greetings welcome to the monthly meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment authority of Cook County uh Wednesday February 19th I note the presence of a quorum here Commissioners Olen Hansen O'Brien and gabler uh I acknowledge the presence
of the County uh Commissioners uh Gamble and Sullivan thanks for your support and being here uh first item is approval of the agenda and I would i' like to add a consideration of an Eda issue at the
four directions housing in luten uh they're looking for our thoughts on on uh on this it would occur under new business at the end of new business uh is there a second to that motion I I'll second
it great moved and seconded any discussion all those in favor say I I I opposed uh approval of January 15th uh 2025 special meeting minutes uh they're pretty
succinct but we could use a motion to approve those and I'll move approval thank you second and a second any further discussion on those minutes hearing none all those in favor
say I I I I opposed then we're to the approval of January 15th 2025 regular meeting minutes uh which is more complex and certainly had more few more things in it
but uh could we get a motion for that I'll move to approve I'll second it's been moved and seconded any further discussion hearing none we all those in favor say I I opposed uh opportunity for public
comment this is a regular feature of our meeting uh anybody here want to address the commission from the uh audience hearing none we'll move to new
business uh item a under new business approval of policy for paid time off employee sick and safe time that was really mandated by the state legislature in 2023 starting 2024 we were totally
covered in 2024 um with our uh our PTO and and leave and that kind of thing but I just thought it would be best to have a formal policy and so the Fred Burger Law Firm produced the policy that's
attached here and uh any questions on on that uh policy is there a motion to approve I'll move to approve the
policy second it's been moved and seconded any further comments hearing none all those in favor say I I opposed all right Item B A significant item here approval of the contract with
Jeffrey brand as our executive director and uh I can just report on behalf of the uh Personnel committee that we uh gave this a lot of consideration and uh we've used the same format for the
agreement that we used with Jason Hill uh and so I think that uh we're excited to have an executive director at this stage believe me I'm excited he'll be doing the minutes from now
on but any uh thoughts or questions for us or for Jeffrey is there a motion to approve his agreement I'll move to approve it it's been moved second and seconded any further
discussion all those in favor say I I I welcome and he posed Jeff come on up you got a you got a name plate already here for he thanks to an Sullivan and was Johnny on the spot or Sally on the spot
in terms of producing new uh white placards I've got what Jason had and they're pretty ratty by nowy but uh anyway uh secondly uh item C actually is approval of the contract with Jason Hill for Consulting Services
during the transition it uh the contract lasts through the end of 2025 uh he's cut us a discount of a third on his Consulting uh and which was I thought nice of him
and uh and we really need him to as we get in because he's got honestly some of the information on these projects in his head and he's acknowledged that so uh we've got plenty of documentation but uh
I think for Jeff's sake and for ours uh we needed a contract with Jason so the contractors attached any motion on that contract I'll move approval it's been moved is there a second
second moved and seconded any further discussion on the item if not let's call the question and all those in favor say I I I opposed all right uh and D is a related resolution
uh that we need to produce for Grand Marie State Bank for the signature atories for the account right now I'm the only signatory on their bank account that's really not comfortable not just for me but for you
and it really is so uh the changes designate the chair the vice chair and uh the uh secretary as signatories and so uh if this gets approved um we'll
have to produce the minutes fairly quickly because we need to get over to Grand maray State Bank and they they want the resolution and then uh we can proceed with each one of you can just show up at your leisure uh
to put your John Hancock on the uh account so uh with that is there any uh is there a motion I'll move to approve the resolution expanding the signature rights at gr Mar State
Bank uh there's second a second it's been moved and seconded any further discussion if not let's call the question again all those in favor of resolution 25-2 uh say I I I
opposed it's carried uh then we are coming to what's left under new business is the one roof housing development in uh luten and uh they're having difficulty renting units
and it's costing them a lot of money and and and that's not in anybody's uh favor so they've made a a proposal here on uh what they would hope that the Eda would do so it's actually
an Eda issue but uh Heidi is here to walk us through this and just try to get our opinion said it but well I met most of you back in November um so hello again except commissioner gell I'm hiid
um so I'm back and um this isn't a new issue this has come before the Eda before um this exact issue about vacancies um so I just wanted to back up a little bit we we at the Eda just thought it would be good practice to
