Roll call, please.

Bowie.

Coleman.

Here.

Joast.

Here.

Kim.

Here.

Yang.

Here.

Chair Johnson.

Here.

There are five present, two absent, being commissioners Bowie and Commissioner Kim.

All right.

Well, it feels good to be back with us on our uh my first week post maternity leave.

Um, chairing this meeting.

I just want to say thank you so much to Vice Chair Joels for holding it down while I have been gone.

I have genuinely appreciated that and allowing me to attend virtually when I had to, and then also just being able to spend time with my son Isaiah.

It means a lot to me to know that um this body was still in good hands and that um and to see the meeting still go successfully.

So thank you so much for being able to do that.

We got one more meeting.

Yes, give it up for Vice Chair Joe's.

Um, for the sake of the flow of today's meeting, we are actually gonna take this agenda out of order.

Um, the resolution discussion item pertains to the emergency rental assistance guideline updates, and so I want us to get through the staff reports first.

So if folks are okay with that, I'll I'll uh actually start with the staff report and then do the discussion last today.

All right.

Starting with item number two, uh staff report SR 26-21 update on citywide and inheritance fund down payment assistance program and the 2026 program guideline updates.

All right, so you will notice that over the the um next several meetings into between now genuinely and April of this year, there will be many intentional presentations that have been given based off of the commissioners' priorities, where we'll be able to provide updates and plans uh for this body, and so different programs that we have either funded either through local affordable housing aid or through the housing trust fund or through the HRA in one way, shape, or form will come in front of this body for updates, guideline changes, and or just general plans for 2026.

And so we're starting that out first with the down payment assistance and the inheritance fund.

Uh I've heard a lot of support for this throughout the different wards, uh, but also just generally wanting to bring this back.

So they won't be uh going into depth about exactly what something is.

We had that last year.

This will be really pertaining to the work in 2025 and the work plans for 2026.

Um, we started with these early because I wanted to make sure that we were able to hear from uh Rachel and the housing team directly, and just wanted to be able to uh have a start somewhere.

So we're starting with the down payment assistance fund and the inheritance fund here.

And I'll head it over to Director McMahon, who will head it over to Rachel.

So thank you.

Pretty much.

Rachel Finanzadal is here to be providing this update on the down payment assistance program.

And she'll also note a suggested 2026 program guideline update, and that would then be before you for consideration next week.

Thank you.

And can you say your last name for me so I can get it correct?

Because that's why I say Rachel, but you know, I should say your last name.

The second one is easier, right?

Um Rachel Finazodal is uh my name.

Yes.

Thank you.

I was like, I'm going to say her first name.

You got it.

But yes, Ms.

Pizazal, thank you so much for being here with us today.

Absolutely.

Um, I am very excited to be here actually doing two presentations for you today.

And the first one will be on down payment assistance, and the second one will be on the emergency rent assistance program.

Um, those are both programs that follow on fall under my purview as a housing program and policy manager here at the city.

Um, so just to start us off, we're gonna do a little bit of uh what the program goals are for each of these programs, a little bit of intention setting, where uh we were in 2025 and where we plan on going in 2026.

And I want to say that the down payment assistance program was something started in 2019, and as of today, the down payment assistance and West Side Flats Inheritance Fund are not currently open for applications, but the Ronda Inheritance Fund program is still accepting applications on a rolling uh basis, but we'll talk about why that is.

So, kicking us off, just reminding this body and the as uh uh Commissioner Naker likes to say, a million viewers at home, the program goals that we have for here is deepening and expanding our homeownership opportunities to people with lower incomes, building wealth, help address the racial homeownership gap in St.

Paul, and the inheritance fund specifically offers additional down payment assistance to property owners directly impacted by the construction of I-94 and the Riverview Industrial Park, helping rebuild lost community and household wealth.

Uh as an over Miss Fedubzal, we actually have a first question from Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, thank you.

I just wanted to ask this ahead of time before we get to the end, and you're you know, wondering why I'm asking a question for the first or second slide.

Of course.

Um if you can um just provide some clarity around the requirements for the inheritance fund being um someone who uh has been impacted where their um relative has owned their homes.

Would that requirement?

Is that something that's is city policy in terms of a requirement, or is that something like can you speak to like what the the reasoning behind that type of framework?

Yeah, so the entirety of the inheritance fund guidelines is something created and managed by the city of St.

Paul.

Um, the reason why we hone in on property ownership is because it is really the main way that we have to verify that somebody was displaced from either of these.

Um either the current instruction of 994 or the Riverview Industrial Plaza.

So in both of those cases, uh the student has to have own their home.

Um is there anything like state statute that's requiring us to um you know have it as ownership?

Um, particularly, you know, I know we I'm asking this question because myself and Chair Johnson both have kind of brought into question around you know those who are renters were also equally displaced.

Um, and if there's any like state statute that's requiring us to not only classify um those who've been impacted by home ownership, or can we also include renters?

So I will first clarify to say um we say that it is related to property ownership, so that could be if somebody like owned their business, owned the physical structure of a business, they would be potentially eligible for um descendancy under this program.

In addition to that, um, the again the main reason that we focus on property ownership is because it provides us a paper trail so that we can verify um that a resident was displaced by these situations because as we're all aware, there were also many urban removal projects going around at the same time.

One last question, just because I want to just make sure it's crystal clear.

It sounds like this is an administrative-led guideline.

This isn't a policy or ordinance or a state statute that requires that.

This is more so administrative.

What's the best administrative approach I'm hearing from you?

Yeah, uh, so chair, uh commissioner.

It is something that we are running in-house.

It is not something, as I am aware, far as I am aware, it is not a state regulation.

We're restricting us from this.

It is a decision that we have made internally on how to conduct best practices.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Feel free to continue.

Yes, thank you.

All right.

Um I also want to just cover the overview of the down payment assistance programs since I'm going to refer to them as the umbrella that they are.

I know oftentimes it can get confusing when we're referring to one program or the other, but in reality, our down payment assistance programs are an umbrella.

Under that umbrella lives our citywide down payment assistance program as well as our inheritance fund programs.

And those inheritance fund programs can offer a layer of citywide down payment assistance depending on income levels.

Um so just wanting to clear that up, in addition to that, as a reminder for this body and the public that may be watching that in 2023 is when Mayor Carter had shared his vision for rebuilding family wealth in the that was lost through the Rondo, the displacement of Rondo residents through the construction of I-94 in 1956, and the inheritance fund was expanded in 2025 to include the West Side community for because of the work that they had done on their flats to the future report.

In some of the general terms that we have for this program, uh, and when I say program again, we're going full umbrella this time.

The uses can be used on down payments, closing costs, home inspections, and interest rate buy downs.

The interest rate that we offer is zero percent, and it is 15 years for given at an amortized rate of 115th annually.

So once you live in your home, your rate goes down a little bit every single year of what you would owe back to the city.

There is no monthly repayment of this loan that is due until the borrower sells transfers title or no longer lives in the home.

It's fully forgiven if the homeowner remains in the home for that full 15 years.

I also want to take a moment to talk about the layers that we offer with the inheritance fund because I have found through my time here at the City of St.

