Oh, well, we'll go.

Well, we've got the words.

Oh, I went no.

We development authority to order.

Roll call, please.

Bowie.

Coleman.

Here.

Joe's here.

Kim.

Here.

Naker?

Here.

Yang here.

Chair Johnson.

Here.

There are six present and one absent.

That'd be Commissioner Bowie.

Item number one is for discussion.

Resolution 26-941.

Resolution approving the acquisition of real property located at 259 University Avenue West District 7 Ward 1.

All right.

So we had introduction to this item last week.

You know, I will just simply simply share that.

I think that this is an acquisition that makes sense, especially with the HRA owning several other parcels on the site.

I'm really looking forward to progress on the site.

I think we have had a couple of properties in the cities where we would love to see movement, especially with ones that we've owned for almost 20 years.

And so this acquisition, I hope, is like the final piece of what will soon be a redevelopment on this in this area.

And so I hope that you know we will see progress.

I'm looking forward to what will come in the future for this area, and I am thrilled to work with Commissioner Bowie on this, and also just in general, really excited to see what the future holds for the site itself.

With that, I'll take a motion from Commissioner Bowie to approve.

Is there any discussion or questions?

Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

And just want to say thank you again for all the conversations that we have had about the acquisition in the briefing that we had last week.

Well in advance, you know, about this location.

I was just even really thinking about my time with former director um Nicole, particularly around you know the the multiple attempts right to work with different developers over the course of time, and you know, really seeing this as a solution to really help this site and get this site the density that it deserves and uh we had a phenomenal um policy uh meeting about just urban development and I really see this as a great opportunity and a model for not only affordable housing but higher density and more retail um the things that create for productive um development.

Um I also wanted to uh make mention that there's a lot of community um engagement and support around this site.

I actually just live just a few blocks away, and when I think about you know the the excitement I have for it, I'm really um you know wanted to highlight the work of not only our district councils but we have um some amazing community partners in terms of NDC um right there as well, who are all invested in driving a community-driven process, which is you know really essential.

So with that, just want to say thank you again.

Um this is just uh one step uh with the acquisition, and we'll be seeing more actions in the future when it comes to the demolition.

We'll make sure to share the timeline um with the public.

Um but we also just want to just make sure we're letting people know hey, here's the opportunity to invest in St.

Paul, and this is an amazing opportunity to invest on the university corridor as well.

Wonderful, thank you so much, uh Commissioner Bowie.

All those in favor.

Hi, hi, all opposed, seven in favor, zero opposed.

The resolution is adopted.

Item number two is staff report SR26-117, inspiring communities 1087 Ross Avenue.

All right, I'll hand this over to Director McMahon.

Yes, Chair Commissioners.

I'm excited to have Claire Petri up here to present for you.

She's gonna provide information on this item.

It's another HRA owned property that we have an opportunity to move forward with development, return to the tax rolls while also providing affordable wealth building ownership housing with an emerging developer.

So it's a really exciting opportunity here.

The information and presentation will be today with the action before you for consideration on June 24th.

Wonderful.

Welcome, Ms.

Petri.

Thank you, Chair Johnson, Commissioners.

Good afternoon.

I've mentioned my name's Claire Petrie, and I'm a project manager in the PED economic development team.

I am excited to be here today to give you an overview of the proposed development project involving HRA owned property.

I'm also excited that there's a fan.

Section 3B of the HRA owned the HRA disposition policy titled Other Proposals outlines the process by which PED staff evaluates proposals to redevelop HRA owned land outside of an RFP or an RFP release cycle.

Per HRA disposition policy guidelines, the PED development team reviewed a proposal from MM Real Estate Development LLC to develop a duplex on vacant HRA owned land at 1087 Ross Avenue.

The proposed development will offer an affordable housing wealth building ownership opportunity for two families with income up to 120% AMI.

1087 ROS was acquired in 2005 from Ramsey County as vacant land with HRA general fund dollars for one dollar.

The site was originally acquired with the intent intention for it to be developed and returned to the tax role.

The vacant lot dimensions are 50 feet wide by 127 feet long.

It's around 6,500 square feet.

This lot size and the H2 zoning designation is ideal for the gentle density development proposal I am describing today.

Development of the properties acquired with federal funds located in the same area was prioritized ahead of this non-federal acquisition, which is why this is still in inventory.

1087 Ross is located in District 4 within Ward 6.

It is near three bus lines, including Route 74, which fun fact is also my favorite bus line from Ward 3 to downtown.

There are several parks nearby, including Margaret and Eastside Heritage Park.

This next slide just highlights the property location within a larger community context.

The proposed development design includes a side-by-side two-story duplex with a separate one-stall garage for each three-bedroom two-bath unit.

The design adheres to Dayton's Bluff District 4 plan for residential areas, which includes an elevated housing design matching existing neighborhood characteristics.

