently changing their QAP, Church Johnson Commissioners, but they do have because I assume they have other resources like Chicago, 115 million dollars, and Boston considering tax breaks up to 75%.

And have you seen any cities in your findings that have been changing their QAP?

Church Johnson Commissioners, no, not yet.

Okay, thank you.

So what's the solution for Sample?

First of all, I would like to show you this list of recent projects that we did in Sample that use bonds and tax credits.

And you may notice that pretty much all, I mean, all these projects have used a significant, have needed a significant amount of cash subsidies, sometimes up to 7.7 million dollars, in addition to bonds and tax credits.

Even at the bottom of the list there, you have uh legions at Barry, Balsam and Broadway, Moro and others.

Although we didn't um add any cash subsidy, we did provide some help by waiving the developer fee so that the developer can get more uh fee, uh developer fee, or we did provide some pass through grants from Med Council or D.

So the the lesson here is that um the deeper and longer the affordability, the more subsidy the project needs.

So again, uh reason for this additional tool we are proposing.

Um we think that having driving downtown benefits all communities in our city, uh successfully converting empty office space into housing opportunities, downtown benefits tax base long term and increases population and economic activity.

And this uh would encourage affordable housing projects downtown without offering direct cash subsidies or taking away opportunities for other communities.

The proposed amendment would be in place for the 2026-2027 QAP and reviewed again in 2027.

Now, let's talk specifically about the proposed language uh we are discussing here.

This is the current language in our QAP that essentially requires owner of housing tax credit projects to waive their qualified contract rights and have units affordable for 30 year minimum.

The proposed language will be.

And I'm sorry, uh Director Ventagna, just to go back to the previous slide.

Can you verify again how long has this current language been in place?

I uh Chair Johnson uh commissioners I can check on that, but I from what I can remember, um, it's been maybe for 10 years or less.

But I I can check to be more specific.

Okay, and so just yeah, I think it would be really um it's pertinent to know just how long this would have been a decision made by a previous HRA board body um to have this reflected in our QAP and while it's updated every two years and process, this particular language has been in place for almost a decade.

That's my assumption.

Okay, yeah, when it'll be nice to know like just the kind of how long it's been in place as a follow-up.

Okay.

So uh the proposal the proposed language uh makes an exception for sample projects only uh for office to housing conversion projects located in downtown St.

Paul and uh projects owners are not required to waive uh their qualified contract rights.

This will give an incentive to developers to attract more housing investment in sample.

Again, the benefits um this is a cost-effective tool that will provide easy access to private capital and does not take away uh resources from other programs and projects.

Uh this policy adjustment, if approved can be implemented right away, and will generate more affordable housing.

Overall, this would help reset uh downtown as the economic engine for the city uh by uh it will reduce fiscal stress on city residents and homeowners.

Um it would spur economic growth, cultural vibrancy, social infrastructure infrastructure, and job creation.

adjustment if approved can be implemented right away and will generate more affordable housing overall this would help reset uh downtown as the economic engine for the city uh by uh it will reduce fiscal stress on city residents and homeowners um and it will spur economic growth cultural vibrancy social infrastructure infrastructure and job creation now the second uh uh the second amendment we are proposing is uh uh the the the the current language uh uh it shows the amount of volume cap issued must be at the minimum minimum of 50 percent and up to a maximum 53 percent of the aggregate basis and we are proposing to uh this need the language here needs to reflect the language of the new tax law that lowers the minimum amount from 50 percent of the basis to 25 percent of the basis after January 1st 2026 and finally we are also proposing to amend our 4% uh scorecard um essentially um these criteria uh this criterion by creation and preservation uh we uh was only talking about new construction we are adding downtown office to housing conversion to affirm the priority given to downtown projects uh that create affordable housing from office building conversion and it's pretty much the same year uh we're adding this priority to prioritize office to housing conversion for projects downtown finally this is the list of downtown just want to show you the list of affordable housing uh projects uh in downtown as you can see we have um roughly 2000 units affordable downtown uh which represents um about 20 to 25 percent of all units downtown currently as a follow up director and tarna could you share so from this slide this is current uh affordable housing downtown of these downtown affordable housing units or properties do you recall like of these projects which ones have used LITEC or would be currently under the 30 year requirements uh Chair Johnson Commissioners I can look into this but I believe most of these projects share at least a 30 year um uh um affordable uh period and this would this requirement impact these units at all um or would it be just new and moving forward Chair Johnson Commissioners this will not impact these uh developments that would only impact new housing uh I mean office to housing conversion projects okay would it be possible to also know then the expiration timelines for those that are on the 30 year the 30 year clock I'm just curious as to where they are on that year with that waiver that um 30 year time frame and just wondering how much of the current downtown affordable housing stock we would have rolling up within that 2045 time frame Chair Johnson Commissioners a lot of these projects actually are no longer on the period of affordability however because from the beginning we had some cash subsidies so we use that as a leverage to extend the affordability of most of these developments okay so it would be helpful to I think get a glimpse of just like we've done some of the downtown units it would be helpful to know like of these units you know this is uh how many of them do or don't have um any sort of requirement to stay affordable Commissioner Naker thanks Chair Johnson um a couple of questions for you Mr I always say it wrong I'm so sorry Jules Atangana correct um so first of all I think it's uh this is something that I think is weighing on all of us because this is a council of NHRA that prioritizes affordable housing and so I think one of the questions that I I think is really important to address is what would be the impact of this change on the amount of affordable housing in the city of St.

