Yang?

Here.

Johnson.

Vice Chair Jost.

Here.

There are five present and two absent, that being Commissioners Johnson and Coleman, and they are excused.

Item number one for discussion is resolution RES twenty-six-125.

Authorizing the execute authorizing the executive director of the City of St.

Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority to consent and to execute without prior HRA board approval any environmental covenants and easements concerning projects for which the HRA is a lender citywide.

Is there any discussion?

Yeah.

Discussion and also is it open for questions?

No.

Just excuse me if there was like a briefing prior to this.

I um was not aware of it, but I do want to just ask the question, particularly around, so we just kind of know in the context of how we're voting.

Um, you know, oversight is really important.

We all know that we have some really strong environmental justice goals and climate justice goals, uh, particularly with this.

Can you give an example of like how like how this item an example of like a project that came before us?

Because I'm just trying to just understand like what we are streamlining, streamlining, and like if this is just a um uh a fix to a technical problem, or if you know also just sharing what is the level of oversight for certain um projects that you know require a change in the covenant.

Sure.

Chair Joseph, Commissioner Bowie.

Um, I'll give maybe more of a general and see if the attorney maybe has any specific examples.

Um not thinking specific, I think, because there are so many generals.

So after a project has happened on a project, perhaps we're we're involved in the financing.

We have to approve that.

So that's a lot of the oversight that this board does is approving the financing and improving our investment in that redevelopment project.

That project then would complete remediation, and PCA again is the oversight and jurisdiction body for that.

As a matter, again, uh to me, it's more of a tech, I would categorize it as more of a technical thing.

As an end to that remediation, they might require a covenant on the land.

The covenant would go through the city attorney's office, they would review and approve it for additional oversight, and usually it's something that that type of thing often the executive director can sign to authorize.

We previously have been going to the board for them individually and thought it made a lot more sense to give that authority to the executive director to sign.

Um Council Marine, did you have a question?

Oh, things, Chair Joles.

Yeah, I do have a question.

I think those are really great questions, Councilman Blue.

So thank you for asking them.

Um like I'm the type of person where examples are really helpful, and so I appreciate the question.

I I also was just wondering, Director McMahon, if you can share, like, is there is there any reason why we shouldn't approve this?

Are there any concerns at all that that we should know about before we make a decision?

I do remember um if the environment requests around the environmental covenants and eastern easements coming our way, and I don't think we've ever um I don't think we have ever not approved them, you know, and so I I don't see an issue with it, but just want to make sure I understand more.

Yeah.

Director Vice Chair Josephs, Commissioner Yang.

Um, I don't have any issues with it.

It's really for an ease of operations to be able to have them after remediation is completed.

These are often required by the MPCA and the form is required.

We don't really have a choice.

The remediation is completed, it's simply one of the mechanisms that the MPCA uses.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilman.

Yeah, and thank you for your thank you for your questions.

That was um kind of the interpretation that I understood too, is that um it's it's something required by the MPCA and to bring it forward to the HRE would be more of um yeah, sort of a just adding to the process of what would be the same outcome.

Um, but certainly if folks do have you know, do have questions um as as these do happen moving forward, they can certainly reach out to Director McMahon, but it's my understanding this will be beyond quite a few, quite a few projects.

Um so I guess with that being said, any other questions or discussion on this.

Um we had a motion from Council of President Naker.

Um, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, five in favor, zero opposed.

Resolution is adopted.

Item number two staff report SR26-8.

Saint Paul Commercial Corridors update program guidelines.

It looks like we have Annie uh Brin here to give a presentation on this item.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Um Vice Chair said, Vice Chair Joe said, my name is Annie Byrne.

I'm a project manager on the economic development team, and I've been managing the commercial corridor program and here to give an update on our recommended changes for the 2026 guidelines.

As you recall, 2025 is the first year of this program, and we considered it to be a pilot year.

So we're very interested in getting feedback from the corridor organizations on ways that we can make improvements and make sure that we're achieving the impact intended with this program.

Corridor organizations were asked to provide requested changes through their quarterly reporting and throughout throughout the um the year, really.