The design also promotes reasonable density and livability compared with the latest construction standards.

The total development cost for this project is $906,800.

The per unit subsidy plus the land cost is 195,900 for a total development guide of $391,800.

This project is utilizing existing inspiring communities program guidelines, which currently cap total development gap subsidy at $200,000 per unit, unless a waiver is authorized.

The estimated sale price is $235,000 per unit for a total estimated price of both combined of $470,000.

This project is using similar deal structure to pass an upcoming inspiring communities program projects.

Under the loan terms, the HRA will finance the cost of the land and issue a note and mortgage for the total development gap at zero percent interest.

The mortgage is forgiven upon future sale to eligible in buyers.

The funding sources for this development is also typical for other inspiring communities projects and will utilize residual inspiring community's program funds as part of PED's annual spending plan.

Mahmood with MM Real Estate Development LLC is in attendance today and is available to answer questions as needed after I complete this presentation.

The developer is a recent participant in Ramsey County's emerging and diverse developer program.

The Ramsey County EDD program empowers new voices in local real estate and fosters growth in expanding affordable housing options for our community.

1087 Ross will be MM real estate's first development project, and PD is excited to partner with this developer.

One of the developers' missions is to provide affordable housing ownership opportunities for multiple St.

Paul families.

During an upcoming HRA board meeting, commissioners will be requested to authorize the following board action.

Approval of the sale of HRA owned 1087 Ross Avenue to MM Real Estate Development LLC, authorization to enter into a development agreement, and authorization of a development gap expenditure in the amount of 400,000.

Thank you for listening to this project overview.

This brings us to the end of the presentation.

Please let me know if you would like to have the developer come up and to meet, or if you have any other questions, I can try and answer now or afterward.

Thank you, Ms.

Petri.

I saw Commissioner Ying's hand, and then I may welcome up uh Mr.

Mohammed and Mr.

Mirray as well this time.

Commissioner Yeah.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

Well, I always love these proposals that come our way, so I want to say thank you to the PED and housing staff for your work and on inspiring communities.

For um the slide six, this has three bed and two-bath units at an S.

I was wondering, can you clarify how many units is it that's being proposed on the lot?

Yeah, sorry, it's a little bit hard for me here with the fan, but also I'm going to keep it on because it's just nice.

Um, Chair Commissioners, the uh it's a three-bedroom, two bath unit.

Each unit is three bedrooms and two baths.

Okay.

And how many units did you there are two unit?

Oh, two, two, okay, great.

Thank you so much.

And I I know the developer's here, so I just wanted to first say thank you so much for your interest and commitment in building uh homes here in St.

Paul.

From what I've seen here, it's definitely very aligned with what I know easters want.

And so uh, this is a very exciting proposal.

And so again, thank you for for your work here in St.

Paul.

Um, first of all, uh thank you so much for having me here for presenting MM Real Estate Development, and we are very excited about this project.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

And uh and I'm sorry, are you Mr.

Mohammed or Mr.

Mirror?

Say that again.

Your name.

Uh Muhammad Mira.

Mira, okay.

Yeah.

Welcome, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Naker.

Thanks, Joe Johnson.

Um, yes, and I know at the fan it's hard to hard to hear all of us, but it is an important uh attribute of our chambers right now.

Um, I first of all just thank you also.

I echo the chair's thanks.

This is really exciting, and Vice President Yang's thanks.

Um, I'm curious just to connect the dots a little bit.

Um, I noticed on the very first slide, it mentioned that this was a development proposal that we received via the other proposal section of the disposition policy, which I think is when we are not putting a parcel out ourselves asking for proposals, but they we receive a request from a developer with interest in a parcel.

Um, and I know that one of our priorities in the past couple of years has been to try to get more of our HRA owned land back onto the tax rolls.

One of the strategies for that was marketing the parcels that we have and making sure they were all listed online.

And director, I know that's something that your team worked hard on.

So I'm just curious, and it's possible that I said all that, and that's not how it happened.

But is there a connection between us having made it more visible that we have these parcels available and the interest that we then received in this parcel?

Sure.

Uh, Chair Commissioner, I'll let Ms.

Petri talk a little more about the specifics for this particular parcel.

But yes, that is the process by which it came through, and that we've made it more publicly known and available information about HRA owned parcels and gives the opportunity for developers for emerging developers for individuals for people who have an interest to reach out specifically about a property or even to reach out and say this is the type of thing I'd like to develop.

What sort of HRA properties could this be a good fit for?

And then can work with them on okay.

Here are two or three that could be a good fit, or this one, and then it goes through to your point that process where we give public notice so that the public has notice that you might be pursuing a development opportunity on the parcel.

Um so if they want to make a proposal themselves, they can come in.

Public notice, and then go through the process here.

But Ms.

