OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

St. Paul HRA Board Discusses Corridor, DPA, ERA, and Downtown Funds - March 11, 2026

Budget Committee — Wednesday, March 11, 2026
BodySt Paul, Minnesota
SessionBudget Committee
DateWednesday, March 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:24:56

Transcript — Verbatim
3:17

Roll call, please.

3:20

Billy, here.

3:21

Coleman.

3:22

Here.

3:23

Joast.

3:24

Kim.

3:24

Here.

3:25

Naker.

3:26

Yang.

3:27

Here.

3:27

Chair Johnson.

3:29

Here.

3:29

Seven present, zero absent.

3:34

Item one number one for discussion is resolution RES twenty-six dash four oh five.

3:39

Approving the commercial corridor program guidelines citywide.

3:43

Wonderful.

3:43

Thank you so much.

3:45

Uh one of the things I wanted to just take a few uh seconds of privilege to say uh I'm really excited to be back with our body in person.

3:54

And uh thank you again to Vice Chair Joe's for your continued leadership and holding it down while I was gone.

4:01

Uh in addition, thank you all for participating in the next four items.

4:04

Uh, each of them are related to guideline changes that we've heard over programs and a series of programs that we've heard over the last couple of weeks.

4:11

Um I intentionally would like for today to be a discussion.

4:15

Several account uh commissioners have come to us with different questions.

4:19

Uh we really do appreciate your questions, your input, your thoughts.

4:24

So some of the different programs, such as the commercial corridor program guidelines have different scenarios, have things that have floated as ideas.

4:32

My intention is really to be able to have that discussion with you here and also to um entertain a lot of the different suggestions that are forward because I think this is a part of the process of getting something that we think is responsive to the guidelines that we were wanting to see here.

4:47

So um the commercial corridor program piece uh had several different scenarios.

4:53

I'm hoping that folks had a chance to review them, and I wanted to have a chance to um I did get a chance to check in with several of you on just some of the initial thoughts.

5:00

And I wanted to have a chance to um I did get a chance to check in with several of you on just some of the initial thoughts.

5:03

Um none of these were ones that were like here's the direct pathway forward, but they were some that came over uh in the last week to our office that suggested pathways forward.

5:13

Um I will share with you that I think um it's really important and significant to acknowledge that I that these funding sources overall, right?

5:23

We're not talking about a substantial uh one substantial amount of money going into any corridor.

5:29

We're often talking about scenarios that warrant corridors to have less than a hundred thousand dollars each uh to do what really needs to be done, which is investing in businesses and investing in entire communities in order to be able to once again go back to our original plan for this fund, which was to respond to the needs that we have now.

5:49

And so, with every single scenario, I don't think there's a bad scenario or one that I would argue is um detrimental to observing our city because all of them would do that in some way, shape, or form.

5:59

So I wanted to just open up the the scenario conversation because I also wanted count uh commissioners to be able to have a chance to talk about the ones that they felt strongly of.

6:09

I've had a chance to touch base with several different folks, and I'll just share um you know the index that we have uh that staff has provided, the index score that is scenario one.

6:20

Definitely something that I want to just acknowledge took a lot of time and effort to put forth, and so huge shout out to um to Director Lloyd and his team for really just taking their due diligence to come up with an index score, a formula that we thought worked well.

6:35

Um, some of the additional scenarios that came from of the other pieces, I will share in transparency.

6:41

Um something that I'm actually supportive of as well is the index score option, which has actually that in this case I hate the word removed, but actually does not um have us have a significant um change, it's $5,600 per each corridor.

6:58

But what it does is actually allow the corridors to address the needs of every other place besides the five million dollars that we are investing in downtown.

7:06

And so that's one that I thought that was really important to put through a scenario.

7:10

I also thought it was uh a good suggestion of alternative.

7:14

Um, but I wanted to have open conversations about all of them.

7:18

Several of them were brought forth around the ACP and the QCT.

7:21

Um, so I hope folks got a chance to to look at each of them to give their input and their guidance on them.

7:27

But I wanted to have the discussion, and I most likely want to hear feedback from those that are presented, and if there were scenarios that we just didn't get a chance to put through in time, but that commissioners wanted to see.

7:38

Um, so I'll start there and simply say that I think we have a path forward today.

7:44

Um I also think that again, none of those scenarios were I think submitted in bad faith.

7:51

I think all of them were submitted with equity in mind.

7:54

Um, I just think it's really important that we spread our dollar as much as we can.

7:58

And so looking at this, I uh don't have a strong preference.

8:02

So I wanted to see where the commissioners were because I think it's important that we have a majority.

8:09

Commissioner Bowie.

8:10

Thank you, Chair Johnson, and welcome back.

8:12

It's so thank you.

