Welcome to the January 2026 meeting of the Housing Redevelopment Authority of Cook County uh board of commissioners. Uh it's Wednesday, January 21st. Uh first, I note the presence here of a quorum. Commissioners Olsen, Hansen,
O'Brien, and Gabler. Uh, also our county commissioners who we didn't expect to be with us but are delighted that they are and and safe and those are commissioners Gamble and Sullivan. Uh, and uh, we welcome you. >> Thank you.
>> Uh, first question here is approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? >> Also move. >> Move. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any additions to the agenda or clarifications? But if not, all in favor
of approving the agenda say I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Approval of December 17th, 2025 minutes. Uh, we've all had a chance to get familiar with them. Is there a motion to approve
those or is there any comments? >> Are there to approve? >> It's been moved. Is there a second? >> I'll second. It's been seconded. All uh any more discussion? If not, all those in favor, please say I. I.
>> I. >> Motion carries. Uh it's an opportunity for public comment, but uh there are no members of the public here today. So, we'll move on to item four on the agenda, new business. And the first is presentation by deed of northeastern
Minnesota regional uh conditions here, both employment and economic. I think so. We welcome Carson Gurki who's with deed to lead us through some slides. >> Yeah. Thank you. Get close to the
microphone here. Thank you very much. Looks like we're good to go. Oh man, this is my second presentation of the day and the technology has worked great for both of them. So, I'm having a a fantastic afternoon. Uh good afternoon, commissioners. Uh my name is Carson
Gorki. I am the regional labor market analyst uh for DED for northeast Minnesota. Uh so as regional labor market analyst um well as the labor market information office, we have a number of functions. The primary one is to disseminate labor market information.
So labor market information can be most commonly jobs data, unemployment rates that you probably see in the news every month. Um but we do a lot more than that. uh us as regional analysts. We serve um in roles in throughout the state. So there's six of us in regions
uh throughout the state and our position is meant to serve as a point of contact for socioeconomic data, labor market information. So we release the jobs data, we put it out there. Um but we have a lot of other data. um wage data, graduate employment outcomes, career
pathways data, occupations in demand, a whole host of socioeconomic data to describe and um um put out there what are the conditions in our local economies. But in addition to that, we serve us regional analysts as people
that you can ask a person that you can call and reach out to and be like, what does this mean? Yeah, there's this number here. There's this trend and chart that you published. uh but why does that matter for us and and can you explain a little bit more? So we see our roles as being really important
interfaces between um you know the state bureaucracy centered in St. Paul um and then the actual people out in the state making decisions. So the plan today uh is to cover some of the demographics and labor market trends
for Cook County, northeast Minnesota. Um and then focus uh on some of the housing characteristics and trends for northeast Minnesota, which is the seven county uh area, Aken, Carlton, Cook, Itasco, Lake, Cooching, and St. Louis counties. So
that's my area uh that I focus on. So when I talk about northeast Minnesota, that's what I mean. So, we'll talk about some of the county and regional housing trends. Um, supply, demand, and affordability is kind of how I divide it up. And then, uh, focus on that, uh,
relationship, uh, that I think is becoming ever clearer of the labor market, um, and housing. Uh, I will say that if you have any questions, go ahead and ask them whenever they come up. I'm happy to answer them, address them as, uh, as we
go. So before that, any questions from you before I dive into >> Do you live in northeast Minnesota? >> Yes, I live in Duth. Uh so um my office is the Career Force Center in downtown Duth across from city hall. Um but I
travel throughout the region to do presentations like this. It's actually probably my favorite part of the job um is getting out of my cube or office to uh travel and and talk to people. So >> welcome to Cook County Cody. >> Yeah, thanks. Glad to be here. I just had lunch with one of my uh best friends
that lives up here. So, it was a a very good excuse to come up north. Thank you. Uh okay. So, I start broadly with population trends. Uh and the most recent data we have is through uh 2024. Um and that little table on top uh
shows, you know, over the decades how Cook County has changed. Um and gradually adding population. And that is of note uh especially when you put in the context of northeast Minnesota which has been relatively flat or even lost population uh over the decades. Uh so
Cook County has added job uh people through 2020. We've seen a little bit uh of a decline since then. Um but most of that decline I'll point out has been very recently um following the pandemic. Uh in 2020 there was as you probably
aware of influx of people interested in moving out of the metro areas uh not just in Minnesota but nationally and Cook County and northeast Minnesota were recipients of a lot of that migration pattern. Um and since then it's started to slow down and we've seen the same
thing where people have moved out of Minnesota and that trend has started to reverse as well. So the state's growing and if you look at the longer term Cook County has been growing as well. The other thing I want to point out is the median wage sorry median age uh of Cook
County which is 52 uh years old. Um and that is good enough for second oldest county in the state just after you have any guesses of the oldest bacon. Yeah. Yep. You got it. >> Uh well you probably have the uh I don't know if I put it in the presentation.