Paul that we would be able to create citywide does that does it increase decrease or stay the same if we were to make this change to the QAP Chair Johnson Commissioners that will actually increase the amount of affordable housing this was this will encourage this change will encourage developers to build affordable housing to add affordable housing downtown and swallow um my understanding also is that it would allow us to use more of our city dollars to subsidize affordable housing projects outside of downtown so downtown development would be relying on federal dollars we could then put our dollars into projects outside of downtown in in other wards Chair Johnson Commissioners that's right we'll use our federal dollars that are currently dwindling to continue uh subsidizing other projects outside of downtown and then lastly chair I'm I looking at the slide that Chair Johnson talked about the other cities that are trying to create new tools to incentivize development in their downtown you mentioned the size the 150 million dollars that Chicago has invested 75% property tax break in Boston I have no idea what the magnitude of those investments are but um my my guess is that they're of a magnitude that we we could never hope to achieve with our own dollars.

And then lastly Chair I I looking at the slide that Chair Johnson talked about the other cities that are trying to create new tools to incentivize development in their downtown you mentioned the size the 150 million dollars that Chicago has invested 75% property tax break in Boston I have no idea what the magnitude of those investments are but my my guess is that they're of a magnitude that we we could never hope to achieve with our own dollars.

And I guess what I'm what I'm trying to understand is what are the other options that we've that we've looked at to make that kind of subsidy um the understanding that I have from the developers that I've spoken to is that um even the five million dollars that we're proposing in our budget for this coming year is a small fraction of the amount it would take to subsidize even one project and and even a market rate project because downtown projects are requiring even market rate subsidy.

So I guess it it feels to me like this is a creative approach to in a situation where we don't have those dollars that those other cities have and where we're really falling behind in those incentives but I want to make sure I'm understanding the other options that we've looked at.

Chair Johnson Commissioners uh well when we do this policy analysis we look at the whole continuum of affordable housing we looked at we look at the impact of uh on homeowners for example if we our tax base is dwindling especially downtown so we know that this also impacts our homeowners and other renters because someone has to pay for that for other services so we think that this is the best solution we currently have versus adding I mean to to to collect more revenue to uh to fund affordable housing as in the whole city um yeah and I I appreciate that director and tagna I do disagree um in part because you know one of the things that I will share one some of my concerns about this particular piece really come to the actual scorecard changes and the process on the back end we just went through the process of approving um light tech funding for the Aragon and this so can you just can you talk a little bit about the process that would happen in place if this was put in place from like how we would actually then you know if a project is coming forward with the changes that are proposed including the language that essentially I I think gives an advantage to downtown projects on the scoring metric of like how that actually ends up being in practice so you have applications and if they activate the downtown core if they will um let's see what else yeah activate the downtown core or provide uh downtown office to housing conversions they'll be allocated additional um 20 points I think collectively in the language that's there and as we've seen with the scoring the project with even three points more will get the funding so I'm just curious as to how um whether it's a 30 year affordable project that's not downtown or a 15 year one that is can you just help me understand so applications come in there's a downtown project um with this proposed language that gives the 20 point advantage pretty much over any other project throughout the city um could you just share a little bit how that Chair Johnson Commissioners I yeah I can well first of all we we we as you notice we just awarded um allocated tax credits to the Oregon project this project wouldn't be impacted because it's different process this is a 9% tax credit what we are talking about here is the 4% and this is not competitive this they just need to meet a threshold to be allowed to get our volume cap.