come now that the HRA is in existence um to come to the H to weigh in on housing issues because you're the housing experts um as opposed to us at the Eda many of the agreements the Grant and Loan agreements um that the H for HRA
projects had to go through the Eda because the HRA wasn't able to apply I don't for whatever reason um uh for however the H was formed or whatever so the Eda applied basically as the
Fiscal Agent so all of the import important documents are through the Eda um so for instance uh I signed uh Eda uh president Peter and I signed a $1.3 million loan agreement um last month for
an H project so those sorts of things are happening and so um in the future we'll probably be coming we will be coming back for the H's weigh on weighin on these sorts of things and this is one of them
um so we've uh we met with um we meaning um Peter kold and I um met with Brook tap Dakota soul and Chad dipman of onew roof community housing um back in January um to discuss two of two of
their requests the first request was which the H already weighed in on um recently about allowing um Wonder Ro community housing to sell off that that vacant remnant parcel that's next to these 16 unit um Workforce housing units
um and so that was their first request um removing restrictions um and then the second request is the one that's before you today and that is regarding the reoccurring vacancies in
um at least one of the units um in the 16 unit project in luten um next right next door to that vacant piece um and uh this this isn't the first time they've had problems filling this unit
um the Eda uh amended uh uh they've amended agreements um in the past to accommodate so this is this keeps coming back um and so uh just wanted to put it out there that as we're
on one roof has come to the Eda um asking or requesting we've tried to respond as soon as possible um and coming to the Eda first and then or coming to the HRA first and then going back um and then Eda will basically
whatever the H says the Eda just puts it through so that's why I'm here um the request is looks like you have hard copies um the request came from the executive director of one roof community
housing um um you have it in front of you so I I I don't really think I need to go through it unless you want me to for those at home um but basically they're asking for more amendments to the agreement
um and this time they're asking for some flexibility um on four of the units rather than just one in the past they've come back just asking for help with one now they want to uh have more flexibility on four of the 16
units just a question about what what are the I'm just a little confused about the U uh the effect of waving the mod the workforce house restriction so if they've had difficulty renting one or four of these units and the restrictions
are removed what what specific restrictions are standing in the way of getting those units leased up there are several restrictions based on the subsid that the developer received when they built the project so because taxpayer
funds and subsidies were provided that's why these restrictions are here in the first place so are you asking what the yeah what are the restrictions the that the those the renters are work in Cook
County and there's eight units that are spoken for by employers um I can't remember how many it's eight at least four for luten mountains and four for Caribou Highlands I think and I'm assuming they just keep
paying if they can't fill their units but uh is that correct you know I don't remember the amount of that are if it's eight or or what it is but this new um request would be similar to that
existing agreement where the employer would sign the lease agreement with the property owner and so they would be on the line to pay the the rents for instead of the rent doors and
the change is that is that the I'm just trying to understand the change it's being proposed here and the change is just that the employer could be an employer not just in the west end but an employer anywhere yes and and from what I understand not just in Cook County but
am I might be wrong on I think that's pretty clear in there that they're looking for you know at least as I was reading it the ability to rent to people who are working in Cook County possibly by but their employers
are not Cook County Construction people mostly is what I kind of gathered is the right but U correct me if I'm wrong on it but I I I will say that they were invited to be um be here and um so I
apologize that I can't express their exact request as as well as they probably could um so so it sounds like it's not a it's not something that's going to affect you know negatively affect the income for the units other than to fill
units that are vacant now but the rent level will remain roughly the same correct um it's just eligibility is being changed to include employers outside of Co County or exactly um so if I remember correctly when these
were built the the idea of the covenants was to keep people from renting them as second homes or vacation homes Y and this doesn't in any way allow that this is just to allow workers who may may or may not be employed by employers that
are based in Cook County but still work and live here am I correct in that correct okay that makes perfect sense well I I'd have to say that what roof has been a stellar partner in Cook County between abolutely the Section 8
