Authority to order roll call, please.

Coleman.

Johnson.

Here.

Joes.

Kim.

Here.

Maker.

Yang.

Seven present.

None absent.

Approval of minutes.

Item number one.

Minutes twenty-five-forty-five.

Approval of the October twenty twenty-five HRA meeting minutes.

Um I will take a motion from Commissioner Yang to approve.

All those in favor.

All opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The minutes are approved.

Discussion.

Item number two.

Resolution twenty-five-seventeen oh six.

Resolution endorsing amendments to the Minneapolis Saint Paul Housing Finance Boards twenty twenty-six, twenty twenty-seven qualified allocation plan citywide.

All right, we were sitting the staff report on this item last week.

Um last week or is it two weeks?

That's two weeks ago now because we had a fifth Wednesday.

Um I know that there's been a lot of conversations.

Um especially surrounding this item for our all of our officers.

I will hand it over to Director McMahon to see if there's anything further you'd like to add.

Yeah, just building off that the discussion amongst yourselves and staff report from last week that this proposal includes changes to the qualified allocation plan, and that the changes are really to allow for that increased capacity to support additional housing development in the city.

So these changes also recognize that the post-COVID downtowns are facing unique challenges in financing the development of additional affordable housing in our downtown in particular.

So we're proposing to use the increased capacity for downtown projects with a 15-year minimum affordability requirement.

The changes would allow projects to move forward downtown that either otherwise wouldn't or may, but would otherwise require substantial additional public subsidy to move forward.

Just quick reminders this is only for the 4% credits.

The 9% credits are competitive, unlike the 4%, and the changes are only for the 2026-27 QAP, at which point it will be back before you again to review and discuss the impact and determine whether to continue with the change or make additional amendments and modifications.

Thank you, Director McMahon.

I'll take a motion from Commissioner Naker to approve any discussion.

I'll start with just saying I wanted to take a moment to just thank Rich Packenan and members of our planning economic development staff for bringing forward this solution and just taking the time to meet with us and to talk further about it.

Last two weeks ago, I did share some of my concerns with this body.

In part, there are two amendments, and I, you know, want to say I had a chance to read every letter that was submitted, read it in full for every organization, both depending on where they landed on the issue.

I reviewed the staff proposals, the staff reports fully.

And I think that even after doing that research and reviewing this amendment closely, I am not going to be able to support this proposed change today for downtown St.

Paul projects in particular.

Because I think public funding projects must provide the most consistent and dedicated levels of affordability and habitability.

They are public investments, and the public deserves to have a full return on that investment and not just short-term flexibilities for the purpose of more buildings.

And when we use public uses, we have a duty to ensure that those funds are creating and sustaining long-term affordability for people who need it the most.

This is just something that the language as it currently says has been in place for several years now, and it was a step that we took to fix a loophole that gave away um 15 years of LITEC affordability.

Reducing that affordability from 30 years to 15 years is in my view regressive, and I don't necessarily see rewards for being in alignment with the federal law at this time or the so-called big beautiful bill.

Especially when that alignment includes weakening the St.

Paul's long-standing commitment to affordability and tenant protections.

One of the mistakes I think that previous policymakers made in the past was not building for the future.

They were building for there now.

I think this amendment repeats that mistake.

And when we think about ways to really fund affordable housing, I asked for the staff to review on October 22nd, I believe, the data that was put in front of us on the affordable housing stock in downtown.

And the reason why I share we need to be building a downtown for the future.

I asked them specifically to talk about the affordability and to share both for LITEC and home funded projects, their anticipated roll-off date for their their affordability requirements.

One thing that I can't in good faith support is that several of the properties they came back with ended between 2035 and 2045.

The 15-year requirement for affordability in these two spaces will also do the same, to the point that most of the LITEC and home funded projects that we were able to get data for are currently making up the downtown affordable housing stock that will basically be expiring affordability around the same time.

I don't understand why this body would choose to and continue to be in a space where we no longer have affordable housing downtown in 2035, 2020, around the same time that we'd be looking at that time to our policymakers to fix the gap of affordability downtown when we can proactively try to prevent that by continuing our rolling basis affordability of 30 years that we have in place now.

Um I just really think that we should be thinking about who we're building our downtown for in many ways.

And to me, that includes affordable housing, but important most importantly, the proposals that is put in front of you and the and the amendment that is put in front of you around the 15-year, um, changing it from 30 years to 15 years of affordability would be the only of its kind in the country.

Other cities have not followed suit.

Other states have not followed suit.