Paul and getting to work with this wonderful team that there's oftentimes some confusion about the way that we talk about the layers that the inheritance fund has to offer.

Um so just trying out a new graphic here.

Uh with the inheritance fund, we offer four different layers of funding.

Not every individual is going to receive every single layer of funding.

Some might receive every layer, others may receive a mix of those layers for a potential of funding up to 110,000.

So for example, if I am someone who earns 100% AMI, and I am a West Side resident who chooses to buy on the West Side again, I would be eligible for the first layer at $50,000, as well as the $10,000 community wealth layer.

So just wanted to discuss that a little bit further and remind everybody, the body of what layers that we have to offer with the inheritance fund.

On to 2025.

So I want to state up front that between this presentation that you're seeing from me and the next one, we're going to have some difference in the ways that I'm going to do reporting and talking about how we did in 2025.

This is large part due to two different reasons.

The first being is that down payment assistance has been a long-standing program that's running pretty effectively and smoothly.

And the second being that with emergency rental assistance, we had the opportunity to use a robust software system.

This program is operated through Excel spreadsheets, so it is a little bit more difficult to get some of the same data that we are going to be showing with ERA.

All of this work I also want to add is carried out by what is currently now two full-time employees, FTEs, one loan specialist too, John, and the uh project manager, Chris, and one uh loan specialist assistant, but the project manager and loan specialist assistant also work on emergency rent assistance.

Over the course of the year, we opened three time for interest forms.

Interest forms are when somebody applies and says, yes, I am pre-qualified for a mortgage, and then we send them an application.

We opened up in June 2025 for about two and a half weeks, September 2025 for a week, as well as November for one week.

And during that time, we had seen in total 162 applications come in.

We have closed on 49 loans with 12 additional people shopping for a home right now and two closings that are scheduled.

And you can see the additional breakdown here of 44 of those being citywide loans, five going to Westside Flats Inheritance Fund recipients, and we do have one Rondo Inheritance Fund um borrower scheduled for a closing and one additional person shopping right now.

The reason why you're seeing a discrepancy between the 162 applications I mentioned and the 49 loans has more to do with the fact that, like if someone doesn't reply to us, that would be seen as a denial.

It is far more common that we have denials because someone just doesn't get paperwork back to us than it is that uh someone is unqualified for our programs.

And then Miss Fedazadal, we actually have two questions.

I'll go Commissioner Naker first.

Um thanks, Chair Johnson.

Um Ms.

Penasodal, you actually just answered one of my questions.

Um, but I would like to see it would be helpful to see a little bit more breakdown between the 162 and the 49.

So how many of those were just they didn't reply versus were denied because they weren't eligible?

What were the different brackets that that fell into?

I'm curious the amount of spend is 2.3 million, how much um is left, if anything, and also um I know we had originally when we created the Westside Flats Inheritance Fund, we had created sort of a cap on the Westside Flats and a cap on Rondo so that they each were guaranteed some.

Um and I think we had said that if I can't remember what we said about what would happen if applications for one exceeded that cap, but can you tell us a little bit about where that those numbers are at?

So, in terms of the cap, um I'll actually start with your first question.

So thank you, Commissioner.

Uh, there is I can absolutely get you a bigger breakdown.

I will have to consult with staff.

As I mentioned, Excel spreadsheets, so it might take me a second to be able to produce that.

Um, in addition to that, with the expenditures for the Westside Flats, we actually had more people buy than we had funding for, and we tapped into a um latent funding source that we had available to us to be able to close on some additional loans.

Can you remind me?

Sorry, what the Westside Flats cap and Rondo caps were.

Yeah, 500 each.

Okay, each.

And the Westside Flats is now gone and has been tapped into from other sources.

Yep, and it will be opening when we open up the program again.

Yes.

Um yes, and so I guess one that being too uh so the 500,000 that was for Westside Flats was fully expended in 2025.

I'm sorry, can you say it again?

Yeah, the 500,000 for Westside Flats was fully expended if I'm understanding, and then you pulled from other sources.

And then can you remind us also of the down payment assistance allocation for 2025?

Yeah, so we were allocated in total $2 million, one million was for citywide, and uh the other million was for the inheritance fund program split evenly across the two.

Um we also gained access to some additional how resources known as the impact funds from Minnesota housing.

And actually, due to the cybersecurity incident, we focused on spending state dollars as much as possible.

Um so we have collectively spent about 1.2 million dollars in Laha and then 1.025 million in CHIF or impact funds.

And then we also had some remaining housing trust fund dollars that we expended for when certain situations arise that made sense to utilize that pot of money.

And so just to expand.

Yeah, so would we be able to have like the follow-up?

I think this is really important when it comes to just money moving that we, you know, we're glad that that was able to be used as a as a solve.

I don't believe it came to this body in any way that that was happening.

So it'd be nice to know just kind of what it was for, what you know, kind of where we pulled from and what we were able to successfully already do for 2025 and like what that does to any sort of state funding that we have in the future, those things.

Balances, that would be really helpful.

Okay, which might be more of a financial thing.

So I think I saw a deputy director grain um as well, but that is just I think it'll be a helpful picture for that of like where we pulled from and what that did to the balances.

Okay.

Um so uh that sounds great.

I'm glad that the Westside Flats inheritance fund piece is moving, and it's actually great to hear that that is, you know.

I know that one of the conversations we had about that was around whether you know how we can make uh the inheritance fund move, and so to see that there in Westside Flats is great.

Um looking forward to hearing that, you know, and seeing that that same scenario happen in the Rondo Inheritance Fund too.

Um Commissioner Kim, I saw your hand.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just a question around sort of like the definition of denial, right?

It's not a credit denial, it's just they didn't like submit all their documentation maybe within a specific window of time.

Um, and I'm then I'm assuming that doesn't change their eligibility to like reapply.

Yeah, what's the communication that's sent out to the folks that were denied, but just based on sort of paperwork and maybe not meeting kind of those maybe 30-day timelines and can you just talk through what that is?

Sure.

Uh Chair Johnson, Commissioner Kim, thank you for that question.

So I believe it is a little bit different between the way that people might be denied.

So if somebody is denied because they are not qualified, it is usually coming with a description of why that is.

Oftentimes it is over income, maybe an example that is most common for us.

Then when it comes to folks who may not be um moving forward because they just haven't received or we have not received documentation from them, we are giving them a warning of, hey, we need your documentation here.

And once they don't have it, we let them know your time has lapsed and we need to keep moving on.

Because oftentimes, and when I say often I mean always, we end up with a little bit of a wait list.

So we want to make sure we're touching everybody that we can.

That seems good.

And then is there any sort of follow-up?

Oh, sorry.

Um, is there any sort of follow-up with those folks where there's clearly interest and they've met sort of the eligibility criteria, even recognizing we have a waiting list, but assuming there's sort of then a built-in extra waiting list.

Do we ever go back and say, hey, we're gonna approve more money?

You attempted this the first time, or because it doesn't sound like there's a need necessarily for us to do more recruitment, um, but recognizing that they at least made the a good faith attempt.

Is there any sort of additional outreach to those families?

Yes, so we do have an email list served that we utilize to be able to say this program is opening up.