Petri, anything about this specific parcel that might be good to add?

Chair Commissioners, I I believe that you were actually referred to the HRA through the Ramsey County EDD program, is that correct?

So uh Branson County EDD program, sorry, Ramsey County EDD program um referred you to us as part of your the process that you went through in the program uh and let let you know that we had potentially had some parcels available that you should review for potential development opportunity.

So in this case, it's the uh the partnership we have with Ramsey County, but we also have built out a much more robust uh system and process for um commercializing these properties and getting them out to to the public.

And we actually, Daniela and I are actually working through an updated process that you'll see soon for that.

Great.

Great, that's great to see.

Um, and then just one quick question.

Um, the two, it's it's a duplex.

Um, is the idea because I know it says here for two families is are both of the duplexes for sale to separate families, is each one an ownership opportunity, or is it one together that they might then rent out to the other side?

It will be two different family.

So two, you'd buy sell them separately.

Yeah, it will be sold separately.

Which is also just another credit to you because we talk often about how it's so important to have ownership opportunities that aren't just single family homes.

Um, and this is exactly that kind of housing that we're talking about.

So, so thank you for doing this particular model.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, I we really appreciate any time that we have our developers actually come to the chambers to talk about their project, and so really just um wanted to say thank you for making the time to actually come out and share and thank you for your interest, especially on developing on the east side.

I uh represent Wart 7, which is just south of um this project and just south of Midi Haha, but the investment you know on the east side too is really important.

I'm glad to see that there is an emerging and diverse uh developer program uh recipient uh actually developing in our community too, and so that's just really awesome that we are seeing that as well.

Um, is there anything else that you wanted to share about the project at all, or just a little bit about your interest in the site?

Is there anything that you feel like would be better for the reader good since you're here?

Uh, we're really um uh excited about the project.

Uh we believe that ownership is very important, uh homeownership and with the city's help, you know, uh selling this uh two units to two different family with uh AMI of 80 to 1020% is very important.

So that's why we are very grateful to be here, and uh very excited about the project.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Murray, for being here.

Um, quick question for staff, just so we also know.

Can you just remind us again of where the $400 comes from on the budget cycle, and then also just like what's left in our inspiring community and small scale development piece?

Sure, chair and commissioners.

Um it is residual budget that is left over from a few more recent HRA uh inspiring communities projects that had some overage, so they had some some funds left over on the projects.

Uh they either sold for higher than originally anticipated or um just didn't need all the funds in the project originally, and so they rolled back in, and that's really what we're spending here for the specifics on the exact budget line item.

I will refer to either uh director or down the other if needed.

Um, otherwise, that's that's kind of the quick overview.

That we're just spending this down, which is is a great use of it.

Yeah, I think one of the reasons and you we can have a follow-up of the balance itself, but I think one of the things that's really important is kind of what you touched on is being able to repurpose dollars that we had designated for these funds and any opportunity that we have to do that, especially when it's parks development, gets back on the tax roll is exactly what we should be doing with these funds.

So thank you for your work on that.

Thank you for being here.

Um we sincerely appreciate it.

And this item will be back in front of us in two weeks.

Thank you.

Item number three, staff report 26-118, emergency rental assistance program updates.

Alrighty.

So folks know that we had launched a program for emergency rental assistance, and we actually got these dollars starting to get out the door this year.

I think it's really important to periodically, especially with programs that are launching with the purpose of really informing the process in which we do something, but also the frequency, get back in front of the body, and so I asked for an emergency rental assistance update here as well, and um, really excited to see this come forward.

So I'll hand it over to Director McMahon.

Chair, commissioners, um, thanks so much.

Chris Bridston is here before us to provide additional information.

This is an update, and as you said, Chair, an informational item.

There's no accompanying action on the emergency rental assistance program, and just really appreciate the depth of information and data that you're about to see provided by the housing team as we continue to work to um always refine, improve, and continue to work on this program to provide to provide the resource for residents.

So appreciate it.

Uh Chair and Commissioners, my name is Chris Bridston.

I am a project manager on the speaker program and policy team.

I am here to provide an update on the emergency rental assistance program.

Yeah.

Sorry, just a second.

No worries.

Control L get it.

Full screen.

Control L will get it full screen.

Okay, we're good.

We're good.

Thank you.

We got it.

Woo.

Welcome, welcome.

It's okay.

We all got to listen to the fan.

So back in.

So the purpose of the emergency rental assistance program is to provide funding to individuals and families renting in St.

Paul with a verifiable pending eviction to halt an eviction action.

Assistance is capped at $3,500 for renters, earning 80% of the area median income or lower.

The eligible expenses include rent, late fees, and court fees, and payments are made directly to landlords, and landlords must agree to halt the eviction proceeding upon receiving payment.

Some demographic information of the verified applications that we received for April and May of this year.

There were 257 total.