So this would be something that the city of St.

Paul is taking up for the first time, and potentially could be a trend that begins in the country, which is also growingly concerning.

And so I will, like I said, not be able to support this today.

I understand the direction and I understand the intent.

You know, I learned a lot about the ham building project as well, uh, just around you know, things that I thought were important to acknowledge.

I was happy to hear about prevailing wage being paid on some of the project on a lot of the portfolio that Mr.

Packen has had in the past that's important to me.

Um I was excited to hear a lot more about who he what development he has.

It's just not enough to change a QAP that's in place to ensure that the city is taking multiple steps to try and ensure affordability for as long as possible.

So that's a little bit about my um spiel uh in it.

But I, you know, do want to say I encourage folks to continue to think of strategic solutions.

I'm a huge supporter of the downtown development strategy, the comp plan, but I'm growingly concerned about the fact that we are continuing to not address the fact that in 2035 to 2040 we are going to be losing a lot of our affordable housing stock here in St.

Paul.

And there doesn't seem to be a remedy, there doesn't seem to be a policy change.

There doesn't seem to be a plan to begin to address that now.

So my kids and their children can afford the housing that they're living in 20 years from now.

And I wish policymakers would have had that discussion 20 years ago.

So I will head it over to uh Commissioner Naker.

Thanks so much, Chair Johnson, and thank you for your thoughtfulness about this issue, on which I know we disagree, but I I always appreciate the conversations that we're able to have and the amount of due diligence and um and and true deliberation and consideration that you put into every issue that comes in front of you.

Um I as you pointed out, we've gotten a lot of correspondence about this.

Um I I want to speak in favor of the motion and also just sort of um oppose a couple of the claims that have been made in some of the letters that we've gotten, just to be really clear about what this is and what this isn't.

Um this is not a backdoor way to get rid of the 30-year affordability requirement citywide.

Um I think that claim was made in some letters that this is an attempt to try to create a slippery slope effect.

We have been more than clear that this applies only to downtown and only for the two-year period that Director McMahon just mentioned.

Um there's absolutely no intent to get rid of 30 years and actually more than 30 years, uh, which we often subsidize, which I've often supported in my ward for the rest of the city.

In fact, this actually expands our capacity to subsidize that housing.

This is also not a decrease in affordable housing, it's an increase in affordable housing.

Um, and it's doing it in a in a smart way.

So, what this is is a leveraging of federal resources to create affordable housing downtown where we wouldn't otherwise see it.

Uh, we are talking about projects that would otherwise be market rate, would otherwise be maybe not even housing at all.

And in this case, we are actually going to see them become affordable housing.

And we'll be directing city resources where they'll go the farthest rather than sinking our limited city dollars into extremely expensive downtown conversions.

We're going to be allowing those to spread beyond every other quarter of our city and use federal resources to get more affordable housing downtown than we would otherwise see.

And it's a smart way to incentivize development downtown, which we've all talked about wanting to do and make it affordable, and not use any city dollars, which again are very scarce.

And I just want to kind of reiterate this is an HRA that has proven itself time and time again to supporting affordable housing.

We are going to continue to do that.

We are doing that with this measure.

And so I think some of the um the letters and opposition that we've received, I think fail to recognize that that is a value that this HRA has consistently held.

Um, and and to your final point, Chair Johnson, I think it is really important to note that as those projects roll off of their required affordability periods, because I think that's a good point to think about the future state.

Um, we come forward with dollars to keep those affordable.

And we've seen that time and time again.

At this body, we've been presented with projects that we're about to roll off of affordability.

They come forward for additional investment, we make that investment, and then we can keep them affordable.

Being resourceful with our scarce public dollars in a way like this gives us more of those dollars to subsidize and keep other projects affordable into the future.

Um, so I am obviously in support of this uh motion.

And again, thanks so much, Chair Johnson, and to others for your consideration.

Thank you, Commissioner Eaker.

Commissioner Ying.

Thanks, Chair Johnson.

Well, first, before I make my comments, I do want to give a huge shout out to our housing director, Jules, who I know does a wonderful job always explaining to us um uh about how our housing work overall and what's in front of us.

I've had a couple of briefings with him already, and he's presented in front of us.

And so to be able to explain what we are even voting on in very plain and simple terms.

Um, I commend you for that, Jules.

And I want to say thank you for your work and also to extend that work to um all of our PED staff, our director McMahon U as well, because uh a few months ago when we were at this table, one of the asks that I did have was for our PED staff to continue sharing with us.