Yeah, Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson, and thank you so much, Rachel.

Um, picking back off the question, particularly around the denial and time lapse.

Um, can you share what is the time lapse?

You know, what is the duration of that time?

Um, and has that is that like um made visible on the website or when people apply that they have a X amount of days, because I can imagine, particularly for the down payment assistance, one of the challenges is the timing, you know, to find that house and then go through the underwriting and I mean for someone who you know went through the home buying process, like the timing is always you know um can fluctuate.

So can you share if there's anything made public, particularly around what that time-lapse time is or the duration, excuse me, of the time.

Yeah, how long it takes between the two.

Yes.

Um, so I will actually briefly glance to my staff here.

How much time can you remind me?

Okay, uh, my staff, Chris.

Yeah, my staff Chris just said that they communicate 30 days from the time of application to the um to be able to return documentation.

Got it.

Um, I definitely want to just you know put out there for someone who, you know, and I'm sure there's homeowners, um, and we've all been through the process.

Um, that 30 days is really such a short window of is that is that 30 days of getting all of your paperwork in in terms of you secured a house, you've been approved for uh a loan.

Um can you talk about what is expected of that applicant and what documents that they need to have within those 30 days?

Yeah, uh Chair Johnson, Commissioner Wu Bowie.

So uh yes, that is only for the paperwork side.

Uh, in order to even start working with this program, they need to be pre-qualified for a mortgage.

So they are oftentimes ready to go and just need this down payment assistance as uh the last thing to get them over into homeownership.

Um so it is only the paperwork side, they are not having to actually we encourage them not to have a purchase agreement before working with our program.

Uh we qualify them and then they go shop.

So that is a different timeline.

The 30 days that we are offering is really more of a the initial paperwork that we need from them.

Okay, thank you for that clarity.

So it sounds like this is a pre-qualified down payment assistance um uh loan.

They're not expected to have found that house when they apply.

Okay, thank you.

No, in fact, we prefer that they don't.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um, any other questions that I can feel.

Okay.

Uh on to some additional successes that we have from this program in 2025.

Uh, as I mentioned, one of the major goals that we have for this program is deepening and expanding homeownership.

And we are seeing a lot of success here with that.

Um, our average purchase price is 265,000, and one metric I'm incredibly proud of is that our household size has expanded to 2.45 people, and we are seeing a lot more families applying for this program and receiving benefit from this program.

The average income of uh households is 67,000, and the average percent or the percentage of households that were renters that purchased is 88%.

That other 22% may be somebody who was um living with their family or things like that.

We also have a really good breakdown uh across the AMI AMI spectrum, um, where we see about even halfway split of folks that earn more than 60% AMI and less than 60% AMI purchasing and utilizing this program.

In addition to that, when it comes to addressing the racial home ownership gap, I do want to state that we in order to collect racial data utilize a the lender's loan application.

We do not collect that ourselves personally.

Um so we are utilizing oftentimes the way that the federal government likes to report, so not totally broken down by race and ethnicity in a perfect way.

Uh but we do offer or work primarily with and have lended to primarily with uh BIPOC folks, and in addition to that, many of the uh people who identified as white also actually identified as Hispanic and Latino, we found so doing good work there.

Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

So these are our data, this is our data in terms of how many loans close and the racial demographics, particularly.

Yes, or okay, reference folks that closed on a loan with us, and we got l this information from a lender.

This isn't our data, you got this information from a lender.

Can you speak to that?

Yeah, it's in for it's data that we are collecting from a lender's application.

Our lender application or nope, the primary lender's application.

Got it.

Okay.

So that's we have data from how many people and what's the racial demographics of how many people are actually approved and closed.

Um so this would be just for people who have closed on a loan with us.

So this is the I'm just trying to understand.

So this is the information that's from the primary lender that received a loan from us.

Yes.

Uh, but I guess I'm trying to understand because they may have different lenders, right?

It seems like can you speak to like how many lenders that you actually receive this data from?

Yes.

So all lenders are using the same form.

I believe what it was called is a 1003.

Um, so we're receiving the same form from various different lenders, and that's a requirement of our program to know what the first mortgage is and have some of those documentation.

Okay, thank you.

And just to clarify, because we get those, because we can see those and we access those forms, we're able to take the demographic off of the yes, exactly.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kim.

It just to add on to it, it's an optional one as well, if I'm correct.

Yes.

Yeah, so it's an optional form that um like applicants will fill out.

Yeah.

But across the board, it's a uniform form that all lenders use to capture this data.

Can you say a little bit why we don't collect that ourselves is just because the access to this data, or is it just, I mean, I think I think we all know is like one of the fair housing laws is like you don't you don't lend based on a person's like race.

But can you speak a little bit to maybe why we don't collect that data for our purposes, but we want to access it from the lender, besides obviously the outcomes that we can see.

Sure.

Uh Chair Johnson, Commissioner Kim.

I that's a great question that I actually think I need to do a historical look back on.

That was not a decision that I necessarily made.

So I that is something I'm gonna write down and get back to you on.

Yeah, I would assume, and I do think this is a safe assumption.

I would assume that we collect this information, or if we haven't, it's because we don't collect it because there's no reason for us to not to like lend to someone that is credit worthy for our programs as long as they fit our income levels.

Um, but I think what you know we're really interested in is um this is this slide.

How are we utilizing the scarce resources that we have to help close the racial uh gap for home ownership for our communities?

So I think um uh intentional intentionality on the front end and back end could be an interesting conversation around like what we collect and why.

Yeah, no, I appreciate you in um Chair Johnson.

I appreciate you raising that question.

I only just asked is because I know we usually collect data in other aspects, um, and I was just curious, particularly if we have our own internal process, not collecting the data um on in the in the front end of the application.

But if someone closes, they're successful, we have as an option for them to collect that data just like we do in other applications.

Um even for um our um hiring practices, you know, there it's an option for them to share their racial data.

So um, but it sounds like we don't have internal collecting practice.

I'm sure that we're getting that information from providers application.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks, John.

That's why they're here.

Yeah, so like for everything else.

Yeah.

Sounds good.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair.

Just to a slightly different hack, I want to just not go past the slide without acknowledging the main point here, which is I think that we are um and staff in particular are doing a phenomenal job with the program goals.

It looks like more than half, and I'm not sure what other I don't know if others more than one race or what, but even if you just look at what's in front of us, um, more than half of the loans that are closed are people of color, and the purpose of this is to address the racial homeownership gap.

So I think taking us back to our goals, showing the results, um, and seeing that the program is meeting its goals is really important, and I I want to acknowledge that.

Thank you.

Yeah, and a rough number out of say 71%, I believe is the calculation that we made that was um uh identified as uh people of color either uh through race or ethnicity data.

All right, and I see Commissioner Kin, and then I see Commissioner Bowie again, and then um I will also have a question for you.

So, Commissioner Kim.

Yeah, I appreciate just an offering.

Um, Rachel and I have been in, I guess housing.

Well, I haven't, you've been in it longer than I have.

But um, is that you know, we we can close gaps and educate folks and get them in a home ownership, but ultimately the thing that helps close the gap is sustaining those levels.

We see these same communities exit home ownership and not re-enter them.