About 45% of those self-identified as black or African American alone.

Almost 25% self-identified as white alone.

Just over 11% chose not to identify.

Our current staffing for May was.5 p.m.

That is me.

We were open for applications for the first two days of April and the first two days of May.

The average processing time per application is about three and a half hours.

So for those two hundred and fifty-seven applications, they requested $687,924.

We processed 47 applications with a requested amount of 134,652.

I do have a little bit of updated for, because May is now done, we did approve and pay 31 total applications for 87,226.

The average amount paid per application was $2,766.

The average request was $3,033.

16% of households were paid exactly $3,500.

And 13% requested more than $3,500.

The average request for those who had received a housing court summons was $3,547.

Commissioner Naker has a question, so we'll pause probably at the previous slide.

Thanks, Chair Johnson.

Just looking at the numbers that you were sharing.

So total applications, 257, total processed 47, and then I see total in process five.

Where are the other applications?

So Chair Johnson and Commissioners, we the ones that we didn't process?

Is that the question?

Yes.

I guess I'm not sure what the other what's the other category out of 257, 47 have been processed, five are in process.

What's the other category?

Yes.

Chair Johnson and Commissioners.

We processed 47 because those were the ones that were selected in the random lottery.

All of the other applications that we received were not processed.

And got it.

And what is in process mean then?

I'm sorry, I didn't.

What is in process?

Chair Johnson and Commissioners in process were the ones that at the time we submitted this, we hadn't made a final decision on.

We have since made a final decision on all of those.

So the five in process have been decided since then.

Okay.

And then just as a follow-up, Chair, on the previous page, I noticed under the race and ethnicity distribution, you had breakdown of 2026 non-fraudulent applications.

Did we receive fraudulent applications?

Uh Chair Johnson and Commissioners, we did have some applications we received that appeared to be AI generated.

Those were screened out before we ran the lottery.

Do you know about how many of those we got?

Was it a large number or just a couple?

I do not have the exact number, but I can get it for you if you would like.

Thank you.

And I guess going forward to also, can you touch base on just the current staffing?

So we put resources into staffing also in addition to that that does differ from the last presentation that we had.

So can you share a little bit about why we're at um uh part-time capacity versus having full-time staff and where we are in the hiring process for the other additional staffing?

Okay, chair commissioners, we can our housing director is here as well to provide additional information.

I will I will share with you that I was actually surprised director and tag now wasn't here, wasn't presenting.

So I'll welcome you up at this time too to also provide that information.

Noting that for those months would be higher, Ms.

Finazo Dal, who I know has been before you before on the program, uh went on parental leave a little earlier than anticipated.

So down a little earlier than had anticipated for that.

And um coming out of the hiring freeze, really we've been prioritizing these specific positions, and they were the first in PED to be posted so that we can move forward as quickly as possible with them if you wanted to provide additional.

So uh Chair Johnson Commissioners, um, back in February when we made gave you the last update on this program, we uh made the promise that we'll have uh the full staffing as allocated by the HRE sometimes me.

That was a little bit too optimistic.

Fortunately, we have to go to CT processes on HR processes, so it takes some time.

Right now we are in the process of scheduling the interviews that will happen uh in the next few weeks, and then uh got the first on interview then the second round in July, and then uh we make offers and also the other steps of HR that we need to follow.

So hopefully by August we'll have the full staffing for this program.

And Chair Commissioners, one other thing to add, we have hired in our accounting team that position to help with the processing end of things.

So that position has been hired and is in place.

The other positions, as I said, they're the first to post coming out of the hiring freeze, they've been posted.

That period is closed, we've received the applications, and so we're in as Mr.

Antango said the the processing of the interviews and offers and all of that.

And to clarify, the full the full capacity for the program will be the 2.5 FTE and the PED supervisor.

Like that's the anticipated staffing that would be at full capacity.

Chair Johnson Commissioners, could you please?

Is the staffing that we see here on the going forward slide, the anticipated staffing, the 2.5 FTEs, so the two project managers and the PED supervisor plus the accounting tech that that would be considered the full staffing.

Correct.

So only working on processing these applications.

We have the 2.5 full-time equivalent.

In addition, we have the accounting tech that's already in place and working on this program.

Okay, and then just for clarity, for the months then of June and well, for the months of June and July, the numbers of anticipated like processing would would be safe to assume that the numbers will kind of be the same for total numbers of processed applications for June and July.

Yeah, Chad Johnson Commissioners.

So our goal is to process up to 50 applications.

Again, that's the goal, because we um reassign some stuff in current staffing to have 50's program in the past few weeks.

Uh stuff that was working on the DPA program, and that program is kind of winding down for now until we launch again the next uh opening uh for people to submit the application.

So that stuff has been reassigned to Health 50's program.

That's the reason for this month.