What are more tools that we can consider in our city here to build more development in our city?

And um, and you all you know have continued delivering on that.

I I know behind the scenes are continuing to have more discussions about that too.

Um what I do want to say first off is that I um I am supporting the two QAP amendments in front of us, um, and for many reasons.

I do want to echo what the council president has shared at the table here already.

But I uh first wanted to say that it isn't a decision that I make lightly at all.

Um I've heard many, many strong uh arguments from you, Chair Johnson, um also from the council president, and even you know, I when I think about um what is at top of mind for me, it really is acknowledging that downtown St.

Paul is a very challenging situation for all of us and also a very unique situation too.

And I want to be really clear that if this was if these QAP changes um were changes that would take place all throughout the city, I wouldn't be supportive of that.

But because we really are focusing on the changes to to downtown only, um that's one of the reasons why I support it.

But also in addition to that, um I you know I know that you all are hearing this too, where there's so many financial constraints on our residents right now, property tax property taxes, especially.

And what I am taking away from conversations with staff and also from from you all as colleagues too is that if we you know there are definitely there's a possibility that without changes like this, it would be harder for us to bring in development into downtown because of the high costs of doing the office to housing conversions, and I acknowledge that.

Um, and so uh if we didn't do this, probably we would be opting into TIF or considering that, and that's gonna have um uh a very negative impact on families, especially those who are already hurting the most financially in our communities.

And so I am supportive of this, and I would really urge for us a couple of years from now to really to um reflect and also um get some results back on uh if this approves what are some of the the impacts and the results of that, and hopefully um from a couple of years from now we'll be able to to hear good news about development, but also that even other tools on the table that we as a council have already approved, like the the um permit waivers for the office to housing conversions, that those are also utilized to um and I know right now they haven't been yet.

And so this is uh to me a vote that um that is just rooted in hope for me in downtown St.

Paul, and I hope we have a lot of good news to come after that.

Thank you, Commissioner Yates.

Commissioner Jose.

I'll just chair Joseph.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

I'll just I'll just say quick, I um Chair Johnson, I really appreciate um, just want to echo your thoughtfulness and um detail on this issue as we think about uh you know the future of housing downtown, and I really appreciate the concerns that you raised.

Uh and I I uh will be supporting this today, but I um I think that it's I'm glad that you highlighted those because I do think those, like council president Naker said, um, this is a body that um that values affordable housing, and I think that uh we can do these multiple things at the same time where we are finding ways to um to to creatively use our resources to invest in downtown, and we can look at what is affordability mean over the next 10 years for our residents downtown and outside of downtown.

And so I just really appreciate the collaboration and thoughtfulness from all my colleagues here at the table as we're talking about this really really complex issue.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Coleman.

Thank you, Chair Johnson, and thank you to everybody.

I I have so appreciated the conversations that have happened around these proposed amendments.

Um I will be voting in support of both as well.

And really so much of what I had written here has already been stated by other members of this body.

I I think the only a few things that I just want to maybe underscore.

I've appreciated that this conversation, despite disagreements, has centered on how do we achieve the goal of making our city more economically just and more affordable for every single person who lives here.

And I think that in order to do that, we have to constantly be thinking about how do we grow our tax base, how do we bring in the new development, how do we increase our housing stock, and how do we ensure that that housing stock is truly affordable for the folks in our community.

I think that those can feel occasionally like they are in competition with one another, but I think that with the types of changes that we are talking about here, it allows us to take thoughtful, tailored approaches.

Again, really just emphasizing that this is for a limited period of time in a very limited part of the city.

Um where we are making this change, where we know that there's just a really urgent need to build more housing and to engage in these very expensive projects that to underscore um what Commissioner Naker said have been subs required public subsidy even for entirely market rate apartments.

And one of the things that I have heard consistently from folks um throughout Word 4 is that they are they're very concerned about the use of public dollars to subsidize housing development, particularly market-wide housing development.

And so I think that having more tools in our toolbox to think about how we support the development and increase the stock of affordable housing is is critical.

It's an important step.

I have so appreciated PED's work on this and the conversations and just time that people have taken to make sure that I can take this vote in confidence that it will result in more affordable housing in our city, and in doing so will result in a more economically just city.

So I will be voting in support and just really wanted to appreciate the folks who have helped um bring this to this point.

Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

I just really, you know, want to just echo everything that was said.

I think it's really important that we all just have a chance to just really um share how we're approaching this.

Um, you know, for this vote, it was really simple to me, and thanks to the leadership of um the housing director, really, and also deputy director um McMahon um walking through just like what is the goal, what is the purpose um of this QAP.