And so we also have to put a plug in the back end, and so one thing that I'm really interested in is seeing the successes of this program is in tandem with this.

Is there a small but meaningful uh conversation that we have around emergency uh mortgage assistance, like we saw during um the uh homeownership crisis the foreclosure crisis um when I was working at Habitat for Humanity, that was one of the ways that we maintained home ownership for for these communities.

So it's just to name like these are incredible successes, and then how do we in our own way measure how we're impacting the sustained level of homeownership over time since we have this fund now?

I'd be super interested, even in 20 years from now, and none of us will be here maybe.

Um, but like what does that sustained look for the borrowers that now we've assisted because I think that's really this is meaningful, and I think the end goal is to get them to stay in that home.

Yeah, and I think along that vein, you know, one of the data points that I hope that we eventually do connect collect with um this data point and most likely with the program next that we'll hear about as well is really just around if this has been in place since 2019, right?

That's a good seven years um, you know, going on seven years.

I am curious as to how many loans um the president still lives in the home that they were able to get, and I think that that's an important piece to just uh of a check-in for those residents that we have been able to support.

Because again, one of the reasons why our office is so passionate about the down payment assistance program that we have here at the city is because these residents cannot get down payment assistance from Ramsey County because we do have our own down payment assistance and we do have our own program.

And so I'm always just gonna be really uh you know supportive of making sure that we're able to get this program up and running and to expend the resources that we have because it keeps St.

Paulites, St.

Paulites.

And so I'm looking forward to that data point, I think eventually of seeing just with our you know, seven years of time and plus and counting, um, that that's there.

And I and just for folks' awareness, in 2026, we did put two million dollars towards down payment assistance and an additional million again for the inheritance fund and for both West Side Flats and Rondo.

So a three million dollar total, which isn't a million dollar allocation more than last year, and kind of on par with some of the numbers that you're seeing.

Uh Commissioner Bowie, did you have a follow-up question?

Yeah, well, not really a question, but just you know, another um feedback and response, particularly to this slide.

I do think it does paint the picture, particularly around like where the impact is and where our outcomes and matching our goals that this down payment assistance is um designed for.

I would say just you know, across the board, um, expanding those data sets to have disaggregated data, particularly uh we know that in the you know what classifies as a black and has an entire diaspora, right?

Of how we're able to track um East African Somali or West African or um black American, um, you know, all those things paint a different picture, right?

But tells the the same story in terms of who's actually um benefiting, you know, from um this program.

And also I wanted to, you know, touch on you know, also the same thing around Asian, like we have a really large Hmong population, and I don't know if that is being captured, you know, with when we just say Asian, um, you know, what does that mean for our Korean communities, our um, you know, other Asian American communities as well.

Miss Fidaz at all, do you have a response to that or uh no?

I was just gonna say thank you all for your points.

Uh, we absolutely is that is something that we take into mind.

So I it's good to hear that we are thinking in a similar vein for sure.

Yeah, I think since we collect this data and continuity of all the data, I think the you know, especially with this program, because we don't have a robust uh software in it.

I think it'll just be really important to keep as much data on things as we can, knowing that it informs future decisions that we make.

So really appreciate that.

Okay.

On for my last major slide here, uh 2026 updates.

Oh, and one thing I forgot to say.

I know that it was requested to have a heat map of the places where people were purchasing.

I do not have that right at the moment.

It is something I can follow up with, but I will say that majority of the places that we are seeing people purchase a home, as you saw, 265,000 was our average purchase price.

We're seeing it most commonly in um your neighborhoods like Frogtown, um Frog Town, uh Pain Fail and Dayton's Bluff, some in Battle Creek, and then we did see an uptick in the West Side, thanks in large part to the West Side Flats Inheritance Fund.

And some North End.

I forgot that one.

So okay, 2026 updates.

I for the program guideline updates that I will be bringing to the board.

There is not actually too uh big of one.

I only have one thing really offered for a change, and that is something that we want in order to be able to extend and offer an assistance for more people.

So that would be splitting the way that people in citywide down payment assistance program receive this benefit.

So for folks that are up to 60% AMI, they would still continue to receive 40,000, which is what we offer for citywide assistance.

Those who are 61 to 80% AMI, we would like to bring that down to 20,000 so that we can stretch our dollars further.

The reason for this uh is in particular, I did a lot of research around other down payment assistance programs and surrounding communities.

And 40,000 is actually a very unique number.

Uh most common we are seeing is 20,000.

So we are just trying to find ways to do more with what we have.

Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair.

There are um, I support this change and particularly note that um it looks like that would sort of shift the balance looking at who is applying the slide you showed about income distribution, probably away from the 61 to 80 percent and more towards the lower side of the income scale.

So I think that's the more equitable thing to do.

Um, there were two ideas that were brought up for changes for guidelines this year that I want to see what the thinking has been on.

One of them is the one that Commissioner Bowie mentioned earlier, this idea that, um, and I agree with her entirely, so many of the folks that were displaced were renters.

And I know you and others have raised the concern that it's harder to trace and figure out who those people were.

Um, the problem is that if what we're trying to do is rectify an inequity, the fact that you were renting your home is actually irrelevant to the amount of harm that you experienced.

In fact, the people who owned the homes often did not live in them.

Um they had moved up and out of the neighborhood and were renting to folks who had come in more recently.

And so the people who were really displaced were the renters, um even if they didn't have the property loss.

So I'm really interested in digging in a little bit more to find out if we if there is a way to figure out um that lineage.

Obviously, we have to be able to verify it, but it's it seems like in terms of the goals of our program, if we could verify this, those would be the people we would want to be helping.

That's one question.

And the second one is a smaller change, but I know it had been suggested by the West Side um community, and I want to just shout out to the Westside Community Organization and their help, especially Julia there, who has been instrumental in, I know working with you, and that's that is part of the reason why I think that program has seen such success um because of of Westco's work and Julia's work in particular.

Um the question had been raised about the time frame of the Westside Flats displacement.

And I know there were a couple of properties that someone had been displaced slightly after the year that we say that was the displacement.

Um kind of calling into question how we decided that that year was really the end point.

Um I'm sure there's historical work that can go into this, but I guess I'm just I want to make sure that we've really fully explored the question of when do we really say that displacement ended so that we're not inadvertently cutting someone off who actually um should be included.

So those are my two update changes that I was hoping to see reflected here and would love to hear more about.

Yes, Chair Johnson, uh, Commissioner Naker, I appreciate those as well.

Um that would be something that I think will take some more deep exploration just because we do need to find like formalized pathways to enable that access.

Uh so I think that would might take a little bit more time, but it is definitely something that we could look into and continue to explore.

And I know that we've heard that from community um that wanting to have that access for renters has been something that has been a continuous narrative, beginning with the Rondo program and then continuing on into the West Side Flats.

And I will say that I think Rondo Community Land Trust currently has programs that do that address renters and the dis the aspect of displacement.

So they currently have active programs within uh Rondo Community Land Trust that they do separately, and as the steward of our funds when it comes to Rondo, uh the Rondo community, maybe uh, you know, this is an area where they can be beneficial and helpful at least on the line of how they actually do that.