keep encouraging people to get older up here so you can take the number one spot. >> I love that. Yeah, I love that. Yep. Uh but you can see how it compares to the state. Um quite a bit older. Uh the only location I guess you could say in northeast Minnesota that is below the
state median age is uh city of Duth. And that's probably the case if you look at some of the other cities too. Um, but out of the seven counties, uh, we have four of the top six oldest counties in the state. So, northeast Minnesota is quite a bit older. And we'll talk about
how that's relevant to housing here in a second. A little bit more on the population trends. Uh, this is the context of the region. Um, so you can see there's been some growth uh, in the last four years. Um, pointing out the
the WSA3 northeast Minnesota. So that is the seven county area minus Duth the city of Duth which is um WSA's workforce service area. I work a lot with the workforce development boards and that would be the workforce development board outside of Duth which is its own
workforce development board. Um so you can see the the population change the last four years. Um Aken growing the fastest uh actually quite a bit ahead of the Minnesota rate and then Carlton Duth Itaska St. area outside of Duth. Um Cook uh and
then Lake and Cuchching um declining faster uh than Cook has. Cuching is kind of on a a longer term decline uh trajectory um and I think is projected to decline about 10% over the next 10 to
15 years too, which is um pretty scary when you think about how many people that is and what it means for the finances of a of a small county like that. And then by comparison, the US grew about 2.5% over that time period. Over uh a longer period, uh this is the
population households trend for Cook County. Uh according to the state demographic center. So this is you can see pretty gradual population growth over that period. Um the orange line represents the number of households uh which has also grown. Um, and then the
gray bars represent the number of people or persons per household. Um, and I'll just point out that there's been a slight decline in that. So, while the population is growing, the number of people living in each housing unit has actually declined. So, um, there's been
a phenomenon where you say like, okay, a lot of rural areas have had flat population. Why is housing still in such high demand in a lot of these rural areas? Well, part of the change in society is fewer people living in each housing unit. So,
even if you have the same amount of people, uh, you're going to need more housing units, and that's not to factor in the aging of the housing units and the recycling, etc. >> Another question, the statistic of your person's per household, >> what is that?
>> Uh, so household is the group living in a housing unit and that can be either a family or non-family household. So just what about second homes, non-h homesteaded homes. Is are they counted? >> They're counted in housing units. Um they wouldn't necessarily be a household
if they're not primarily living in the the place that you're measuring. >> Does that make sense? >> Uh primarily living defined as >> well your your homestead. Yeah. >> So non-h homesteaded wouldn't be included in this.