So two these are two different paths so the 9% is very competitive we do an RFP every year for this project there's no RFP people submit the application and their scorecard if they meet the 40 point threshold then they will be allowed to uh have access to our volume cap and tax credits right so from the process standpoint just kind of going to the process itself can you talk a little bit about how some of these changes would impact that downtown project now that would be getting this um would be adding the scoring to these metrics that they would not normally get if this change was not put in place.

Now the law, according to new law, it's only 25%.

So we have this extra capacity that allows us to build more affordable units.

We want to use that capacity, uh extra capacity to create affordable units, including downtown.

So really there is no change in process.

Okay.

And I think one of the things that I will just share, and I'll go to Commissioner Neaker.

Um I am really for uh you know creative solutions when it comes to addressing our downtown um issues, especially surrounding development and being able to see it move in our city.

What concerns me is when we have creative solutions that one have never been tried in any place else around the country, two that there really truly has not been a lot of data that suggests that this particular LITEC funding source would be the one to change.

And in addition, continues to put us in a space where we're doing actually quite not only the opposite of what our neighboring uh city is doing, but actually not even something that is currently being discussed at the city of Minneapolis when it comes to changing the QAP.

And because the HRA cannot change the QAP, we actually have to go to the Minneapolis and St.

Paul Housing Finance Board to explain why we we would be doing this, including having council members from both cities weigh in on a final solution that doesn't, you know, that I would share.

Part of my concern is that it, you know, depending on how the vote goes, it's fine.

But I think going into this discussion and its space, we would assume that if we're trying creative solutions that we have them in the hopes that they would not only work, but that there's actually proof that this could be helpful and beneficial to future projects.

And it seems like there's not like a pipeline of projects waiting to utilize this change.

But it also concerns me that we're using LITEC to do that.

I've seen a lot of creative ways that folks are addressing development downtown across the nation and LITEC funding or the QAP has not been where they started.

And I'm just curious as to you know why we decided to start at the low the low income housing tax credits pieces.

Like why was that the first option that we're seeing in front of us to spur some of the development around affordable housing downtown?

Because we are talking about affordable housing development, but we're also talking about the change from 30 to 15 years.

So the difference between it being 2060 for any projects that we put forward and 2045 for projects that may or may not be wanting to be affordable right now, but are choosing to be affordable because this option would be in place that could potentially roll off in 15 years.

So that question was why did you start with the low-income housing tax credits piece?

Uh Church Johnson Commissioners, well, I just have to say that we don't, we are not we are still compliant with the IRS requirements when it comes to affordability.

The minimum is 15 years, we are still compliant.

So it's not like we are asking for a waiver from the IRS.

No, we are still compliant.

That's and then why do we are we starting with this?

I believe we um are putting, well, the request is to add five million dollars.

Would that be enough?

I don't believe so.

So we are putting in, we are adding another tool so people can have, I mean, developers can have a variety of tools to use when it comes to building affordable housing downtown.

And if uh I guess if you look at this table, um, you would see that most of the sources we use to uh um to subsidize affordable housing are federal sources, APA.

We don't we no longer have access to ARPA.

We also use uh temporary TIFF, which we don't have anymore.

Uh we use pool TIFF dwingling, um home uh and sometimes CDBG that we are not sure we're gonna even receive that money to subsidize affordable housing.

So we have to create new revenue, and this tool gives us the and downtown as well, just the geographic location gives us the opportunity to create more revenue to help affordable housing uh for the whole city.

I appreciate that.

Um I will just say I don't personally think there's any problem with going above what the feds are asking us to do, especially at this particular time.

When we think about the IRS and our compliance, seems like we've been in compliance since the inception of this program in that regard, but for some reason this body made a decision to make commitment for a 30-year waiver and not a 15-year waiver.

And so I just haven't seen or heard anything that would warrant us to go back, literally to cut that that prior commitment in half.

Um, and so I appreciate that.

Um, in many ways, in some cases, I kind of chuckle, but um, I I don't look to the federal government, especially not at this time to decipher how affordable housing development should be for the rest of the country, but let alone in their city.

And so I actually have been really grateful to see the 30-year waiver uh that's in alliance with the city of Minneapolis and their practice as well.

And I'm not understanding, you know, why I guess our city is jumping out in front of that, being that there's been no action of this nature and either amendment.