We plan to process uh double what we've been processing for the last couple of months, like up to 50 uh applications.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

We actually have another question from Commissioner Kim.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

Um, my question was around, so based on this, it looks like we still have to process 176 applications.

Is that correct?

So total applications, 47 processed, then approved, and then five in process, that leaves about 176.

Is that generally correct?

Chair Johnson Commissioners, we are only processing that specific number that we pull each month, the rest of them are not processed.

Okay.

They're essentially denied for the sake of clarity.

Like, so the amounts that are not processed, they're denied, yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I think, because that was my that's super helpful because my my immediate sort of was like, oh hey, because you know, families are hoping to receive this um assistance in order to stop the eviction um proceedings, and so my head I was like, oh, so there's a lot of families that are out there kind of waiting to um waiting to get this notification from us.

So these the 176 that's not sort of listed in this grid essentially are have been denied based on different qualifying factors.

Is that correct, or based on our capacity to process?

Yeah, I'm gonna I know the answer, but I will defer to staff just to get it in the sense of just like my understanding, I'll repeat back to you.

We have a lottery system, so the process kind of like the total process category or the um amount that's brought is the initial lottery poll.

And folks that are not selected in the lottery are then essentially a part of that 176 that are not not processed that are denied.

At that time, those folks are notified that they're not moving forward in the process.

So no one would be waiting at that time.

And then when applications are processed, they are either um approved, so approved and paid or in process as well as being reviewed or essentially also not funded at that time for whatever reason, but the current staffing capacity would be 50 applications monthly starting in June for the amount that we would pull from whatever applicant pool we get.

Okay, I really appreciate that.

I really appreciate that reminder.

Um, and just for what it's worth, it might just be an offering to maybe change some of the language or having a clarifying note on it because um I needed a reminder, and maybe others will as well.

So thank you.

Yeah, no, I think that'd be really helpful.

Um, one of the things on the slide was just more so like maybe just capturing those numbers of like what's not there every month will be helpful for future updates, especially when it just comes to wrapping your head around the lottery system.

Um, with the lot like the kind of plan to do 50 applications monthly starting this month, I think just one of the things that would be also helpful is like when we're getting the numbers back, is that kind of just numbers of those that were not a part of the lottery system numbers that because I think one of the things we're also looking at in the future is if two days is enough.

And so if we're you know seeing an influx of numbers, right?

We have it open for the first and the second, but like there were conversations about what that could look like, you know, if that's the right amount of time.

Like that seems to be where the pilot question is.

Like that's the recommendation for them.

And if we're tracking how much we're seeing, if we ever get to a place where we dip um below the 50 per 50 applications, I would really want to then think about expanding the time.

So not to say that we would, but if we ever had a situation where we weren't processing our full capacity monthly, that to me would be where then the solution would be to open the application for a longer period.

Commissioner Kim?

Oh, sorry.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Keep going.

Chair Johnson Commissioners.

So we did pull 50 applications for this month, and we will try to stick to at least that number moving forward.

Um we did have the applications open the first two days of the month.

All the applications were put into a random lottery, all of the applications that were valid were put into a random lottery, and everyone was notified whether they were selected for processing the lottery or whether they were not.

And all of the applications that we receive have their final decisions by the end of that calendar month.

So no one is left wondering if they're going to get money or not.

The staff in question was, I believe, already addressed.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Neaker.

Thanks, Chair.

And I know we're getting a little bit into the weeds, but this is a program we all care about, so just wanting to make sure I understand.

So what what are the criteria that make an application eligible to be in the lottery?

And then what would make it not approved after it comes out of the lottery?

Okay.

J.

Johnson and commissioners, so for someone to be entered into the lottery, the pre-screening at the beginning of the month, we're just looking to see is the application AI generated.

And if it is not, then it goes into the lottery.

We are also screening out people who do not live in the city of St.

Paul.

Those are the only two things we're looking for in the pre-screening of all of the applications that come in.

Every application that is not AI that is in the city of St.

Paul is entered into the lottery.

And after the lottery, you're then looking at then they have to be at or below 80% of area median income.

They have to have an active eviction action.

They cannot have already passed their court date for housing court.

And the landlord has to agree to the terms of the program, meaning once we pay them, they will not pursue eviction anymore.

And is there reason why you don't do?

I guess I'm wondering why we wouldn't do that screening prior to the lottery, or maybe put another way, if you do the lottery and then you find that a number of applications weren't eligible based on your second screening.

Do we then include other applications that might have been eligible that were left out?

So Chair Johnson and Commissioners, we did run a second lottery in both April and May after the first one, a smaller one, because we did have some people that were not eligible.

But you can see from the numbers, we are finding a good number of people are eligible.

So we do end up approving more than we deny of the ones that we process.

I saw Commissioner Coleman's hand and then Commissioner Yang.

Thanks, Sharon.