Um, because that's of interest of mine as well.

I've heard many feedback about that, and especially during that time frame, you know, before the historical displacement um came redlining in our communities and the hardship that involved, uh, especially when black and brown folks were even trying to purchase a home.

There's an inequity that there's multiple layers there, but just really taking it at face value if you were displaced by the construction of 94.

And whether you're a homeowner or renter, you know, per it doesn't necessarily weigh heavy on me and either direction because I just became a homeowner, and you know that, and I would hate to be cut from a program that could potentially be a wealth builder for me and my family because I didn't own at that time, but I still had to relocate.

And so there's some of that that for me resonates for sure.

Uh, Commissioner Bowie and Commissioner Naker and myself, and I think it's kind of a general sense um of something that we would like to see, and if not by you know, the time that this guideline change comes through, definitely uh as a guideline change to consider as we move forward.

And then the the piece about the year date.

I just wanted to go back to that.

I don't do you have any further clarification on Commissioner Naker's question around the time period in which displacement is being quantified.

Um I do not at this time, unfortunately.

Okay.

Um I am keeping a list here just of a few things that are coming from it, so I'll be sure to like you know, just send a follow-up.

And if we miss anything, commissioners, please do respond back with a question or two because I'm trying to track that as well.

Um, I'm old fashioned.

I write what write what's happening with my pen.

So I'll be doing my best to collect the questions that come through as well, and we can cross uh cross consult at um I do want us to time check on getting through the materials in order to be able to have it.

So, Commissioner Bowie, I'll have you take the last question on this.

I'll have her get through the slides, um, and then we may have to transition for today.

Yeah, I will I just one, I want to say I appreciate Commissioner Neaker and also Chair Johnson for reiterating how you know I was hoping to see in the updates today that there was gonna be a change to that verification process.

The fact that last year we just had one person close on the inheritance fund on the Rondo side um was not the outcomes that I was really hoping to see.

I want to see that increase.

Um I know you all have heard that from me, um, whether that is an updating of our policies or figuring out who's the best partner to actually administer um that verification.

Um, I'm here to be a champion for that work.

I also want to say, as someone who is a descendant of Rondo and has family who live in um St.

Paul for over 100 years, we do know displacement has multiple factors, it's not just the building of I-94, it was the series of other displacements that um uh went into play, with which is why the reason you know, um we have a eight billion dollar wealth gap, uh, particularly in Rondo between African American communities here in St.

Paul and our white counterparts.

So I do see, you know, I do anticipate and want to also just urge that you know this is important for us.

Um, however, we need to formalize that pathway.

Please let us know if that is policy.

Of course, you're hearing from you know, three commissioners that we want to see this, so I really you know really want to urge that you know, hopefully we get a chance to uh see that program update included into um the program, just we have been hearing from from people who've been denied or not qualified for it.

So I just want to lean in um on that point.

So thank you so much, counsel or chair Johnson for reiterating that.

Uh Chair Johnson, Commissioner Booty.

Yes, thank you.

Um, I again agree with your points.

It's a matter of, I think, just doubling down on some research of how that would be feasible for us.

And um heard that Rondo does have a program on their end, and I know that the West Side Flats has their own body of research.

Um I it is something that I definitely will have us continue to dig down into for sure.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

And that and um just as a reminder, and I think you did go through some of these, but the um can you just the timeline for opening and then also just the um the guideline changes that will come back before us?

Yes, super brief on March 11th.

We uh will be bringing guideline changes to this body.

Uh and it will include the AMI changes.

As I said, it will probably take us time to look further into adjusting the inheritance fund program.

So expect just that guideline change at this moment.

Um, and then for the proposed launch, we anticipate that happening at the beginning of April, possibly meet late March.

This is so that we can meet the housing market, which kicks off in April, typically for the state of Minnesota.

And then um we anticipate once we launch that first time, we are going to be opening at set times through 2026.

So when it comes to announcing, hey, we're opening down payment assistance, we will also communicate every other period of time we anticipate being open for applications for the remainder of the year.

And I'm gonna skip this slide for the time and lovely photo from the Westside Flats celebration in December.

So I can go on to the next presentation.

Item number three is staff report 26-22, emergency rental assistance eviction prevention program, ERA and staffing review and 2026 program guideline updates.

Alright, so this is related to the um as another program update, but also obviously gonna have really relevant um parts to some of the decisions that we will make as a body today.

Uh the emergency rental assistance, as you all know, is something that I'm genuinely really invested in.

I wanted to continue to see the strengthening of, and so being able to have this update, and then also just to be able to see the planning for 2026, very important, very timely.

So once again, Miss Azazadal, thank you for being here.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, you get to continue to hear from me.

Uh so just kicking us off right away here.

The purpose of the uh I'm just gonna call it ERA.

Uh purpose of ERA is to provide funding to individuals and families renting in St.

Paul with the verifiable pending eviction to be paid directly to the landlord, and the purpose for that is to halt an eviction action.

And we'll talk a little bit more about that down the line here.

Um assistance in our guidelines is capped at $2,500 for families and renters earning 80% AMI or lower.

Eligible expenses include rent, late fees, court fees, and the payments are supposed to be made directly to the landlord, but they must agree to halt the eviction proceedings upon the payment of rent.

And we do provide everyone a letter of guarantee when they are approved.

So, how 2025 went for us.

Um current staffing levels that we have for this program has been one PED supervisor, that is myself, uh PM'd using 0.5 of their time, and one loan specialist assistant, and then we utilize all seven of PED's OAs to answer preliminary phone calls.

I do want to give them a brief shout out.

Uh, it was a lot of work, and I am so grateful for everything that they did for that program.

Uh the days open for application was 23, and the days open for processing was 76.

And you can see some of the details in the numbers that we have here.

So out of 23 days of being open, we received 610 applications.

Um, over being open for 76 days, we had processed 190 applications, and I want to just clarify for this body what processed means for us.

Um, for one, processed means that they could have been approved for funding or uh denied because it takes time oftentimes for us to be able to also deny an application.

Umprocessed does not mean that an application was untouched.

It just means because I believe we went through everybody's application at some point or another, or looked at some component of their application.

It just means that by the time that we put a pause on this program and processing what we had, that um we did not complete their applications to get it to a point of approval.

So additionally, the calls fielded by St.

Paul's staff, so that would be case managers like myself and the OAs, was over 2,200, and our average processing time per application was 3.2 hours.

And I also want to make that clear that for processing time that is only including like case management time, that does not include time for payment.

Um we have been seeing oftentimes payment has been taking several weeks to be able to get to a landlord.

Uh the other numbers that I want to bring to your attention because it'll become relevant for the remainder of this presentation, is some of the averages that we were seeing.

So the average grant requested amount, so the amount average that we were paying out was about $2,000, 2014.

The average total request or money that was asked for us in applications was about $3,000.

The percent of people that we paid a flat $2,500 to was 46% of the people that we paid out.

In our percentage of households that requested more than 2,500 was 53%.

And then a part of what contributes to that is that folks who are hit with a housing court summons date, their average need for assistance was $4,463.

We really see a skyrocketing of assistance need once we have a housing court date, as I am sure all of you in this body are aware.