No rush to come into compliance with the new federal um decisions, no rush to change the QAP guidelines and any capacity from our neighboring city as well.

Um, and so it just seems a little, it seems a little premature, and I did share that with you also.

I'm sure it's nothing new that you haven't heard, but um, it is a concern that I have, and um just want to note that if folks haven't had a chance to really dive into it, we did receive other letters as well from the St.

Paul Area Chamber, Housing Justice Center, and Homeline.

And I did take a time to read through those as well, and I would I would say that there's some questions that have come up in some of those discussions that I hope staff are paying attention to because of the time, and we have another presentation.

I'll hand to Commissioner Naker and stay on this topic, but I won't do the full like, you know, I was definitely going to allow some just further context from those that provide it letters.

This is an ongoing conversation, but it's one that I'm actually really disappointed to see.

And I expressed some of my concerns uh a few weeks ago uh about this, because I think that one of the important parts of bringing forth solutions such as these is that they should have consensus amongst this body.

Um, and you know, as the HRA chair and this space, I think development is really important and how we spur it.

I also think the funding sources that we utilize to do that matter.

And I'm slightly uncomfortable with the fact that we are starting with uh a funding source that's supposed to work towards affordable housing for low-income community members and saying that 15 years is enough when we haven't said that in almost a decade.

So whether it's downtown or it's not downtown, that's really truly what this decision would be making.

Um Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair Johnson.

I appreciate your comments, and I know we disagree on this.

I um and it but I think this is an important discussion to be having.

Um, and I I hear you saying, you know, this is new and other cities aren't doing this, and I think that that is that is true and that is fair.

At the same time, that's what that's what innovation means.

And sometimes when we're doing something creative and something new, um, we are leading on it, not without data that it will work, but we might be we might be the first ones to do it.

And I think that that's okay.

I think in these circumstances, especially given what we're seeing at the federal level in terms of investment in affordable housing and at the city level, we may need um we may need to do some things that are that are new that we have evidence will work.

Um, I think one point you brought up earlier that I want to come back to though, that's really important, and I don't want it to get lost in this conversation.

Um the the tax credits, the the QAP for 4% tax credits is is not competitive.

But the fact that we make developers keep their properties affordable for 30 years rather than 15 years, which is the federal requirement, that requires us to put in more subsidy.

That's why all of those affordable housing projects have had those additional subsidies that we just heard about.

We only have a certain amount of money to put in to subsidize affordable housing citywide.

So given the costs of development downtown right now, we can either take a huge proportion of the limited public dollars we have and put them into affordable housing downtown, or we can let downtown projects have the 15-year minimum and only use federal dollars, and then we can use all of our limited public dollars to subsidize affordable housing throughout the rest of the city, which is which is why this would lead to more affordable housing, because we would be able to put our subsidy into more projects leaving downtown to be subsidized just by the federal level.

So I'm someone who's advocated for actually 45 and 50 years of affordability on projects in my ward.

I completely understand the impulse to do it.

Um, but I'm also really concerned about the amount of affordable housing we have and how we're using our really limited um dollars.

So I think this is a solution to that problem.

And I know we are not voting right now.

Did you have a question, Commissioner Bowie?

Are you good?

I'm good, thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Um yeah, Commissioner Ner Yang.

Commissioner Yang.

Well, I've got to say I'm walking away from this meeting with more questions than I thought I would have.

Um I um yeah, I did take a look at the letters from the the two organizations that sent them in.

And I'm just I'm just wondering like, is it can you explain this so that I can understand it a bit more?

Is it if we want more development in downtown, and let's say you know, there was interest in keeping the 30 years of affordability.

Why not just adjust this to the scorecard so that we give higher points for the development happening in downtown?

Is that an option?

Maybe um there's if there's something I'm not understanding, then if you do that for that.

Yeah, that that's an option.

However, we need also to consider adding subsidies, cash subsidies on these projects.

Money that we currently don't have.

But we also want to create uh if vibrant downtown that actually uh expand our tax base.

The other option would be to use TIFF, but that takes 26 years to start collecting money with TIFF, right?

Versus these we only have 15 years, although they will be paying some property taxes that can help the whole city, and after 15 years, they will be paying their full property taxes.

So yeah.

And then just a follow-up question upon approval of the QAP amendment in front of us.

How many how many units of affordable housing do you are you confident that we would be able to produce for next year?