We were interested in getting their feedback at our round table round tables as well as our office hours.

Um seven requests total were submitted.

Okay.

Most of them are regarding the geography.

So I'll dig into these a little bit deeper, but it's a quick overview.

Most of them are about the geography, so requesting to basically to extend their corridor.

The grant size was also an issue that they would like to us to reconsider.

And then as also the flexibility of the grant use, specifically increasing the amount available for operations.

So we considered all requests, and we're moving forward with the recommending changes to a few of the corridor geographic boundaries and the grant size.

We're also recommending we add some language that will just build in a little extra flexibility so that we can respond to our requests when it's deemed appropriate and needed.

So I will dig into each of these a little bit more.

First, the geography changes.

So there are three corridors that we are recommending we extend their boundaries.

First, the Ford Parkway corridor currently the west boundary is Cretan Avenue, and we were asked to extend that to Mississippi River Boulevard.

This will capture additional businesses.

Basically, all these all these requests are to just capture additional businesses, and the organizations feel like it's a better fit for the commercial corridor to include just a few extra blocks really.

So we recommend that extension.

And then the Como and Dale corridor, that's the um the upper left blue kind of looks like an asterisk as three streets, Como, Dale, and front.

And they're asking we extend each a few blocks.

So we are recommending we move forward with those extensions.

And then quickly, I'll I'll I want to know the Smith Avenue corridor.

We realized it kind of stands out as a little bit of outlier, has a relatively small number of businesses and a large uh percentage of residential land use.

So we actually are recommending we re remove this corridor.

And I'll go into that a little bit more when I discuss the award size and some of the feedback and on our recommendation moving forward.

Um several corridor organizations gave us the feedback that it seemed pretty inequitable to give the same award size to corridors of such different size.

Um as you recall, we had two award sizes based on if a corridor was in or adjacent to an area of concentrated poverty.

If so, they received 81,500.

Otherwise, all corridors received 74,000 if they were not in the ACP.

That said, there was a big variation from you know a quarter of less than a mile to over three miles, each getting the same amount, 74,000.

So we took a closer look at the length of each corridor, the number of businesses on each corridor, and the land use between residential and commercial.

Based on that, we just categorized and found um it made the most sense to base the award size and categories on the number of businesses.

So we chose 300 businesses to be sort of the cutoff.

So a corridor that has less than 300 businesses would be considered a medium corridor.

This captures 10 corridors total.

Um, and you can see in this table, we're still recommending we award the slightly higher amount for corridors and areas of concentrated poverty.

Um then for corridors with more than 300 businesses, we're considering large, and that includes seven corridors, and again, um different amounts if they're in ACP.

So you can see the amounts here, and and as I mentioned the this pre this first year, 2020, the award size was either either 74,000 or 81,500.

So very close for the medium size, that's really not changing.

Um we are able to award a little bit more because by removing Smith, now we have 17 corridors, so same amount of funding, 1.4 million, but 17 corridors.

So we're able to award a little bit more per corridor.

And then you'll see my final bullet here gives a little bit more detail about Smith.

Um, like I said, we we just found it had greater percentage of residential land use, had 74% is considered land is residential land use, and just 38 businesses on this corridor.

So we really see this as a micro corridor, and therefore are recommending it no longer receive its own award.

Council President Anchor has a question.

Thanks, Church Host.

And first of all, Ms.

Bern, thank you so much for your hard work on this.

I'm I'm so excited that I know I've said this before at the um results we've seen just from the first year of this, and I'm grateful that you've taken the recipients' feedback and making these recommendations for how to make it better.

We knew when we started the program we were you know, we were designing it and it was a pilot and we would see and we would change it.

So this is great.

I guess I'm just wondering in terms of the uh recommendation to categorize corridors as medium versus large in terms of number of businesses.

Um I know that all the corridors are different lengths um as well, and so I guess I'm I'm thinking about a couple of things.

Um, you know, in some ways we've decided how long the corridors are, and so we've sort of limited the amount of businesses or or extended the amount of businesses based on our way of drawing that map.