8:13

So glad to have you here um physically with us.

8:15

I was at the clarifying question.

8:17

You know, I definitely look forward to the discussion.

8:20

I know um we have I haven't had a chance to connect with all the commissioners, but I just have a clarifying question around the index total.

8:28

Um, there's some of the scenarios that include the total of the index, and there's other scenarios that does not.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Regulation██████████████████████████████30%
Community Engagement████████████████████████24%
Procedural███████████████████████23%
Economic Development████████████████16%
Homelessness████4%
Public Safety██2%
Budget Equity Analysis█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Housing & Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting - March 11, 2026

The Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Board of Commissioners met on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, City Hall. All seven commissioners were present. The board discussed four guideline amendments—three of which were laid over for two weeks—adopted one, received an update on the Familiar Families Pilot, and withdrew a staff report on LAHA funding. The meeting adjourned at 3:21 p.m.

Consent Calendar

  • No consent calendar items were listed.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No public comments were made or recorded.

Discussion Items

1. RES 26-405: Approving the Commercial Corridor Program Guidelines (Citywide)

  • Chair Johnson opened discussion on five funding allocation scenarios for the program, which invests in commercial corridors across the city. Scenarios varied by whether the downtown corridor would be included or removed and whether areas of concentrated poverty (ACP) or qualified census tracts (QCT) designations would be used.
  • Commissioner Noecker expressed opposition to removing any corridor, including downtown, arguing that downtown needs every possible investment given its impact on the city's tax base. She supported using the index score to allocate more to higher-need corridors but was flexible on ACP vs. QCT.
  • Commissioner Yang stated she was comfortable removing downtown for the current year due to the new $5 million Downtown Vitality Fund, and requested quarterly reports on corridor spending and downtown vitality fund expenditures.
  • Commissioner Jost supported keeping downtown in the program, noting that downtown generates significant property taxes and that the program is funded by sales taxes; she was hesitant to make major changes without tracking outcomes.
  • Commissioner Bowie expressed being undecided, raising concerns about equitable distribution of resources, noting that some corridors have more capacity and experience applying for funds.
  • Commissioner Kim emphasized the need to look at equitable distribution of city resources across wards and asked for data on how much investment each ward receives.
  • Commissioner Coleman supported keeping downtown included, using a metaphor about needing to take all available measures to support downtown's revival, and argued for maintaining the 2026 index score with downtown.
  • Outcome: Commissioner Noecker moved to lay over the resolution for two weeks to allow further consideration and to gather information on 2025 budget-to-actual spending per corridor and maps of ACP vs. QCT boundaries. The motion carried 7-0. The item will return on March 25, 2026.

2. RES 26-407: Amending the Downpayment Assistance (DPA) Program Guidelines (Citywide)

  • Commissioner Bowie requested a change to the Rondo Inheritance Fund eligibility from "loss of property" to "displacement," which would include renters displaced during I-94 construction. She noted that the current requirement to prove ownership is a barrier for many descendants.
  • Staff (Christian Ruy) recommended passing the current guidelines and then exploring the change within six to eight months, citing capacity constraints.
  • Commissioner Noecker expressed concern that the issue has been discussed for over a year and wanted a timeline for resolution. Staff committed to providing a timeline by the end of the week.
  • Outcome: Chair Johnson moved to lay over the resolution to March 25, 2026, pending a staff timeline for exploring the eligibility change. The motion carried 7-0.

3. RES 26-408: Amending the Emergency Rental Assistance / Eviction Prevention Program (ERA) Guidelines (Citywide)

  • No discussion was held.
  • Outcome: Commissioner Kim moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried 7-0. The guidelines were adopted.

4. RES 26-409: Approving Updated Guidelines for the HRA Business Assistance Fund (Downtown Vitality Fund)

  • Commissioner Noecker, the sponsor, expressed comfort with the guidelines as proposed, including nonprofit eligibility, after clarifying that reimbursements ensure fiscal integrity.
  • Commissioner Bowie raised concerns about nonprofit eligibility, arguing that the funds should be focused on for-profit businesses and development corporations that directly generate economic activity and tax base. She proposed an amendment to limit eligibility to for-profit businesses and development corporations.
  • Commissioner Kim asked for clarification on whether development corporations could be nonprofits; most community development corporations (CDCs) are nonprofits.
  • Commissioner Coleman noted that under current guidelines, government entities and schools might be eligible as nonprofits, which was not the intent.
  • Chair Johnson accepted Commissioner Bowie's amendment as friendly but clarified that the text needed to be drafted and approved.
  • Outcome: Commissioner Noecker withdrew her initial motion to approve and moved to lay over the resolution for two weeks to allow drafting of amended language excluding general nonprofits but including development corporations. The motion carried 7-0. The item will return on March 25, 2026.