Thank you so much for the presentation, all the work that's going into getting this program back up and running.

Um I have a question about the AI generation, because I could imagine that that is an important way to weed out some potentially fraudulent applications.

And I could also imagine that we have residents who are relying on some AI tools to help complete the process, especially if they're not native English speakers or you know, for other reasons.

So I'm and if this is a question better taken offline, totally understand.

But I'm just curious how we're gauging the differences between those two uses of AI.

Um, and if we're just screening out any signs of AI entirely, if there's some sort of notification so that people know, like don't use Chat GPT to help you fill this out.

I'll say that Chair Commissioners, that is I'm happy to talk more and follow up on that because that really does get into a lot of like the detail in the weeds and what you're looking for, etc.

Um, it's it is not looking for people who might have used ChatGPT to help, you know, phrase some answers or that sort of thing.

I mean, it really is uh a sort of a blatant clear.

Um I'll use an example of a hundred applications for a duplex and trying to get the money.

I mean something that's sort of a blatant clear.

These aren't valid applications.

Um, and the reason for not doing the other sort of more extensive AMI, etc.

screening is the amount of time that that would take, wanting to ensure that we sort of take the day, do the gut check, look at any sort of like clearly not valid applications, take them out of the pool so that we can really focus on those that are St.

Paul residents and work on applications.

And if we were to work through them so quickly, or there was such a large amount that maybe was not within the AMI or something like that, we can go back and do a second draw out of those valid applications to make sure that we're not falling below that threshold of what we're able to process to make sure we're getting to as many as possible every single month and making sure that that residents of St.

Paul really have sort of a fair shot rather than if you're just to pull the lottery out of the entire, you would spend that extra time doing it.

So happy to follow up about more of like some of the very sort of in the weed specifics and like in this form, it is this and that sort of thing offline.

But hopefully that's a good general overview.

Yeah, I think well, some of the things that are helpful too is just whenever there's a fraudulent application, it's actually a crime to do so.

And so the severity level from someone using Chat GPT on an application level to someone actually going as far as lying or creating another identity for themselves to create a fraudulent um application to sign an affidavit to do all of the steps that it is included there, is actually like something that my understanding is that the staff are actually working with the city attorney's office, etc.

on is because it's actually very serious to do.

Um, and so just I also appreciate the due diligence of that too, especially around making sure that the folks that we are hoping this program reaches actually are the ones that are being reached.

Um, Commissioner Yang, and then I saw Commissioner Bowie's hand.

We may wrap after that um regarding this topic, the heat maps are what's left.

So before we go to the questions, can you uh just go to the last two slides for us?

So this is the heat map showing all of the verified applications that we received in April and May of 2026.

The pink and blue are the highest number of applications, and the yellow and red and gray would be the lowest.

And this heat map shows all of the approved applications for April and May of 2026, the same legend.

All right, so going to Commissioner Gang and then going to Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

I appreciate that presentation.

So I want to say thanks for really going into the details and even showing us the demographics here.

Um, I'm wondering well, I have two questions.

I'm wondering how often you all are seeing our um renter households reapply from those who have either received payment for us before or maybe were denied.

And then also I'm glad to see that the money is going in terms of like the dollars paid out, it is going to areas where we do tend to see more um uh economic disparities.

And so one thing that really stuck out to me is that one of the things Chair Johnson and I have been talking about based on information we received from Homeline is that in the 55106 zip code, it is where we've seen the highest rates of eviction, and so I notice it's on the heat map, but then it's also not like a concentrated area too.

So I'm wondering what sort of engagement we have, especially to um landlords since there we have that sort of data on hand already in the city, and then also um overall, like what's the engagement look like?

Um I'm I would I would think that maybe um there's some sort of partnership that we have with groups like Home Line, but if there are ways for us to strengthen that, then we can definitely uh make sure that more renters know about this assistance than would actually um take advantage of it.

So that's my hope.

Chair Gilson Commissioners, yes, we do have some partnerships, and we can certainly work on strengthening some of the areas where we don't see as high of an application rate as we do in others, and we do have specific data that we can gather for all of the applications if you would like it.

I just don't have it right now.

Commissioner Bowie.

Thank you, Chair Johnson.

Um, I also just want to say I appreciate having this visual the heat map.

It really looks like there's a high need, um, especially in ward one, particularly in Frogtown and the Rondo neighborhood, um, even in the North End as well.

Um, I am similar to um Commissioner Yang, we'll like to have like get more data, particularly to understand um, you know, where's the need?

Um, I'll even say go beyond that in terms of if there is a public housing, I would love to see you know a map um whereas the overlay of like the public housing to see if there's some correlation between the um request for the emergency assistance and our um uh residents who live in public housing as well as any um low-income housing providers.