Chair Johnson Commissioners, uh, well, I can't predict the future, but I feel like we may be able to do maybe two or maybe three projects with these new tools, but think of the impact of each project in the area.

Maybe small, one project, but sure think about the impact on the area, like attracting more people, bringing more families downtown and proving safety and security and safety issues, dealing with safety issues.

Thank you.

Yeah, those are good questions.

Um, I know that we're we're gonna be voting on this matter on the fifth.

Um, I just want to make sure that all of the things that um folks that are in some of the consideration phases, like I know a lot of us are.

Um, you know, we have a downtown development strategy that are is being proposed in this year's budget for 2026.

Will this be covered at all in that downtown development strategy as far as like possible and evasive solutions to address the need for investments in downtown?

Is that a part of the scope?

Chair Johnson, uh commissioners, I believe this is like a comprehensive set of tools that we are putting together to help uh uh revive our downtown.

And I don't know, maybe Dr.

McMahon, you have something to say about the downtown development strategy.

I'm not really familiar with that, but yeah, Chair Johnson Commissioners, that's something I'd have to look more into and get back to you.

Okay, because I know that you know it's the 2050 comp plan is up for an update as well as develop the downtown development strategy.

Um we have also an economic development strategy that I know that we've invested in this year, and so we're spending a lot of money on data collection.

I really really would love for us to use that to guide some of these decisions and times when we feel that we want to be creative and innovative.

Um, because to me, data is really important and it drives a lot of our decisions, and it's one of the reasons why I think uh, you know, I'll be voting against this next week um two weeks because we have a fifth Wednesday.

I don't think it's founded really in proven data, and that's something that I really value.

Um separately, I think some of the investments that we're taking will be really important to see um a chance to actually respond to the findings and a chance to really trust the expertise that we're enlisting and spending six figures on to understand how to address our issue and rely on community to really guide us and what they're saying that they need.

Um, if the issues really are around subsidies and financing and trying to find avenues to make it better to develop um to make it more affordable to develop downtown, uh, you know, to me that the kind of goal of LITEC is to provide that affordable housing piece.

And I hear you on the subsidy uh quest, but I'd rather, you know, find continue to try to find resources to ensure that it's affordable for a length of time for someone's uh you know, full childhood.

15 years is not is not that.

And I think that's part of the reason why we made the decision years ago to go beyond the expectations of the federal government, go beyond the um requirements of the IRS in order to ensure that affordable housing maintains here in the city of St.

Paul.

And I don't know if we've really started to look at, and something that I'll set the tone for for our housing policy study as well.

We really need to check in on our housing stock and our affordable housing stock that we have here in the city.

We've made several policy changes over the last year and a half that have been to incentivize development.

But the question remains of just again, how many of the affordable housing units that we have downtown currently will remain affordable housing units?

How many of the new affordable housing units that we are investing in will actually remain?

Because affordable housing downtown looks different than affordable housing and other places across the city, depending on the percentage of AMI that we're looking at.

And so I just I don't know.

I um I think it's you know the votes will be where they land, though it will be without my support.

Please take the time to hear from some of the studies that we are taking uh effort and investing in here at the city to do because I think it's supposed to lead some of this work and inform them so that way we are pretty confident in the choices that we're making.

This seems a little bit like a guess.

Um yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number four, staff before 25-25 PED budget update transfers detail.

All right, so this is a follow-up conversation regarding the budget.

Uh there was a presentation slide given if you remember by Director Newton to her like last her last uh HRA meeting with us a while back that had a long list of uh HRA uh transfers that we have done and things and um there's a piece that just talks about the HRA operations in general fund transfers out.

A part of that follow-up was to get more information for council members just to know and commissioners to know just what they went towards.

There's actually a lot of cool and fun things in here.

Um, but I did ask for uh director new uh director McMahon and deputy director Newton, I'm sorry, Green, to be here to be able to give just a little bit of what we saw.

You would have potentially received a memo if you haven't, it's attached to the uh HRA agenda for today, so you all have that, but this goes through them uh together, and I know that we have about 10 minutes or so, but I would like to give folks a chance to take a break from meetings for five minutes.

Um, but I think it's really important, and I did want to give some time to it.

So I'll hand it over to Deputy Director Green.

Good afternoon, Chair Johnson Commissioners.

Great to be with you again.

Uh, and yes, we are just uh reviewing the responses that uh we received, and so I just want to acknowledge and thank our colleagues over at uh OFS for their leadership and support and uh digging uh through some of the questions and working with our uh other departments to provide responses.