5. SR 26-38: Update on Familiar Families Pilot

  • Director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety Cedrick Baker presented an update. The pilot is a $500,000 grant from HRA to Ramsey County to support up to five families experiencing homelessness with complex needs. The grant agreement was approved by Ramsey County on March 10, 2026. An RFP for wraparound services will be issued, with the program expected to start in June 2026. Chair Johnson noted the collaborative effort.
  • Outcome: The item was received and filed.

6. SR 26-39: Update on LAHA Funding for Emergency Shelter Providers

  • Outcome: Chair Johnson moved to withdraw the item. The motion carried 7-0.

Key Outcomes

  • Adopted: RES 26-408 (ERA Program Guidelines) – unanimous.
  • Laid Over (to March 25, 2026): RES 26-405 (Commercial Corridor Guidelines), RES 26-407 (DPA Program Guidelines), RES 26-409 (Downtown Vitality Fund Guidelines) – all unanimous.
  • Received and Filed: SR 26-38 (Familiar Families Pilot update).
  • Withdrawn: SR 26-39 (LAHA update).
  • Next Meeting: March 25, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

Meeting Transcript

Roll call, please. Billy, here. Coleman. Here. Joast. Kim. Here. Naker. Yang. Here. Chair Johnson. Here. Seven present, zero absent. Item one number one for discussion is resolution RES twenty-six dash four oh five. Approving the commercial corridor program guidelines citywide. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Uh one of the things I wanted to just take a few uh seconds of privilege to say uh I'm really excited to be back with our body in person. And uh thank you again to Vice Chair Joe's for your continued leadership and holding it down while I was gone. Uh in addition, thank you all for participating in the next four items. Uh, each of them are related to guideline changes that we've heard over programs and a series of programs that we've heard over the last couple of weeks. Um I intentionally would like for today to be a discussion. Several account uh commissioners have come to us with different questions. Uh we really do appreciate your questions, your input, your thoughts. So some of the different programs, such as the commercial corridor program guidelines have different scenarios, have things that have floated as ideas. My intention is really to be able to have that discussion with you here and also to um entertain a lot of the different suggestions that are forward because I think this is a part of the process of getting something that we think is responsive to the guidelines that we were wanting to see here. So um the commercial corridor program piece uh had several different scenarios. I'm hoping that folks had a chance to review them, and I wanted to have a chance to um I did get a chance to check in with several of you on just some of the initial thoughts. And I wanted to have a chance to um I did get a chance to check in with several of you on just some of the initial thoughts. Um none of these were ones that were like here's the direct pathway forward, but they were some that came over uh in the last week to our office that suggested pathways forward. Um I will share with you that I think um it's really important and significant to acknowledge that I that these funding sources overall, right? We're not talking about a substantial uh one substantial amount of money going into any corridor. We're often talking about scenarios that warrant corridors to have less than a hundred thousand dollars each uh to do what really needs to be done, which is investing in businesses and investing in entire communities in order to be able to once again go back to our original plan for this fund, which was to respond to the needs that we have now. And so, with every single scenario, I don't think there's a bad scenario or one that I would argue is um detrimental to observing our city because all of them would do that in some way, shape, or form. So I wanted to just open up the the scenario conversation because I also wanted count uh commissioners to be able to have a chance to talk about the ones that they felt strongly of. I've had a chance to touch base with several different folks, and I'll just share um you know the index that we have uh that staff has provided, the index score that is scenario one. Definitely something that I want to just acknowledge took a lot of time and effort to put forth, and so huge shout out to um to Director Lloyd and his team for really just taking their due diligence to come up with an index score, a formula that we thought worked well. Um, some of the additional scenarios that came from of the other pieces, I will share in transparency. Um something that I'm actually supportive of as well is the index score option, which has actually that in this case I hate the word removed, but actually does not um have us have a significant um change, it's $5,600 per each corridor. But what it does is actually allow the corridors to address the needs of every other place besides the five million dollars that we are investing in downtown. And so that's one that I thought that was really important to put through a scenario. I also thought it was uh a good suggestion of alternative. Um, but I wanted to have open conversations about all of them. Several of them were brought forth around the ACP and the QCT. Um, so I hope folks got a chance to to look at each of them to give their input and their guidance on them. But I wanted to have the discussion, and I most likely want to hear feedback from those that are presented, and if there were scenarios that we just didn't get a chance to put through in time, but that commissioners wanted to see. Um, so I'll start there and simply say that I think we have a path forward today. Um I also think that again, none of those scenarios were I think submitted in bad faith. I think all of them were submitted with equity in mind. Um, I just think it's really important that we spread our dollar as much as we can.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com