>> No. >> Okay. No. Gotcha. and a a question relative to uh the explanation as to why we see that if we see that trend fewer people living in a home. >> Mhm. There's a there's a couple potential explanations. Um one is as the
population is older um more people are living alone when they get older and then on the other end of the kind of family creation there's fewer families are smaller. Uh, a little bit more on the aging population. Sorry, you get to look at
that, too. Um, the aging population, we talked about how it's older than the state average. Um, and this is the change that has taken place since 2000. Um you can see as um 24 years you've moved from the top which is the youngest
to the bottom which is older. You've seen the kind of bulge in the 35 to 54 move basically 20 years down to the 55 to 74 age groups. That's basically just the the baby boomer generation moving uh
through the population pyramid. So this is just a visual representation of it. Um, another stat that jumped out at me was the 55 plus population in the county grew 67% since 2000. Um, and you know that's compared to the I don't know the 3% that the overall population has
grown. Um, and then the under 45 population fell about 12% over that same period. >> Question on on that. >> Yeah. that um understanding that that shift if it's interpreted to mean that
people that are residents, longtime residents that are aging are moving and when you look at the baby boomer population into that age category, you're going to see that shift happening more static. >> Yeah. If it's because you have retirees
in that baby boom generation that have always wanted to move to the Northshore and so that age group is coming in with their wealth earned elsewhere into our northeast region.
>> Yes. I mean, yeah, you describe the the trend I think exactly as it's happening in Cook County specifically. Uh we've seen in other areas, too. Um but yeah, evidence points to both of those things happening in Cook County and probably the latter, the moving in uh older um
more so relative to other areas in the state. >> Yeah. And and understanding that correctly, I mean, helps inform decisions. If you're finding that the generational families that have lived here that are aging and then are passing >> and um
you you would see that change being affected more by the outside than what's happening you know long term but >> but we're seeing that that trend statewide I say just given that statewide given the nature of rural community >> I think that's yeah I think that's right
and then uh you may have seen this statistic too where the I think the average age of the firsttime home buyer is now almost close to 40 something like that. Uh so you know uh that plays a role as does all the things I'll talk
about with affordability and accessibility. >> Is it also possible that uh second home owners uh decided to move here full-time? >> It's possible. I don't have data to confirm that but >> I I would suspect that. >> Yeah, I think anecdotally I would say
yes. I'm more than an anecdote. I'm a fact on that. And Commissioner O'Brien is another one who's >> moved here in retirement. >> So, and neither of you grew up here, right? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I guess from my data that I have access to, I can't confirm that, but uh you on the ground probably have a lot better insight into that specific >> and we will often hear people when they're talking about issues saying that we have a property up there now that is
our second home, but we intend >> to retire there. So, >> yeah. >> And co I think pushed a lot of people over that. Even in Duth, uh, you know, there's a a house across the alley from us that someone from California bought big like, you know, maybe five
bedroomedroom house and they said, "Oh yeah, we're going to retire there and rent it out to college kids to our sugarin." Um, they're actually pretty good. They shoveled, but yeah, same I think the similar trend. Um, but it's exacerbated in a
small rural community like Cook County. You don't need as many to move here to have an impact. All right. Uh not to put too fine a point on the aging population, but this is the projection um by area or by
county in the state. So the 75 plus population, so the far end of the age distribution um and what we expect the um percentage to be of the population. And you can see Cook Lake Cooching Aken um being in the dark blue which is 15 to
18% of the population projected um as of 2035 will be 75 plus. You can see there's you know rural areas uh kind of have the most of that but um northeast Minnesota has more than its
fair share. And then uh we've already you guys are are good at asking the questions before I get to the uh the topic. Uh the migration piece. So this is for northeast Minnesota as a whole. So the 7ount area and it's breaking down um net
migration by origin. So whether they're coming domestically somewhere else in the US, mostly other places in Minnesota, upper Midwest or internationally. Um and you could see after 2020 big trend that's basically supporting that what you what you stated
you've been seeing um people moving to northeast Minnesota um kind of as a a direct impact of of COVID and um I would say also in addition to that changing work um or um setups so you know a lot
more people can work remotely um and rural areas you could argue have benefited from that or that's just though the people have moved to rural areas. Um and but we have started to see that trend slow down in 2024 and I
expect when we get 2025 data um to see that decline even more but um I will wait until those data actually come out. Uh but you can see the international piece is smaller but was growing as a share of migration into the region through 2024.