So um overall, I don't think I the with the previous slide that we showed you all is about two million um on an annual basis, 1.9 something like that, uh, in transfers out of PED uh operations and special fund budgets uh that go to other departments.

A little hard.

You can't hear me.

Yeah, there we go.

There you go.

I'm like, are my earrings cute?

They are cute.

There we go.

Thank you.

Um so we are that's better.

Okay, there you go.

Um, so we are uh reviewing uh the questions that you all have asked uh about uh specifically about what is being done or how the uh funds that are transferred uh have historically either historically been utilized uh or there may be some statements in here about um uh that speak generally to um potential plans for how they could be utilized going forward.

So um just starting off, the uh city council policy analyst um funding overview is about 84,000 that comes from uh our HRA operations fund, and uh that is going to uh direct um support for uh FTE um presence and um those contributions um help support uh your salaries as well.

Um questions on this particular one.

Great, and then we have about 18,000 uh that is going to district council support, and um we don't actually know uh the origin of this transfer and and how uh how we decided the amount um but the amount that currently goes to district councils from the general fund is about 1.2 million.

This is a very small portion that comes out of HRA operations in our minority business development review.

Uh this transfer to HRA um from HRA to uh HREO support staff that administer our um in the MBDR program um and includes some of our um minority supportive um uh supplier diversity initiatives so they would they would be looking at staffing reductions without this uh half million dollar transfer and then our parks right track transfers um those are also from the operations fund and um that's 191,000 uh and that goes to the current supervisor and some summer job coaches um as well as 800 use annually and so uh they would uh be without their supervisor without the funding um or uh an alternative funding source um and uh without the match that's required um for our partner funding from deed.

And that goes to the current supervisor and some summer job coaches, as well as 800 use annually, and so uh they would uh be without their supervisor without the funding or uh an alternative funding source and uh without the match that's required um for our partner funding from deed.

Any questions on that one?

I think this is the last one from the operations fund.

Uh 156,000 um for right track, and this is their fair housing coordinator.

Um, and that's it supporting um our housing objectives and uh tenant protections ordinance uh implementation as well.

Uh deputy director green, just to clarify, I think this is OFE, right?

The fair housing coordinator, yes.

Okay, and then um how long have we been funding though the fair housing coordinator?

That is a very good question.

Um I'm not sure.

Oh yeah, I'm I'm not sure, but we will get that information.

Okay, I think it's been since its inception, but I I'd appreciate just kind of knowing that um as we head into more like futuristic conversations around uh something that's come up in council budget conversations have been the cost of doing business.

This is one position that I think the HRA has historically funded since it became a position, and it's a city office of financial empowerment uh department position.

Understood, that's fair.

Absolutely, we can check on that.

Okay, thank you.

And so um the rest of the that's not true.

This next set of transfers is from our parking fund.

Um, and the 500,000 uh is intentional intended for um support for our river center parking rent.

And uh we initially did this um in 2015, but those transfers, that transfer of a of half a million has not occurred since 2019.

Um, and that was I I think as a result of uh pandemic and some other decisions, and so we haven't actually made the transfer, the uh the half a million um allocation has remained in the parking fund.

Questions on that one?

When you say remained and so essentially this money hasn't been utilized at all since 2019 in any way.

Yes, so um my understanding uh as our transfers this body is approving the proposed budget that includes the transfers, um and then the transfer occurs if those expenses right are incurred, uh, and then OFS uh works with our team to ensure that they pull that money out of PED budget, they have not pulled this out.

Okay, and then from just the technical what this means piece if next year the budget is proposed and adopted without this contribution as marked, it just remains in the parking fund, and it's just not for that purpose.

Right.

This the same would happen.

We would not have the capacity, however, to support um the work that is needed at the at the river center.

So those decisions apparently have been tabled or have been reserved and wanting to make sure our funds are stable.

So and there could be other reasons behind that too that I'm not privy to, but we have not uh over the past um several years, six years not drawn down on those funds.

We've held them in held them in in the trust fund in the parking fund.

Thank you, Commissioner Maker.

Chair Johnson, I just I want to thank you for your leadership in asking these questions and having a presentation on the subject.