Court fees are very expensive.

I'm typically seeing like 700 and 900 for court fees, and that's just for the summons.

That's once you're done with court, you have um you have to pay for additional fees for being at court and for the um lawyers and things like that.

We had 17% of people who applied.

When they applied, they had a court date.

And lastly, an interesting point that we were able to pull from our system and relevant to a recent Pioneer Press article was that the percentage of applicants that we were applied, almost 40% of them were applicants in protected affordable housing.

Um, so that could be that they lived with the PHA, they had a housing choice voucher, or they were in a lie tech unit.

Um we coalesce data with um housing link to see which units might be that.

In addition, I have some demographic data.

This is data that we were collecting on our own.

Um so again, a little bit different than the way that we were asking because it's not as um connected to the way the federal government wants us to ask about race.

So as you can see, our numbers pretty well line up with the uh anticipated impacts of eviction by race that uh we see around us, which is primarily affecting BIPOC households.

And just so I um I think I can see the distinction, but I just wanted to make it for the record.

Um, because though the dark green and the light green category look pretty similar in color.

Can you confirm the 66% is for black or African American?

Correct.

Yes, the light green, I can walk through the colors very briefly.

The dark green is black or African American.

Um the pinkish color is Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander.

There is a blackish color that is other Asian is a very slim 1% orange.

Uh Hispanic or Latino is 4%, white is 17%, and prefer not to say was 5%.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

I just um training my eye again to color this.

I just wanted to test everyone's vision today, including my own.

So I have two maps here too for you to be able to see where all of the applications were coming from, as well as who we processed.

Um so we are seeing um heat where we anticipate seeing the most uh most renters in the cities, as well as who we approved and paid, which matches up pretty pretty well.

We're pretty close to having a good match here.

On for our proposed amendments for 2026.

So my first one is again bringing us back to the data that I was discussing.

Uh we are proposing to increase our grant amount from $2,500 to $3,500.

As you might recall, I did say our average was $3,000, but the reason that staff made the decision to ask for $3,500 is because if we think about this in a bell curve, I really want to push us past the crest of the bell curve to expedite the way that we can process people.

Um, frankly, having a cap at 2,500 that was not meeting the average need slowed us down tremendously because we needed tenants to be able to find additional resources to be made whole in order for us to pay.

We also are looking for proof of income changes, some adjustments to be made for one is allowing PHA subsidies like the housing choice voucher or RAD to count towards proof of income because these tenants oftentimes are or have to be under 60% EMI.

Um, it would just be another thing that can help expedite uh our approval.

And lastly, would be reducing the proof of income through pay stubs from 60 days to 30 days.

The reason for this is because 50 we found 53% of people who applied for this program were uh actually ended up using pay stubs, which is something we did not anticipate.

We genuinely thought most people would be providing us other resources like letters of other resources they receive to help us expedite things.

We were getting pay stubs.

And uh pay stubs were something that was really slowing down the process because I will say I could probably count on one hand the amount of people out of the 600 that I saw receive 60 days worth of pay stubs is more common that we got like two if we were lucky.

Um so reducing that amount from 30 days to 60 days is something that can help expedite that process and keep us from having to go back and forth with someone.

Lastly, is an introduction of eviction timeline restrictions, just to give a very brief, very um incredibly high level view of how eviction court works.

Uh I have a little bit of a graphic down here of how the process flows for tenants most often.

Uh tenants will be served with a 30-day notice of intent to evict, which is the starting point where we can help tenants in this program.

If they do not cure their late rent, the tenant would be served with an eviction summons.

If they continue to not uh cure their rent, then they would have to attend housing court.

And oftentimes what we see is that people will receive like a payment plan after they've been to housing court.

So it might be anywhere between you know a couple weeks to several months that that payment plan can last.

And if someone falls off their payment plan, that is typically when someone is served with a writ.

Uh writ is that final document that actually is requesting a person to leave the premises where they live.

So some of the introduction that we want to have for restrictions on the timeline is not working with any cases that have a writ.

And it the reason for this is that it is the very unfortunate truth that once you have a writ, oftentimes those are anywhere from like one day to three days, and a landlord demands to have payment in hand in order to stay that eviction at that point.

Um so we simply just cannot operate that quickly.

Uh, and find that it leads to a lot of issues and creating more trouble for the tenant at that point if we are continuing to work with someone that has a writ.

In addition to that, um also saying that applicants must apply prior to their eviction court prior to their summons date.

Uh the reason for that is very similar, where at that point landlords are oftentimes like don't care about a letter of guarantee, uh, don't want to continue to move forward with the tenant after that point.

In addition, their needs are often so high that we are having to sit and wait and try to have other parties come in and be involved in the process.

I was finding that typically somebody who went to housing court varied between having one additional source in attention to us to three.

So it would be like me partnering with three different community providers and having to make sure all of us agree we are going to pay.

Um that is the reason for those proposed amendments.

I'll take questions.

Thank you so much.

And I I'm actually gonna pose a question to this body.

So uh we will operate on the same guideline timelines for both the down payment assistance and rental assistance.

So this too will be coming back and forth back to this body on the 11th of March.

I'm very inclined to uh to discuss the grant amount.

Uh this is something that we named and we have jurisdiction over deciding what it is.

The 2500 cap was something that was brought up for a pilot for the purposes of two assessment was never because we couldn't go higher or lower, but because this was what we wanted to test out in the first year.

Um, upon hearing what you're what you're sharing, I have an appetite for the 3500.

I am supportive of that.

I also have an appetite for making uh to pay what is remaining to keep an individual housed.

So I am open to both.

I wanted to pose it to this body really in terms of something to think about, and especially because we have a couple weeks and to welcome your feedback and your your um really on all of this, but in particular when it comes to the grant amount, um, we are increasing the funding, hopefully this uh today, and um something to think about is whether or not we want to keep someone in their actual unit.

And if we do, that sometimes also means that we may want to uh you know explore what that actually means and what that actually looks like so an individual doesn't have to use multiple different sources.

So that is just something that I'm putting out there because the cap, the minimum, the max, all of that is set by this by within the city and is up to us.

And so that's just something that I'm throwing out there as a question.

If that 3500 sits well with you, we can move forward with that.

I don't have a I'm pretty supportive of that change.

Um, but if the goal is to prevent the eviction, and if folks want to do that in totality, that's my question to this body.

Um, but yes, we can continue.

Um, I do want us to get to the process and the staffing and then to make sure we do the vote within um the next 15 minutes of the next item too.

Okay, on to the next slide.

Um, so for the process of continuing, um, we are proposing to go to a more limited system so that we can make sure that we are serving people who get into our system rather than having an uh really difficult to cover wait list of folks the way that we had it this first go around.

So this would mean processing approximately 50 to 60 applications monthly.

Um applications would be open for two days a month.

We anticipate it being at the beginning of the month.

A few reasons for this.

Uh, first of all, we received 150 applications in just two days with minimal advertising for this program.

So we feel like we would have more than enough applications just being open for a very brief window of time.

In addition to that, um, the choice of doing the first days rather than doing it further into the month is because we have number one, the 30-day notice of intent to evict does buy the tenant and us some additional time on working with um tenants on their cases.