Um, I honestly see it as an opportunity for us to be more innovative, and I know that was echoed by you, Council President, um, our last discussion, and it really gives us the opportunity to do things differently to truly activate affordable housing.

There's no one size um or one type of tool.

Um, and I think particularly, you know, as a ward-wine council member, I've heard overwhelmingly from my um constituents um the the city's over reliance on TIFF and the city's over-reliance on city subsidies to really build affordable housing, and I think to the extent that we can utilize this federal tax credit, um, really, you know, to incentivize building affordable housing, particularly for downtown that needs it the most.

Um, I think this is an opportunity for us to champion this.

Um, and I you know live right on the border of downtown.

So the future of downtown really is gonna be impactful um to all of us, and I think it really depends on our abilities to not only adapt but just really meet the moment and opportunity to try something differently.

Um, I would say one of the things that gave me ease with um taking this vote and be in support of this change is that it's just two years.

Two years we will we will review and we will have the results, we can see if it actually worked.

Um, and the worst case scenario, we built affordable housing.

You know, and but the worser case scenario we don't do anything and no affordable housing is built because we are currently in an economy right now that is very, very, very, very expensive to build affordable housing.

And we have seen time and time again developers come to our table asking for us to subsidize them, asking for us to close this gap.

And I think to the extent where we can utilize these federal tax um credits, you know, we should definitely be um leveraging those tools differently.

So I uh I do appreciate all the thoughtfulness to it.

Um I will be in support of both of those changes.

Um I have also have uh heard from my community members and also developers and people who have interest in building in Midway, they have knocked on the door and asked, well, how can we get a QAP for Midway?

How can we get a QAP for Rondo?

How can we get a QAP for the university corridor to actually jumpstart um affordable housing?

And I think you know we as policymakers, we can create what those conditions are.

Um, but right now what's most important is like we need to create an incentive.

And the incentive is in this isn't we're not choosing the developer, and I do appreciate you know having the the chance to talk with um Rich Pack um and learning about the HAMS um site and also learning about all the other development.

But this vote isn't about this is this vote isn't to pick that developer.

This vote isn't to even pick who's going to be building downtown.

This vote is about making sure it's competitive and we're actually attracting the um investment and people coming to the city, really you know, seeing that we're putting our best foot forward to make sure that they have what they need to actually afford to build affordable housing.

Alrighty, seeing no other hands, uh Commissioner Naker moved the approval of the item.

All those in favor.

Well, we probably should do a roll call vote since it'll be different.

Commissioner Bowie, yes.

Commissioner Coleman, yes, Commissioner Jost.

Yes, Commissioner Kim.

Commissioner Naker.

Aye.

Commissioner Yang.

Aye.

Chair Johnson.

No.

Five in favor, two opposed, that being Chair Johnson and Commissioner Kim.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number three, resolution 25-1709.

Authorization to release the 4D affordable housing incentive program covenant on 1048 Central Avenue West St.

Paul.

All right.

So this is an item that's in front of us that we received a staff report on.

Director McMahon, is there anything to add?

Yep, it's just again as a reminder from the staff report that under a 4D program to help maintain naturally occurring affordable housing on our property in our city.

Properties in the program receive the tax benefit, and they must sign a declaration of restrictive covenants when doing so.

1048 Central Avenues requested a release of this restrictive covenant from the program in order to have clear title to proceed with the sale to St.

Peter Clavier Church, which has plans to expand their programming and offer early childhood programming in the community.

The property owner, also noting from the staff report, has other properties in the city and is committed to providing relocation to the tenant in another low-income or affordable unit.

We recommend approval of the actions as outlined in the staff report.

Thank you so much, Director McMahon.

I'll take a motion from uh Commissioner Bowie to approve.

Is there any discussion or questions?

Okay, seeing none, all those in favor.

I all opposed.

Seven in favor, none opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Staff report.

Item number four, staff report 25-222, introduction to Ramsey Hill Apartments, District 8, Ward 1.

I always love it when there is a staff member from the planning and economic development team who's about to deliver their first staff report.

Uh so welcome, Miss Lawson.

Um I'll hand it over to Dr.

McMahon and we'll do our water-only staff report for the day.

Yes, wonderful.

This is a loan extension request to maintain affordability while Trellis works to secure financing for rehabilitation and recapitalization.

With more details and explanation, we do have a new PED team member.

We're very excited to have Libby Logston, who will be going through more information for you.

