The St. Paul City Council convened for its first meeting of November to address three primary agenda items: adopting the October HRA meeting minutes, considering amendments to the 2026-2027 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for downtown housing development, and approving a covenant release followed by a staff report on the Ramsey Hill Apartments loan extension. While the consent calendar items were unanimously approved, the QAP amendment sparked significant debate regarding the reduction of long-term affordability requirements in the downtown district, resulting in a 5-2 vote in favor of the resolution.
Amendments to the 2026-2027 QAP (Item #2):
Ramsey Hill Apartments Staff Report (Item #4):
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.