Uh and what typically happens or what I have been seeing happen is somebody maybe like on the third of the month will get the warning saying, hey, you owe me money from their landlord, and it's typically towards closer to the end of the month where they are actually served with their 30-day notice of intent to evict.

Um so those are some of the reasons.

I will also add we really would like to stick towards the beginning of the month so that we can process that 50 to 60 within a month and not carry them over to the following month.

When we carry over to a following month, it becomes incredibly administratively burdensome for us and for and for the tenant because we're asking for new rent ledgers, we may need updated information on certain things.

Um we want to just maintain make this as easy as possible for tenants and staff.

Um, in addition to that, uh mentioned a lottery system that we would be using with no preference to where somebody is within the system of being evicted.

This lottery system, something that would function like let's say 100 people apply within two days.

Um, our system would uh randomly assign a batch of 50 to 60 applications to staff, and the other ones would be notified that they were not selected within that lottery, but it's something we could keep information for.

So if in the first few days we see like some easy denials because they just don't live in St.

Paul or whatever, um, we could bring in some of the people that weren't initially selected.

So that is how we currently are anticipating uh the lottery system to work.

We had a moment of thinking, like, well, we could wait list the other folks, but in reality, we want them to be we want them to be looking for other sources and not have to rely on us if we don't think we can get to them.

So that's the reason why it's not necessarily a wait list.

Um as for staffing updates, we have 2.5 FTEs.

This is across PMs, and again, myself, a PED supervisor working on ERA.

Uh, we look to adding 1 p.m.

from the 2026 budget, and we were working on a waiver uh for that position, as well as 1 p.m.

from remaining families first housing pilot program and the housing trust fund balance.

And in addition, we'd be adding one accounting tech from that same source.

And then I know there was some additional information about the housing trust fund, and lastly, for the timeline, uh, we have the March 11th adoption of the guideline changes, and I do have something in here that states opening June, and I want to clarify that.

That is if we are waiting for full staff to be able to launch.

There is a possibility that we could launch prior to having full staff and working with the staff that we have.

But I just want to maintain expectations that this would mean less output and less communications to people who are applying for this program because we are understaffed.

So for 2.5 FTEs, we processed about 200 applications in a little over two months.

On average, we see one full-time employee can approve about one application a day.

You know, it ebbs and flows.

Some days I was like getting through 10, and then other days it's zero.

Um obviously, so we have one FTE can process about 21 applications in a month because of the amount of working days.

So I would say if you're like we need to launch right now, that would maybe look more like 25 to 40 with the current staffing capacity that we have.

And the last thing I also want to mention is uh potential collaboration with the county and other partners, and that is something that we've been exploring uh for this program as well.

Um, and just so folks are aware, I've asked for an April 1st start and shared that with staff as well.

I think the urgency of the program just does not match a launch in June.

And so I did share that with staff and the director um yesterday, and so would be expecting to see that change to April.

Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair.

Um, as usual, thinking along the same lines.

I just want to say I do feel like we need to launch right now or as soon as possible.

It seems like better to get 25 to 30 applications out in a month than than none while we wait to get to full staffing, and the model that we're last year may not have been ideal, but it um it worked to some extent.

I think we we do need to operate with that sense of urgency.

I also just wanted to thank you for the point about potential collaboration with the county going forward.

It does strike me, and I we created this program on our own because the county's emergency rent assistance program does not meet the needs of people in St.

Paul.

Um, but that said as this moves into more away from pilot and into more of a full program with staffing and with the capacity challenges you're talking about and the software challenges you're talking about.

It does seem to me like it behooves us to talk to the county about ways in which these dollars could flow with their dollars to do exactly what we want them to do, but perhaps in a way that's more efficient.

Yep, and I agree.

Um, Commissioner Niker with uh you know the piece of the county piece.

I just you know, I kind of shared with them too, like the the points that you raised just around the importance of ensuring that the guidelines that were created here, it is unique and it is different um than how the current uh rental assistance program operates at the county, especially on that time of which on the continuum of when they can actually seek assistance um, you know, with the county, you do actually have to have the uh the court to the court summons, I think as well.

Yes, um, and I will say in in uh Chair Johnson in collab when we're talking about collaborating with the county or any other partners, we make it explicitly clear that this is the city's program.

You would have to follow the city guidelines.

Uh I would say between you and me, but I am in public um between you and me, they actually have expressed many different things that they are jealous of for our program and the way that it operates.

Um, so I'm welcome.

That they are welcome.

No, I think it's really great.

I you know, I will just touch on um what we may hear today, and I shared that with some commissioners I got a chance to talk to about this, right?

Community members who are looking inside trying to make sure that they're following this as well.

Um, right, this is an internal city program, and because we were intentional about the guidelines, and so even if there are nonprofit partners, philanthropic partners, individuals who have interest in collaborating with the city on this program, the guidelines are some of the most important and I think crucial of who we're serving.

A lot of the numbers that you're seeing, and probably even the I would go as far as saying some of the applications that were processed and approved, may or may not have been applicable or even eligible for funding under the Ramsey County's uh current process.

And so, even though there are rental assistance programs that exist now, the guidelines often throw us into a different category when it comes to when we can help, not how, but what we can do and edit how fast I think is going to be really crucial for the next couple of of months.

But yes, I think the whole reason why we're bringing forth the the 926,000 that we'll be voting on next um is because of the urgency, it's because there's been an express staffing need, it's because we want to make sure to see to give it a full year, and starting in June doesn't allow us to do that once again this year, and that's just not something that we want to see happen.

So I think I saw a hand, but I don't remember whose hand it was.

Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you.

But Chair Johnson, particularly from you know the conversations I've been hearing, particularly with um the urgency, um, even in our public hearings that we've had um related to the grievances to federal immigration um policy.

A lot of people have been sharing that you know in the community, they've been raising mutual aid, and we've been seeing success amongst nonprofits, like for example, neighborhood health.

Um, many of these community-based nonprofits have administered rental assistance or emergency rental assistance.

Have we explored um a pathway to where we can just allocate or you know, allocate the funds to an organization that does not have some of the staffing issues that we have?

Because I think you know, we're time and time again always trying to solve for uh staffing capacity and you know, understanding the urgency, like is there an appetite, particularly from like the department or other um colleagues, particularly around outsourcing this program um just for the immediate need that we've all been hearing from.

As in this year, correct, yeah, yeah.

That this year that's been mostly focused on making sure that our internal structure can get up and running.

I think the urgency that we have, like externally, I think there's been a couple of casual interests, I think, from my office that we've received.

But again, the guidelines has been most important, and also just in general, my interest lies with ensuring that we have you know uh what we would see here, which would be almost over three million dollars in total that we need to continue to move on now, and that that is an option to be explored.

That's an option that can continue to be explored.

The guidelines for me are non-negotiable.

Um, but then I think when we're looking at just like the the speed that we're working in, we're looking at an April 1st, you know, timeline for this.

Um, I'm not sure what would be much quicker.

Outsourcing would be months in advance, even now.

Uh, did you have anything to add, Director McBann?

