The Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Board met on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at 2:03 PM in Council Chambers, City Hall. All seven commissioners were present. The meeting covered approval of prior minutes, two discussion resolutions, and three staff reports, with no public testimony. Key actions included opting into the Ramsey County Economic Development Authority (EDA) with a five-year commitment, appointing Melanie McMahon as Executive Director, and receiving updates on the Galtier Plaza TIF district, acquisition of 259 University Ave W, and Highland Bridge development.
So we're going to go through the middle of the little books that we've done. So I don't think we've got to go to the record, but we'll several people over the report for the number of the public, but those reports are the reports, and then the record, though. Jost. Kim. Here. Here. Yang. Here. Chair Johnson. Here. Seven present, zero absent. And item number one is approval of the minutes. M IN twenty six-eighteen. Approval of the May HRA meeting minutes. Our reading, I trust that everyone had a chance to to review these. I'll take a motion from Vice Chair Joseph approve all those in favor. I all those opposed. Seven in favors, you're opposed. The minutes are adopted. Item number two is discussion item REST-six-eight eight nine. Resolution of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, HRA of the City of St. Paul exercising the HRA's authority to opt in to and support the Ramsey County Economic Development Authority, EDA. All right, so there it was several uh several different communication and discussion points last week. We laid this over, so it's back in front of us. Um I'm just going to look through my colleagues if there's any discussion on the item. Council President. I'm sorry, Commissioner Naker. Thanks, Chair Johnson. Um I I want to say that I really um first of all appreciate the time and attention that all of us have taken with this matter. Um, grateful to the county and uh particularly to HRA Chair Zhang for the attention and the time that we've taken over the last week. Um, something that's really important to me is that as we make this decision about a million dollars going towards economic development rather than to affordable housing, that we have a good sense and feel good about where those dollars are going. Um, and I feel a lot more confident after the discussion that we had over the last week that um not just staff but also policymakers will be able to weigh into that and and help um guide those decisions. So um grateful for the time and happy to support version two. Thank you, Commissioner Naker. I also just want to echo this and the appreciation for the extra time that was given, especially when there's questions or things that are uh arise last minute. It's important for us to be able to take those concerns into consideration and also to be able to have a meeting to talk about that. And so we were able to do that. I think one of the things that's really important as well, and I appreciated the clarification from our attorney's office, too, is that right, not only are we opting in, but we're opting in for five years. And I think being able to clarify that, you know, in this vote and this piece and what that means is just because by state statute, we actually will be able to to um revisit this conversation five years from now. But just so people are clear on why that maybe was important to take another time pause and also to make sure that folks are on the same page because this is a million dollars for economic development, potentially roughly around there, um, within the city of St. Paul, but it also is something that has not been done before and something that we would be doing for the next uh four consecutive years after this. And so just something that I think is really important about the significance of this item for people who are looking and wondering, like what exactly this is and what it means. Um, with that, we do have a version two in place, which is kind of talked about last week. The discussion really primarily stemmed from the beat resolve clause that has now been removed in the version two. So, with that, I will move the motion forward for version two of this item. Uh, any further discussion or any questions? Commissioner Bowie. Chair Johnson, I just want to say I really applause how you know how transparent you have been about just the changes and also um the responsiveness in terms of making sure no um you know both parties are in agreement. I just have a question particularly around understanding that we are removing that clause. What does uh continue conversation around the spending plan and how the dollars are used and how the dollars will be allocated, um, which I think understanding these are two separate bodies, right?