Um, and so I'm wondering if maybe density of businesses is a better way to think about it rather than pure number.

The other thing I'm wondering about is businesses, does that mean um occupied active business versus say vacant space?

Um, what I don't want to do is reward successful corridors and penalize ones, say with lots of vacant businesses.

Um we could argue that those actually need more support.

Um, and then finally, again, just the sheer length, since these funds are intended to be flexible and support corridors, not just be say grants to businesses.

Um the number of businesses per se doesn't seem necessarily like the most um it seems like maybe length is a better uh metric in that if you're doing street furniture or banners or an event that activates the corridor, the length of the corridor is really gonna determine your expense, not so much the number of businesses along it.

So I just threw a lot of ideas out there, but I'm wondering if maybe you can say a little bit more about the thinking behind just purely number of businesses as the metric.

Right.

Uh Naker, thank you for that.

And yes, there was a lot of data to digest and think about what makes the most sense.

And actually, our research and mapping staff suggested we create an index, um, which I think is great.

Um, I think our logic was for this, you know, going from basically one category or just you know the ACP and the non-ACP to these two.

Um seemed like a good step to get a little bit more reflective of what the actual corridor looks like, but I absolutely agree.

There are a lot of ways that we could look at this, and I thought specifically about um if a corridor has a lot of vacancies, then yes, they may likely need more assistance.

Um after looking at the numbers, it did seem, you know, I considered using different variables to be that cut off.

And it seemed like the number of businesses was the most like there were less outliers, if that makes sense.

Um, but we can definitely look at this again, and if the HRA is interested in us doing a little like creating the index, to be honest, you know, I just wasn't sure if there was interest in that kind of analysis, and um, but we can we can certainly do that.

Um I will, you know, towards the end of this presentation, I was going to say the next, you know, we're planning on coming back for approval.

We've a little have a little time on February 11th.

So we certainly have time if you are interested in us playing around with this data a little more to see what else might be a better fit for how we create these categories.

Yeah, I'd be curious if my colleagues have any comments.

Um, Council President Acre, I appreciate your comments.

I I was also thinking about um, you know, removing Smith Avenue is removing any part of the corridors is kind of a big is a big deal.

I I would be curious, you know, if it's something like businesses per mile or or something like that as a metric.

Um, and additionally, too, I was um uh I think the overall length of the corridor is something to consider, and then you know, are there are there nodes, um, neighborhood nodes maybe in the corridor?

I think most of these have nodes in their corridors, but um, those would all be be interesting to to understand as we're looking at this decision, and and I do also agree the point about vacancies, I think is important, and even the you know, the potential of a corridor, just because there aren't businesses there now doesn't mean there couldn't be businesses there in the future, and wanting to still be able to provide support for those um you know, corridors with that potential um would be helpful.

And so if if or if there's any other, you know, if there's any other metrics that you and your staff were considering or thinking about while you were developing this that would be helpful to understand, understand too.

And then I'm also just you know, curious if my colleagues have comments about that.

All right, boys will oh, oh, council member Bowie.

Yeah, I just have a comment also, just um, I guess just um approach, particularly um of I know all council members are kind of different in terms of how we want to do outreach and getting the word out.

I actually work really closely with some of these business organizations or corridor organizations, like for example, like Ronald Community Land Trust, not only are they um developing revitalizing Selby Avenue, they also are really um um strong with our um inheritance fund grant, um managing and operating that.

So I have just I guess a kind of a question but also a comment.

Um, I know I meet with the team often talking about really expanding and investing in our cultural corridors.

Um and I know that is something that historically um our planning economic development team has focused on and have done studies for, and you know, I've shared with um Chair Johnson before, really wanting to see what our you know, our cultural studies, our cultural corridor studies and getting that study in front of us because I think there is something to say in terms of like the vitality of certain neighborhoods and the not only the cultural fabric, but also the legacy preservation, um, where you know one will call like Selby the corridor, but another person would know it as Rondo, right?

Or the other person would know it as really a predominantly African American presence.