I know um, you know, there's like common down, um, PPL, there's so many different housing providers, affordable housing providers in ward one, and just we'll want to see the correlation between uh a private uh property right versus a um a large management, you know, um um facility.

So thank you again for this hard work and you know I'm I'm happy to see that the money is going out the door.

The question I did have earlier um was not related to that, but I wanted to highlight it.

Um, but uh, real quickly, just it was on the lines of Commissioner Coleman around the security clearance or um screening for you know AI use.

Um I'm just really curious with the software, at least like the designing of the application.

If you know going in the future, if we see that there's a lot of saturation of this, you know, AI tools being used or automatic generated, you know, tools being used for applications.

If there can be some type of like security clear or screening or clearance, um, well, clearance is probably a strong word, but like a security screening where you know where you click on something you have to identify like are you a robot, right?

Um, and you know, I think those are really quirky, but you know, for the point, it seems like there might be some robotic systems that you know trying to get emergency rental assistance.

So I will be happy to just follow up to I don't know if that's in-house or if that's with our software developers or however the application um is designed, but I think that will be something that'd be helpful in the future.

Yes, Chair Johnson, commissioners, absolutely we can look at doing that on the application, just that little bit of security and get back to you on it.

Yeah, I think just operating from some solutions as well.

I think folks will really want to make sure that they continue to have this program being able to access families, and so some of the solutions and um, you know, recommendations driven from the staff are welcomed, obviously, when it comes to ways that you kind of see in strengthening the security of the application process and the integrity of the program itself.

We look forward to just kind of what recommendations that staff will bring to us in those discussions.

I uh don't see any more hands.

I know that there'll be a couple follow-up items.

We'll make sure to you know reach out with just what we heard today.

Uh but we do appreciate the work that you all are doing, um, especially just when it comes to uh maneuvering both the high need for this program but also um our wonderful welcome uh transitions as well when it comes into capacity and staff team.

We know that it's a lot of work and a lot of the uh process right now or the applications being processed or hand hours um from staff that are literally going into it, so manual hours.

So we just want to acknowledge that and say thank you.

Thank you.

Item number four is staff report 26-11 introduction to reservation of funds for certain St.

Paul projects applying for funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.

All right, I see Mrs.

Oren coming up.

Um we'll leave the one the next few uh minutes uh for the presentation just because of the interest of time.

We're uh at about 2 45.

So I'll get through the presentation.

Please hold your questions if you have additional ones, and we can do it once we get through the presentation itself.

Director McMahon.

Sure.

Chair Commissioners, just noticed this is an instruction informational presentation.

The action before you will be on the 24th.

We have Sarah Zorn here to provide information.

I know she's been in contact with each of your offices, and again, if there's any follow-up questions, happy to follow up as well between now and the 24th.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

So I'm here to introduce the reservations of funds for projects applying to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Consolidated RFP.

The consolidated RFP is an annual funding solicitation where MHFA awards tax credits, loans, and deferred funding.

And these awards are often the deciding factor as to whether or not a project can move forward.

Developers of projects in this presentation have reviewed the MHFA RFP, the scoring criteria, and determined that they need points in either the financial readiness to proceed or leveraged funds category or the other contributions category.

In the financial readiness to proceedslash leveraged funds category, projects can receive points based on the percentage of funding sources secured relative to the total development costs.

And then in the other contributions category, that covers non-capital contributions such as land write-downs, and developers can score points in that category, and that's based on the value of the non-capital contribution relative to the total development cost.

So the action that will come before you in two weeks on the 24th will allow the reservations and land write downs contained in this presentation to count toward points in those two categories.

I'll note that not all projects applying to MHFA will need a funding reservation to maximize points in these categories.

So there might be other funding or other commitments that have been made to the project that can earn these points as well.

So there's ways to do it other than the funding reservation.

This is not a final approval of funding.

If a project is selected through MHFA's process, housing staff will still go through the underwriting process to determine the needed gap amount and then bring the project to the HRA andor city council for approvals such as entrance into a development or loan agreement, issuance of bonds, approval of land sales, and approval of a final subsidy amount.

For those projects that are not selected, the reservation will be released.

MHFA starts with an initial evaluation of responses and will usually issue some projects an early no around September.

And the remaining projects are subject to further analysis with results presented to the MHFA board in December.

There are six projects that we're recommending move forward with a reservation.

The Hams West End Apartments project on HRA owned land with a reservation of four million and a purchase price of one dollar.

The Gloryville project on HRA owned land with a reservation of 2.5 million and a purchase price of $57,0820.

Face-to-face on HRA owned land with a reservation of about $5.7 million and a purchase price of $1.

The Westminster Vista project with a reservation of $1 million.

The Aragon with a reservation of 1.35 million, and Ramsey Hill with a reservation of 1.4 million.

These reservations are intended to leverage funding through MHFA and don't mean that each project has been assigned a specific source.