project family project and and the four uh the four roof four directions units and uh it's in nobody's interest to see them uh starting to have financial trouble as long as they're they're try
it's it seem as I read this more financial yeah more yeah that's all right but uh as I see this it's more or you know they will continue to give any priority to people from Cook County and employers from Cook County but uh after
a certain amount of time if the units are still vacant that they could make some alternative accommodations Mr chair yeah yeah if I may um identifying the requested amendments
so that the board is clear on that is is important the other thing thing is is that looking at the intention when one woof was put in and I my first term it was during that term that was put in and we were looking for housing options for
employers and um if if it's a technical issue relative to where the employee the company is not located in our County outside of the county but it's still workers that are working within the county then I would say the intent
is is still being met to create housing for workers in K County um and so in that regard if it's a technicality in the way that the language was drafted I think the language could be clear to
ensure that we're still meeting the objective and make the language consistent with objective the other issues are relative to what the other requests are as was alluded to if if we were you know doing doing something that was
you know outside of then the other component that from my standpoint is I would want to know and the board probably is privy to this the history of occupation as to what where where we're
seeing you know the deficiencies and what's causing that and if there's something that we can do that won't compromise original intent and still you know find that that Medium so that you have increased occupancy but the reason
I bring it up is from the standpoint of we do not have housing and we've been saying that for years and years and years and if we create housing and it's not unoccupied why is that and if it's because we've made it too restrictive then it would be helpful to understand
in what capacity that that's affecting the ability to create occupancy anyway thank you any other thoughts or comments Commissioners I understand now
um does this have a resolution number or do we just no it's just did just accept the request the motion to accept the and and say I to Eda making these changes in their covenants to One Roof the one roof
Housing Development there all right well said Al so move thanks 0 second second just a disc discussion point I mean I I guess this is formally actually
a decision I'm sorry Mr chair a moment for discussion sure yeah no no I think is discussion is didn't wait for the queue no I I I I think that this is actually you know so this is a decision that to be made by
the Eda looking with input from the h i would um I'd like i' like to get more background information uh it can be a followup but I'd like to get more background information on the uh um on on the existing restrictions of the
workforce restrictions and sort of better understand um uh what the restrictions have been why they've been honorous and what the proposed outcome you know what the new flexibility will allow you know and just to make sure
that it's still aligned as commissioner G gamble said with the original intent so with that that's if I could add to that further discussion um the Eda itself had many many questions as well about exactly along those lines and so
um definitely get all that information from the property owner and forward it on to both bodies Ed will be now that you recommended uh approval to the to Eda the Eda will be uh passing a
resolution at their next meeting on March 18th um for this um at the same time all that all that extra info will be coming forward and I'll I'll pass it along to to you for your March meeting that would be good and we do recognize
Our obligation in these projects where they we were the creator of them but we have to use the Eda as the applicant which is I don't fully understand you know why Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for example takes that approach
but I I I do understand the I because that's what they've done for you know their whole history and so it's hard to change and but uh it's just uh but we do recognize that we've
got an obligation to and I think it'll become really clear on the uh prevailing wage question uh to be honest and thanks for the information on that uh I appreciate
it any further discussion and the Motions hearing none uh all those in favor say I I opposed motion passes uh
okay now I want to introduce Chris Verda of the furer law firm in duth and uh he is our councel um and has been and uh I I this is again in in the manner of
trying to get our policies and and uh procedures straight so that we don't run a f of anything especially a law but uh but but and the open meeting law is one of those as well as uh some of the
conflicts of interest we do have a conflict of interest policy and everybody fills them out but uh so Chris I appreciate your being here thanks and uh nice to meet you in person and yeah nice to meet you in person as well thank you for having me here today this is the