Um, and I think you know there's opportunities for us to layer funding and be able to leverage funding, whether it's on a national level, but even um with some of our nonprofits.

So there's that also um I really would want to see just like how some of our public art and art um organizations, like for example, St.

Paul, um, not St.

Paul, uh Springboard, Springboard for the Arts.

Um, because they have a really great toolkit, particularly around what it looks like to establish a creative economy, um, and really seeing our these corridors and our the events that take place at our corridors, for example, our cultural festivals as community wealth incubators.

And we have, I would say, in in St.

Paul, some really strong legacy um um festivals that really you know that are in the heart of our corridors or maybe in our neighborhoods, um, and it gives us the opportunity to to really help activate some of that.

Um so but yeah, there's not much of a question, but it's just really just how I'm thinking about it and like the type of relationships and partnerships I would love to to see this like grow.

Yeah, my chair Joe's uh Commissioner Bowie, thank you for that.

And my immediate thought is that's would be a great topic to bring to our round table.

So monthly sessions are basically to talk about um shared interests, and I know number you know, events are extremely popular, popular use of these funds.

And yes, a lot of the organizations are also working on building their branding and identity, so there's definitely room, and I think connecting with a partner like Springboard or other organizations would be really helpful.

So I will bring that back to the group.

Thank you.

Great.

Uh council.

Thank you, Churchills.

I um I really appreciate the presentation here and just getting the uh board on board basically with the um changes that are being proposed.

I'm wondering about the one of the bullet points on the slide, other recommended guideline updates.

But this is the bullet point where it says operational support was determined to be an eligible use of business subgrants.

This use will be removed from guidelines.

I know that uh you all have heard uh from many of our business associations as well, um similar to how I have about the need for that operational support to be an eligible use and um and I um you know I I do share the frustration about um this not being an eligible and not being an eligible use.

And so I'm just wondering, uh, would you would you all be able to Director McMahon?

Maybe this is a question for you.

Can you just say a bit more about that?

Like if are there ways for us to um are we like basically guided by statute to to um when it comes to this or are there ways to get around it?

If folks are feeling strong about making a change in this, should they to connect with legislators about it?

And then just another thing I wanted to mention too is that um I um I am feel really strongly about finding ways for us to be able to provide the operational support.

This was um something that was uh brought up, you know, when Mendot was doing their reconstruction work on Arcade Street, and then now with the ice rates happening in our communities left to right, our our business communities are um are suffering even more and and experiencing um deep revenue loss when it comes to their everyday operations, and so that's why once again they've come to us really um with a plea for support and providing um operational financial support to them.

And so I'm I'm interested in figuring out what other funding sources that we can uh that we have to be able to provide this, whether it's through our business assistance fund, you know, if it's a matter of changing our guidelines there.

I want to let folks know that I'm very open to doing that.

I know it's a very small fund.

If I remember correctly, it's like maybe 200K that we have left in there.

Um, it would be good to get an update about that.

But I'm wondering if you can just speak more about that bullet point and if we want to to be able to make the change, where does that happen?

So that community members also know too and get that transparency.

Yeah, Director.

Vice Chair Joseph, Commissioner Yang, thank you.

I appreciate your bringing that up.

And so, yeah, we can chat a little bit now about the third bullet point.

Let Annie go back to the first two.

Um, so as with any program that we operate, right?

We need to look at the source of funds that we're using for that program, and we need to look at what the restrictions are for those funds.

We work with the city attorney's office to really make sure that we're following any restrictions that those funds might have and making sure that we're using them appropriately as public funds.

So, this is an instance um and working with that.

We received guidance from city attorney's office on what those funds eligible uses were.

Um, and that's part of why I appreciate that.

We've got a few weeks to continue the conversation with all of you to talk more about what those eligible uses are for the funds, those economic development funds being used for this and the challenge of trying to use them for business operations in that respect.

And so I think we can have have more discussion and continue the discussion specifically about that for the source for this fund and what other opportunities may or may not be available depending on what other sources we have in different programs as well.

Okay, thank you.

I don't know if that hopefully well, do you know it doesn't require some sort of change at the state legislature for it's for us to even be able to use the commercial corridor funds for operational support or like where where does the change need to occur?