Um, I think transfers out of the HRA parking fund may not be the most exciting agenda item ever, but it's this kind of question that you've asked that's raised an important half a million dollars that had been recorded as being transferred out of the parking fund year over year over year, but actually has not been transferred and could have been used for another use and can be used for another use in the year ahead, as you're pointing out, Deputy Director, that would have consequences.

But um, I just want to thank you for asking these questions because I think it's really gonna help us make some strategic decisions in this year's budget.

Thank you, Commissioner Maker.

Thank you.

I agree.

Great opportunity, Learn here.

Um 345,000 um out of the parking fund.

Uh this uh also originated at the same time and it references the work that we do with our parking meter system, and uh so this maximizes our supply, turning over our street parking, and encouraging ramp and lot use.

So this transfer also has not been made in recent years, but will be required in 2025 due to our general fund uh cash position.

So we will make the transfer this year.

Questions on that?

And then our operations transfers out.

The amounts transferred from PED to the mayor's office and OFS support capacity across across departments and intergovernmental strategy and policy alignment.

So again, ensuring that all of the funding available to the city is considered in terms of how we support the city and leadership and it's aligns with our priorities and our strategies.

So 75,000 goes to a policy analyst position.

And that was focused on transit-oriented development, regional coordination.

So our gold line, our reverie corridor policy historically.

And the another area of support for policy and analysis is 30,000.

And this works to uh advancing equity across the city, our inclusion and affordability goals, and aligning with local local development community groups.

The 40,000 was previously supported in the intergovernmental strategy, and currently supports legislative items.

So our intergovernmental work, uh, the work we do with the Friday morning, whoever's attending those meetings, that action.

And I think that's it.

Oh small amount for executive alignment on the mayor's.

So I don't know if all departments contribute some portion of their budget to that executive alignment.

But I see the transfers out of our department.

Okay.

Yeah, no, this was another one that was very like, I mean, it was actually kind of interesting and most thorough because I don't think I've seen positions piecemealed like that, or like kind of broken apart in that way financing.

So I think it would be really helpful to know if that's something that like, yeah, if every department contributes a little bit of this of this bucket.

Um, I know that some of the just for awareness on some of the transfers, if you do have additional questions on the transfers out, you're more than welcome to let us know.

Um, but you're also able now to especially with the departments in hand, departments were able to provide this overview.

So PED staff receive this information from other directors, and so you now know like the departments that you can reach out to if you have a question around this in particular.

And then also just uh in regards to some of the additional things we talked about, like the parking fund transfers and then the PED operations transfers.

I do have a couple questions about them, and we'll follow up with you all accordingly as it relates to it.

But you've seen uh at this point in time being able to talk with you all about the HRE budget has been helpful.

Um, and then in addition for future conversations regarding the HRA budget, uh you can we can kind of talk through any recommendations that you may have if some of these are um of interest or you have questions about them or you need further clarification.

Some of them we've been doing for years.

The origin isn't necessarily known why, but it's just something that happens every year.

Um and then some of them are positions and some of them are more important in the sense of clearly there'll be impacts to some of these.

So I'm not talking or suggesting about you know discontinuing some of them.

It's more of for information and if they're things that you want to see or need more clarification on.

It is not the most sexiest thing on the agenda, but it is really actually important.

It's two million dollars of HRA funding in one way, shape, or the other that gets transferred out to support other things that are not PED or HRA related.

And I would say uh another line item uh that is strolled throughout our budget is central services, and so we want to make sure that we're supporting um you know all the work because all the work impacts our work as well.

So central services line items are also um supporting um of other departments, and so I would just encourage the body to um look at those line items too, and just understanding kind of the mechanics of budget.

Maybe all of these could move to something like central services.

Um we would still need to be our contribution to the whole.

So it's just comment, it's a comment.

Thank you for your leadership, Chair Johnson.

I also um appreciate this because I know I have monthly meetings with PED's team, particularly around um, you know, programs and what are um services and what are some like innovative approaches.

Um, one of the things that I don't see on here, um, but it probably hasn't been talked about um publicly, is that uh, what is that channel between or that pipeline between HRA and helping um DSI, particularly around our bacon building program?

And is there some tools that can come or some services that could come out of um HRA to help, you know, um help some of these buildings, uh, residents who are in these bacon building programs, um, but you know, don't have those resources.

So I do appreciate you bringing uh a light to how um HRA does help or PED does help other departments, um, and that's something that I'm interested in, particularly with um DSI and HRE.

So thank you.

No, I appreciate that point as well, uh, Commissioner Bowie.

Okay.