first opportunity I've had to attend a meeting in person although as mentioned I've been doing work in the background via phone and email for about three years now I believe so um I'm looking forward to do you know some some get
some new projects off the ground here in the near future with the new director so I look forward to Growing that relationship um with respect to the open meeting law the the purpose of it really is so that the general public and the
media has an opportunity to be present when the board is conducting public business um there's very few exceptions for when the board could close a meeting uh generally speaking that's to discuss real estate transactions Personnel
matters and labor negotiations now when you close a meeting you have to expressly State you know what under what Authority you're closing the meeting um you would the general nature of what's going to be discussed and then during that close
session it's only a discussion so any official business would have to happen any decisions would be made once you've reopened the meeting um potential violations to the open a meeting law can occur outside of a regular meeting if by chance you know
there's a a quorum of board members present that say a social function and business of the H gets discussed it's not necessarily a problem that all of you happen to be at the same social function but I I just caution you to make sure that you don't discuss any
matters that are being cons considered by the board at the time the same goes for email correspondents so if there's an email chain that happens to have a quorum of the board connected to that email chain you have to be careful about
discussing uh official business of the HRA so because that would also be a potential violation and the same goes for in social media forums if there's a quorum participating in some sort of discussion so those are things just to
be careful of um that's not to say that you can't discuss H business outside of a regular meeting it's just a quorum can't be participating in that discussion so a smaller group could definitely have a conversation and that would be just fine
M excuse me just to clarify so my understanding is if the executive director for instance sends out an email asking for the opinion of the board the protocol is that you respond individually to the executive director not reply all yes
that that that is correct yeah just just to be clear that seems like a common mistake so easy to click reply all you know yeah and of course mistakes happen but yeah that's a A good rule of thumb make sure to just reply directly you
know with respect to conflicts that's a a tough thing especially in areas where you know it's a smaller population you have lots of people wearing multiple hats and and so it's it's something that if you feel that there's a potential conflict it's quick to flag
that right away um and hopefully not at the meeting when some sort of official board action is going to be taken related to that um conflicts there's really not a clear bright line guidance provided by the state unfortunately
there's various Court decisions so it's it conflicts can really be a a very fact intensive and kind of a situation by situation um you know requiring its own analysis uh that being said that at a minimum if there is something of a
conflict um the bare minimum action would be to you know uh let the board know about it so make sure that's it's on the record of the potential conflict uh abstaining from any discussion and abstaining from voting on the matter itself so that that would be the bare
minimum but that's to say that there are situations and conflicts that could require further action and that that wouldn't be sufficient Jee I I've been in Conflict situations on other boards um many times and generally speaking my
Approach was simply to leave the meeting when the issue is being discussed not discuss it and you can't abstain that's a vote um you have to not vote and have to be recorded as not voting at least that that was my understanding of how
the stuff works and so far I'm here not in jail so that's a good thing and I apologize yeah not not that that was probably poor accuse if you recuse yourself yeah and then you know it's a majority of those present in voting on
the issue so uh you don't need to have three votes if two are you know conflicted on something it's uh but and I'm happy to know that Robert's Rules of Order has a special uh section
for smaller boards as opposed to larger boards and recalled that in the past too sorry so and and that's that's about all I have that was kind of the 10,000 foot level just overview but you know if
there's like I said a potential conflict you know happy to please flag it and let the director know and then they'll refer it to us and and we'll look into it to see what the proper course of action would be it would also seems that intent is an important aspect of the vi
potential violations of um open meeting and lives and stuff that you know of a a slip up that wasn't intended to be uh you know something that's really
um purposeful I guess uh was is probably not going to raise much concern but it's best to stay away from a lot of that anyway but great and I'm assuming our new executive directors had enough
uh experience with how open meeting was and so uh that's a good thing for us any questions for Jeff or Chris rather and or Jeff I guess but Chris is in front of us