And I'm happy to follow up if you don't have the answer, but just wanted to ask right off the bat.

Yeah, Vice Chair Joseph, Commissioner Yang.

Um, I I don't know that a legislative change for this source is used specifically, but I would defer to the city attorney's office for that.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Joel Stanley, Commissioner Yang.

Um that was our guidance from the city attorney's office, and uh you were not on the email earlier today, but Chair Johnson posed a number of questions specifically on this topic.

Uh and our response was that we will provide a memo by the end of the week detailing our advice on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it.

And then Council President Naker has a question as well.

Thanks, Chair Jost.

Um, Ms.

Yang, I really appreciate you bringing that up.

I uh I feel very strongly that operational support is not just a critical component of the program, but it's one of the reasons why we created this program in the first place.

Um we were hearing from business owners that not only was our neighborhood star and Euro Star programs um difficult to use and apply for and competitive, but also that they were restricted to capital and that there's so many needs that are not capital needs, especially as Ms.

Young noted right now.

Um I we worked very closely with the city attorney's office several years ago on a memo uh which they produced for us to be very clear the source of these funds is economic development star um and the memo was very clear that economic development star may be used for operational purposes.

So I think it's really important that we get consistent guidance from the city attorney's office on this.

Um I will share the memo that we received from the city attorney's office previously stating that this was legit.

Um we wouldn't have moved forward with this in the first place if we hadn't been confident that the fund was appropriate for this uh use.

And again, I would really ask the city attorney's office if they're now issuing contradictory guidance to be very clear about what was what has changed since the last guidance was issued.

Um yeah, thank you everyone for your comments on that.

I I look forward to that memo as well.

And then, you know, depending on uh what the memo says, just what are what are the next steps and are there options?

Because as council president Acker and Council More Yang mentioned, like this is a really high priority for us, and um it's a it's a problem that we still uh you know would like to find a way to solve and what what opportunities or options that there might be.

Um Director McMahon.

Yeah, thank you very much again for the discussion.

I really appreciate it, everyone.

And that's part of why um decided to wait a few weeks on this to make sure that we can all get together, we can all be on the same page, we can all understand exactly what funds may or may not be used for, and depending on that, whether we're looking at other sources, other opportunities, right?

How we essentially problem solve this together.

So I appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I guess we'll continue.

All right.

Um, so just a couple other recommended updates that we have.

Um, first of all, we're recommending that we add language to the guidelines that will just allow us some minor programmatic specific corridor specific changes.

Um, this would follow the CAO amendment process, so approval would be required.

But we're just thinking this would allow us flexibility to be strategic and to respond to timely needs.

Um example that I'll give one of the requests that we received that we are not recommending is the microbial and community council asked to rather than extend their existing corridor, they wanted to fund nodes.

We're recommending that we move away from annual guidelines and just have program guidelines.

So similar to the STAR guidelines, they would be, you know, we'd imagine them to be consistent year over year unless there is some more substantial change that we would need to have approved and update the guidelines.

And then we already covered the third bullet.

So this this issue of operational support is being considered and um yeah, John will provide more information and answer our questions directly regarding that.

The final recommendation is that we change the name.

It seemed a bit more complicated than really necessary.

So we're recommending we just change it to the St.

Paul Commercial Corridors program.

That's how most organizations refer to it and ref on their website, that's what it's called, and that's what the current logo is.

So I just wanted to update you all that we're officially changing the name.

Um yeah, that's it for our next episode.

Like I said, um the plan is to come back on the 11th with some more information uh and seek approval.

And also just FY, I received the second quarter report earlier this month, and so I'll be um sharing an update uh with you all via memo in the next week or so.

And happy to take any other questions or comments.

Uh thank you, Sverne.

Um other questions from my fellow commissioners.

All right, well, um, we'll look forward to the information coming to us and that we've got a few um a few weeks here before the eleventh.

We appreciate uh all of your work and looking forward to to collaborating on this.

Okay, so with nothing else to come before us, we are adjourned.