Chair Johnson Sammiller is just gonna add the process of of a collaboration and working with partnerships also takes time to establish.

But I hear your point, Commissioner Bowie and I definitely have had different conversations with folks who have expressed interest, and that's why I share just with folks who are listening to and who I may have an interest, it's it's an appetite for it, and just knowing that they'd have to have both the capacity and the guideline abilities to operate that successfully.

Thank you so much for um both of those presentations and kind of walking us through that.

Um I want to move to the action item.

Returning to the top of the agenda discussion item one, RES 26-331 resolution amending the housing trust fund project budget to reprovide funding for staffing in the Department of Planning and Economic Development for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program Citywide.

Wonderful.

And you'll hear about this more uh council, and I'll save my remarks for that time.

Um, but as you all were I shared a memory with you guys earlier, which involved uh both a $500,000 that was done by administrative order thanks to the mayor's office as well as their collaboration, which is an additional funding for rental assistance, and then we have a housing trust fund program that was initiated in 2020 that has since sunset, where this is where the funding has come from from that.

So we have an opportunity to add to the staffing capacity because as you know, LaHA cannot uh support staffing for programs, it can support program funding, but not for staffing.

Um I want to just be able to bring this up.

I've asked Deputy Director Green to just give an update on the logistics when it comes to the budget amendment itself, but that is the overview.

Director McMahon.

No, just annoying similarly that the family's first pilot program in the HRA housing trust fund um has remaining balance of $926,222, and this item transfers those funds into PED operations for staffing.

And CFO Deputy Director Green is here as well with um answering any questions and overview.

Thank you.

Welcome, Deputy Director Green.

Good afternoon.

It's good to see Chair Johnson and Commissioners.

Glad to be here this afternoon.

I'm gonna ask for uh technical assistance.

Is the is that PowerPoint loaded or no?

If it's not, it's okay.

So I did do a presentation, but that's okay.

Um, I will speak to the resolution.

So where we uh and I'll back up and just talk about a little bit about uh where we started in 2025, one million dollars.

We had some delay.

Um thank you to our staff and Rachel and uh the and our accounting staff that worked through some of our payment work, so we're hoping to reduce that time as we move forward.

Um, but we started with a million uh dollars and uh launched the program in November of 2025.

Uh, our April start um or June start, whatever whatever day we reopen the program, we'll uh have access to the balance of that million dollar allocation.

Um, and then uh in 2025, at the end of 2025, we authorized 1.38 million dollars in Laha funding um for the program in December of or in January of 2026, we identified a $500,000 budget allocation in Laha for the family's first program, and that program is already funded through our housing trust fund multi-year.

So we did not need to put that allocation in Laha.

So uh we informed uh the body, we informed HRA board that that uh that allocation was not needed, any determination was made to reallocate it, uh adjust the allocation and move it over to our ERA program.

So that moves the allocation from um 1.38 million to 1.88 billion uh if you approve this resolution.

Um and the LA approval will happen uh at the city council in the public hearing, but I just want to make sure we're tracking the total amount that's available for the program.

Providing that uh level of funding for the program as uh our our housing team has indicated puts a strain on our staffing, so I we identified an additional source of funding in our housing trust fund.

I think that's for the familiar families program.

I know we all love to be confused by these programs, so familiar familiar faces versus familiar families.

Uh and uh that $926,000 will be reallocated for staffing.

Um, and that is in the housing trust fund, it needs to be moved over to the city side on our PED operations because it will be used for staffing internally.

Our leadership has determined that we'll um we'll hire two staff and allow that funding to go on for multiple years so that we do not have to disrupt funding or we do not have to hire terminal staff, short-term provisional staffing.

Thank you, Deputy Director Green.

Um, and we will actually uh ensure that every commissioner gets your presentation, we'll have it sent out after this meeting as well.

Uh just because there's a subsequent action at the council and the presentation just simply goes through what she shared in graphic form.

And if you're like me and you would like to visualize it, it will be sent out after this from Kelly.

Um so I just want to make sure we got that.

And uh Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Deputy Director Green.

So just to be clear and high level, removing roughly 1.4 million dollars out of two programs that are not currently in need of those funds because the programs are either defunct or whatever into the emergency rent assistance budget.

And when we do that, what will be the total amount of dollars in the rent assistance budget compared to what we have now?

For 2026, there's 1.38, 1,380,000 in addition to the $500,000 add-on of uh Laha.

So that $1.8 million is coming from Laha, and that's the 2026 allocation.

The 2025 allocation on spent balance.

I'm gonna assume it's around 700,000 is also available.

So at the time that you open up, um it is quick math, uh 3.5.

There we go.

3.5 million in the ERA program available for distribution, and in addition to the staffing, and our current staffing program allows for staffing for um as many as the next three years, maybe a little bit more than that.

I'm being conservative.

Sorry, so 1.8 million is 26, 700,000 is carried over from last year.

So 2.5 million.

2.5.

Sorry.

2.5 million total available for 2026 emergency.

I'm 3.5 because I'm clearing I'm including the staffing.

You said progress.

Plus the staff.

Sorry, thank you.

So just because I think folks will ask.

So 2.5 million dollars that can go out the door in emergency rent assistance in 2026 due to the shift.

Yep.

Otherwise, we would have had some amount less.

Not as much.

Yeah, not okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I just wanted to clarify the rationale for the I know you mentioned it.

You mentioned it briefly, but just to echo that point, the two staffing pieces and something that you'll see echoed in the resolution, um, includes that this is for emergency rental assistance.

So even though it's an allocation with the intent to allocate for uh to support the staffing for multiple years to ensure that people are not displaced, that that is that is echoed and reflected both in the resolution and also in the board report.

Correct.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

Yes, we uh we understand the intent of the board is to uh ensure that the funding is utilized for this program.

Uh when it moves out of the housing trust fund and into PED operations, all PED operations staff uh is included in that same budget.

So all of our staffing, um, and then internally we designate um allocate um our staffing according to the programs as designed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and just uh with with attention to time, I will move approval of this item.

Uh any discussion.

We had that wonderful.

All those in favor.

All opposed.

Thank you.

I appreciate you.

Seven in favor, zero opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Yay.

We will do this again like we never left at the city council meeting earlier.

Um, and I will save my remarks for then.

Thank you so much for uh that comment and also the present the presentation will be followed up afterwards.

So we appreciate your time in compiling that.

I just want to say huge uh thank you and gratitude to the housing staff and the housing team who I'm sure you've been sick of me in the last few weeks, so especially related to getting these presentations up and running.

They were our first guinea pigs to an ongoing um cycle of programs and presentations.

So thank you for being willing to go first.

Um, and then also thank you for your partnership and on both of these programs.

I'm sure that a lot of commissioners will be able to reach out.

If in the next two weeks you have a guideline change or a question um related to it, the only reason I ask that you include our office in that correspondence is because we are tracking the feedback that we get so we can ask each other where we land on them because we'll be working on trying to ensure that the guidelines that do income in front of us are likely to pass.

And so if there are certain things that you want to see added to either program, it allows us to be able to at least ask other colleagues um how they feel about that guideline change.

So thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Congratulations on this one.

Yeah, and personally, thanks, John.

Hey Molly.