Welcome, Miss Logson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Chair Johnson, Commissioners.

My name is Libby Logsden.

Um, as you've heard, I am a very recent member of uh PED's multifamily housing team.

Um I'm uh serve in the role of uh senior project manager.

And before I dive into content, I just want to um have the record reflect that um Danielle Sindelar, who uh recently um moved on from our department, did the majority of the work and um gets all the credit uh for all the work done um in uh this request.

Um so today um we will be discussing a request for um a community development block grant or CDBG loan extension for Ramsey Hill Apartments.

The purpose of this request, as um Director McMean stated, is to uh maintain portfolio affordability while developer Trellis Co.

Um secures additional financing for um rehabilitation of um these apartments.

So the current maturity date of the CDBG loan is um later this year, December 21st of 2025, and the request is to extend that maturity date until um December 15th of 2031.

The main um goal of that specific date is that um to align the maturity dates of the other debt that um the HRA has um on this property as well as to um well and um all other terms are proposed the same.

So it's um the request is an extension of the maturity date.

So some background on the developer, Trello's co um they have 34 years of experience in um nonprofit affordable housing space.

Um they act as developer, owner, and um property manager.

They're based in the metro.

Um the majority of their portfolio is also in the metro, um, but they do have um some work in Greater Min as well.

Um so Trellis Management Co has managed um Ramsey Hill Apartments since 1995, and in 2014, Trellis Co.

purchased or acquired um Ramsey Hill Apartments.

Um and as you can see, uh Trellis Co has a good um uh number of projects in St.

Paul overall, um, as you can see listed.

So Ramsey Hill Apartments in particular um is 54 affordable apartment units.

Um it's uh scattered site projects, so there are five different parcels with six different buildings between the 200 and 600 blocks of um Marshall and Dayton Avenues.

Um you can see there's um uh diversity in the unit mix, um, there's studios up to three bedrooms, all units are affordable at 50 to 60 percent AMI.

Um, lots of transit opportunities, um, really close to the Selby Dale commercial hub, um amenities for the um buildings in particular.

Um, there's a playground, on-site laundry, off-street parking, and storage lockers.

Here's a map.

You can see the the um dark blue outlines, the rectangles are where uh the specific buildings are located.

So currently the project has four Section 811 project rental assistance units.

The project was recently awarded six additional Section 811 project rental assistance or Project 811 PRA is how it's typically referred to.

The project was also recently awarded four housing support units and 13 St.

Paul Public Housing Authority project-based vouchers, and 12 of those are intended for family units, so two or more bedrooms.

So the current financing the HRA has on this property is the home loan that matures December 15th of 2031, and then the CDBG loan that this request is part of that matures December 21st of 2025.

So the CDBG loan is a combined mortgage with Minnesota Housing as well as Family Housing Fund.

Minnesota Housing is seeking this extension request from their mortgage credit committee mid-November, and Family Housing Fund has already received approval.

Oh, I'm sorry, am I not speaking into the microphone?

Received approval for this request.

So in the future state of this building, Trello School has proposed deeper affordability with more subsidies.

They were recently awarded $660,000 from the Ramsey County Housing Development Solicitation.

They have Bridgewater Bank signed up for their first mortgage.

They will find out in December if they are awarded funds through the 2025 Minnesota Housing RFP.

And part of that contingent upon the Minnesota Housing Award, the HRA has committed a deferred grant gap of up to 1.4 million dollars.

That's of course subject to underwriting and HRA approval and some future requests that are anticipated are interest forgiveness and rate reduction.

That could be late 2026 to early 2029.

And it does look like we have a minute.

I know we have we have Melinda Studer here from Cellis.

And she had a couple of remarks prepared on just adding a little bit of color around the future proposal, if you would like to come join me.

Welcome, Melinda.

Thank you.

Thank you, Libby.

Good afternoon, everyone.

And thank you so much for taking the time today to discuss Ramsey Hill.

And I wanted to just share a thank you to Councilmember Louis for supporting this measure and Libby for bringing this loan extension request forward today.

My name is Melinda Studer, and I work for Trellis Co.

As Libby mentioned, we are a nonprofit organization.

In partnership with our management company, Trellis Management Co., we own and manage more than 50 properties and 4500 units in Minnesota, including uh inclusive of Ramsey Hill's seven properties and 485 units in St.

Paul.

Um Ramsey Hill's six buildings were constructed between 1884 and 1929.

Uh so going on a hundred years for some of them, and they are beautiful examples of three different architectural styles that were present during that time.