so he you can weigh in too if you want but yesterday the Ed received uh one pager on open meeting law so it's same same thing same discussion okay go ahead maybe you'd share that with
us we'll send it around well thanks a lot Chris appreciate your being here uh next item is discuss the need for an update of the 2023 strategic plan uh it was late in 2023 that we
updated the plan I can't remember maybe November or so and but the times were different though to be honest Federal money was flowing and um uh there were exciting opportunities for projects and
I think that's going to be more problematic in the future and I'd like to at some point have a meeting of the board to just talk about those issues I did reach out to the Minnesota Housing Partnership uh who led us through
through the first strategic plan and back in 2021 or two um they don't have money for it right now and uh I'm thinking this isn't you know really a major redo it
just ought to be a discussion but if anybody has any ideas of there's a local person who might be good at something like just helping us identify you know what what are the issues help the discuss along and um that would be a
good thing as far as I'm concerned as as to invite into the discussion okay yeah all right or facilitate well to facilitate really is what I'm thinking that would and so take the old plan you know from 2023 know
what it's about and then facilitate our discussion of where do we want to go from here because that's really our decision and um and I I think we need discussion because things have changed and commissioner again yeah Mr chair uh
as a recommendation uh if you have a facilitator who who knows processes but you inform uh basically so that your plan is defined based upon your information and your goals and things but you a
facilitator would facilitate the process but you basically putting the information in there they're not defining that for you if that's what you're experienced with before that's not their job it's a big yeah that's right and we're not starting from square one right we we have a strategic plan
we're just twe TW looking at it to see what's changed what what do we need to update you know the kind of the obvious choice would be uh Mary sness who's a former commissioner of the HRA former executive director of the Eda long long experience in government service with the ITR
would be very uh there'd be no learning curve for her well that's true and she's a good great facilitator yeah the question will be whether she's available I know her situation has improved but it's still she's got a long way to go to yeah be in
the Twin Cities and but we're looking at like a one day thing here yeah oh yeah that's half a day maybe but uh so that but I appreciate the suggestion there I would agree with Bill MH well I'll contact Mary and see what her
thinking is and see if we can do something and get a date heard the cats uh anything else on that discussion uh next item is financials
perhaps commissioner O'Brien you could walk us through looks like we have a lot of money in the bank yeah no the the panes were attacked were attached in the financial in the board packet um I don't know if there's any specific questions but but included in there is a balance
sheet which shows that um currently the balance in the grammar Savings bank account is 56891782 pretty most of it's pretty straightforward um uh in terms of the
just you know uh individual checks that were written over the last month or so the total revenues over the course of the year was $127,000 um um and um let's
see um that's I I don't have more of a prepared um presentation bill but uh that's there's any questions about it I can either answer those we'll follow up with it that well one of the things that
Jason left me with was to record a document that had been executed fully executed and he just didn't have time to get to it so that next Monday I showed up at the record's office and they asked G do you know that you have a a post box
here in the courthouse I said no and he said well so they were nice enough to go get the stuff out of our and there was a check for $127,000 of property taxes and so I'll be the executive director can be a
little more regular on checking that account but uh that was the revenue that we earlier yeah any other topics from the Commissioners that uh do we would want to put on
there if none the committee reports uh I think basically uh the committee is of uh our Personnel committee is uh met
and that's the result is Jeff being here so we consider that a successful committee effort so grateful yeah um commissioner items there is one uh
thing that Jan told us that we cannot be in this room for the July meeting we'll be next door across the hall in the ITB room and I think our I'll have to go back and look or ask Jason but I think our there's no camera there so that uh
the I think we've just recorded the oral uh part of the meeting uh Jason did but we'll check on that but just be aware that the July meeting will not be in this room July any other
items hearing none is there a move to adjourn so move when is our next meeting it's right at the bottom of the agenda March 19th Wednesday March 19th and that is here yeah some more all
right to that second moved and seconded all any further discussion all those in favor of turning say hi hi welcome Jeff yeah thanks glad to be here yeah you'll be a busy fell for a
while here busy is good and uh