We've reviewed the projects and determined which sources could be used on each project, but matching the project and source will have to come later once MHFA makes their decisions and they determine what source they're going to use.

For example, last year MHFA had a lot of federal home dollars, and if they assign deferred funding to a project in the amount of say 10 million dollars in home dollars, we're going to want to layer our home dollars on top of it because then the project will be complying with federal home regulations for both sources, for both funders, rather than using some more flexible dollars.

In addition, there's a bill moving through the House and Senate that may expand the way we're able to use CDBG dollars in the future.

And since we don't know what the MHFA decisions will be until December, not assigning a specific source allows us to adapt to any possible changes.

These are renderings and images of the projects that I just listed.

And a map where the projects are located.

We've got Gloryville and face-to-face in Ward 6, HAMS and the Aragon in Ward 7, Ramsey Hill and Ward 1, and the Westminster Vista project is actually two different sites, one site in Ward 2 and one in Ward 5.

I'll give a brief overview of each project and we'll go over everything since you've got the slides.

Starting with the Hams West Ends apartments where the developer JB Vang currently has tentative developer status.

This will be an adaptive reuse of brewery buildings to create 70 units of affordable housing between 30% and 60% of AMI in one to four bedroom units with about half the units at the three or four bedroom size.

This project will complement the East End Apartments building that was selected for funding by MHFA last year.

The project has already secured about 2.9 million from other funders and will be continuing to secure additional funding and work toward remaining approvals.

The Gloryville project is located on HRA owned land at 1570 White Bear Avenue.

The developer, Gloria Wong, currently has tentative developer status and plans to construct 69 units of housing affordable between 30% and 60% of AMI and one to four bedrooms, with about 40% of the units being three and four bedrooms.

In addition, the developer plans to construct an approximately 20,000 square foot grocery immediately adjacent to the housing building.

Gloryville has already secured almost $4 million in funding and will continue to finalize their designs and pursue remaining approvals.

Face to face is also on HRA owned land at 1170 arcade and will be developed by the face to face organization.

The plan is for 24 units of permanent supportive housing focusing on youth, and that project will consist of efficiencies to two-bedroom units.

Face to face has already secured over 5 million in funding and will continue to focus on a capital campaign and completing some predevelopment activities.

The Westminster Place and Vista Village projects are an apartment and townhome community.

They were combined in one tax credit deal some time ago with Tory to San Miguel, and together they represented almost 300 units of very low income housing.

Due to the number of units and the cost to rehabilitate and resyndicate that project, Common Bond Communities has decided to pull the deal apart, separating out the Westminster and Vista projects from the Tory to San Miguel project, which was funded by MHFA last year, and we're expecting that one to close this fall.

So Westminster and Vista combined have 147 one and two bedroom units between the two projects, and all the units are supported by project-based Section 8 vouchers from the PHA or housing supports from the county.

The project has raised 4.6 million dollars in state housing tax credits to pay off some existing debt, and VISTA was awarded $3.8 million from HUD's Green and Resilient Retrofit program.

The developer will continue to work to secure funding and through their approval processes.

The Aragon project by Beacon Interfaith is located at 470 White Bear Avenue and will be a new building consisting of 53 units serving households between 30% and 50% of AMI, and approximately 25% of those units will be three and four bedrooms.

Beacon has secured 21 project-based Section 8 vouchers, and they were awarded the city's 9% tax credits in 2025.

But because the amount of credits we have to allocate isn't sufficient to fully fund a project, they'll continue to pursue additional credits and sources as well as work on the property purchase and their approvals.

The last project is Ramsey Hill, and this consists of six different buildings, a total of 54 units, ranging from efficiencies to three bedrooms and serving households between 30% and 50% of AMI.

The project was awarded $600,000 from the county and will continue to seek additional funding and finalize their rehab plans in the coming months.

Um I mentioned these two earlier, but these um the rehabilitation of Torrey to San Miguel and the new construction of the Hamsey Sun departments were the two projects that MHFA funded last year.

Um this year's funding round closes on July 9th, and all of these projects will be submitting applications.

So the action on the 24th will be just approving these reservations.

And I think it's also because of the proactiveness that you've taken just to ensure that all of us know about the projects.

Several of these are repeats as well from uh previous cycles, and so just um it's just really important that we continue to see our projects funded at the state level as well, and so I just uh would urge uh staff as well to know to let us know if there's any way that we can be supportive to that, um whether that be in letters or whatever is needed.

But overall, just really excited to see some of the projects continuing to pursue um these funding options, and I don't think there's any questions because of the work and because of the collaboration and the conversations that have happened and taken place.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so the HRA board will recess after the last after this last staff report now that it's completed, and we're gonna convene during the city council meeting that'll be held today, June 10th at 3 30, and the right here in the council chambers.

So with that, we are recessed.