Um this property, as Libby mentioned, has been in our management portfolio since the 90s when it last went through a significant renovation.

Um I think that Libby has done a great job of just sharing information about what our next steps are for Ramsey Hill, but I just wanted to really highlight that in order to preserve the affordability of this housing community, um, improve property operations, align with funder priorities, and address some very critical physical needs that the property has now.

Um we have taken a number of key steps to improve Ramsey Hill, and this loan extension is a critical next step in continuing this mission.

Um, this includes what Libby mentioned, the 13 project-based vouchers that were awarded uh by St.

Paul PHA earlier this year, which brings our rental assistance, project-based rental assistance at the property from four to 17 units out of the 54.

Um, as well as the City of St.

Paul's gap funding commitments for 1.4 million and the county's support of our renovation request.

So we are truly committed to increasing affordability at Ramsey Hill for the long run for residents.

While we certainly hope that the development project will be funded in full this year, the reality is that these funds are highly competitive, and there is such a high need, as we all know, in the city and in our state.

And so it can sometimes take multiple application rounds before it's possible to fund a development in full.

And so the extension of the HRA CDBG loan, along with Minnesota Housing's extension and family housing funds, uh, will create the opportunity for us to be able to continue this very important work and preserve Ramsey Hill and its affordable homes for decades to come.

So thank you again for your consideration of this request.

And thank you so much for being here as well and being able to talk to you know and add some, I would say add some color to the request.

We are familiar with the Ramsey Hill apartments because of um the actions that this body has taken, but it's always helpful to put a face behind the request as well.

So we appreciate you taking the time to be here.

Thank you.

So just to kind of circle back, um, the purpose of this request is really to um as Melinda shared um to maintain portfolio affordability as Trellis Cole continues to secure financing for the rehabilitation with the current loan maturing um in December of this year, December 21st, um, and the requested extension of uh December 15th of 2031.

Wonderful, and I believe that's followed by the question slide, which is why I wanted to let you finish.

Um, so Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

Um, thank you so much, Libby and Melody Melinda um for being here and just giving some context and clarity around this.

Um, I am supportive of um of this item and support of making sure that we have the extension so we can sustain affordability.

Um, I do have some questions, and I think also too, I'll just like save everyone the time so we can make sure that you know I can get some of the the details um finalized.

Um, but uh but you you conveyed it very well in terms of what the gist of this vote will be.

And it sounds like this is the staff and staff report and would um I guess I would look to Deputy Director Chair Johnson.

What is the next steps for this vote?

Yep.

So that the vote, so the previous slide, if you could go back, uh Miss Loxton.

Um the previous slide there will be a loan extension request that'll come to us next week for a vote.

Um, and so for the questions that you have, Commissioner Bowie, feel free to um to what it be for Libby and Director McMahon for the questions to make sure that we can get just the information that you need um and any clarifications that you need on the item.

I I'll look to you for your for your um uh motion of support next week.

And so um this extension maturity date would be basically from the end of this year, so 1221-2025.

The request is forward to be extended till 1215 of 2031.

And so um I will share that.

I hope that a lot of our SIGPO projects are a little bit more successful than those with the past uh MHFA uh requests.

Um there are a few requests last year, and so I'm rooting for every uh project that is seeking that additional funding because of how important it is, and yes, competitive, but for sure in nature, you know, it'll be very helpful to get some assistance from MHFA and doing some of these endeavors.

So want to make sure you get the information that you have, and then um Libby's uh contact is here too.

But feel free to CC us if you want, and we can help making sure that it gets to you before next week because this would be coming back for uh request for next week because there's a timing, right?

There's a timing piece to one of their approvals they are hoping to get in front of the board this month.

Yes, uh Minnesota Housing, or apologies, Chair Johnson Commissioners, um, Minnesota Housing plans to bring this request forward to their mortgage credit committee um mid-December and given the um presentation and then the action timeline.

Um we um thought that this timeline would be best to present um to work in um collaboration with Minnesota Housing and uh Minnesota Housing um will be leading the majority of the um the new or the updated like loan agreement um and those details um there are a couple of um items that our um staff are currently working on um to get prepared um after appropriate um within this process but yes um in November.

Okay, thank you.

So it's helpful to know the timeline.

Believe it or not, we have two remaining meetings in November.

So if anyone has any questions about that, um feel free to reach out and and Libby, thank you.

I hope it wasn't too intimidating for your first time on the staff report.

We only bite on Sundays.

I'm just kidding.

So it's I was expecting some harder questions.