And then cook specifically, um I really like sharing what we call the components of population change. So it's births minus deaths and then um people moving in versus minus people moving out. Uh if it was just natural increase or natural change, which is
births minus deaths, uh Cook County would be declining. So there's 86 was the net change uh a loss of net change through uh 2024. Um, but you add in positive net migration and it, you know,
kind of cuts that effect a little bit. And that's the same thing for northeast Minnesota as a whole. Um, we are losing more people to death deaths than we are gaining via births each year. Um, it's just a matter of what that magnitude is and then whether the offset of migration is there fully.
>> Have a slide for that. >> Oh, sorry. There we go. >> There we go. >> Yep. I'll let you absorb that one. um statewide uh you could see how the domestic um net migration was negative over the
that period that was mostly frontloaded in like 2021 2022 as people responded to COVID and moved um elsewhere that has started to move back um but 81,000 statewide for positive uh net migration
internationally um and fully expect that to slow down as Well, um given uh national policies >> the last three weeks in particular >> and before >> uh so I would point out that uh Cook is a little bit different in that the bulk
of migration was actually a positive migration was international. >> I'd say Canada is a a big piece of that. >> Um but uh that is not the case in the rest of the region. The rest of the region is mostly, as I showed on the previous
slide, mostly uh domestic in terms of net migration. >> Wait, so you're saying of that 68 net migration internationally, you're attributing that to Canada? >> Uh some of is Canada. I do have the data not in front of me, but um more more from Canada than relative to other
counties in the region. >> Okay. And it's it's interesting to understand understand that. In other words, when we look at it, we look at it more of an umbrella uh as to the international, but understanding what the composition of that is. And if it's Canadians, then then you're saying,
okay, why are Canadians making that that move? The other thing is when you see migration is the influence depending upon the number of migration relative to values and and lifestyle and how that affects a community.
>> Yeah. So you can look at at Cook County and the more that we have people that import their wealth and come into the county, they influence decision makers as to what their expectation is coming from, you know, a metro into a rural
environment. Whereas the people that have lived here who tend to be more independent and resourceful are not necessarily accustomed to some of those things that that migration introduces into your community. >> Yeah. No, I mean that's a a great point.
Uh the data unfortunately don't really do a great job of capturing that dynamic. Yeah, you'd have to find out by actually like focus groups or or you know talking to to those individuals to find out what that is. But there is one data source if you want to get into the
weeds. Uh IRS uh has migration data. So basically what county did they live in when they filed their tax uh return uh one year and then the next. So you can see where they moved and then what their income is too. And that's been a pretty
handy source for that type of question. But it it's it's assuming money like income as a proxy for values and expectations. >> My guess is that county commissioners commissioners have already been a focus group as they try to come up with a
budget >> and they hear from both of those >> types of constituents. >> Yeah, I'm sure. uh a little bit into the so that was more the population uh piece um more into the labor market. Uh the latest
data we have is for November of 2025. Uh we are releasing the December data tomorrow I believe for for the state. Um but statewide uh unemployment rates is what we're showing in this um slide
here. Uh 3.9% statewide. Uh we look um up in northeast Minnesota, you can see it tends to be a little bit higher. 6.2% at last measure for Cook County. Um 5.8% I think it's actually 4.5%
for northeast Minnesota when you factor the two uh workforce service areas. We tend to have higher unemployment in northeast Minnesota just due to the uh higher incidence of seasonal employment. um be that leisure and hospitality, construction, uh logging, you know,
fishing, that sort of thing. Uh so historically we've had higher unemployment rates. Uh this is that trend over time in the gray bars. So there's unemployment rate in the gray bars. The blue line is the labor force. So that's the people that are either working, currently employed,
or unemployed. And when I say unemployed, the definition for that is not working but having looked for work in the last four weeks, last month. Uh so about 2900 people in Cook County um are deemed to be in the labor force on
average uh through November of 2025. You can see that's a slight increase over the previous year. Um down from 2023 uh or up from 2023 slightly um but still down from preandemic. And I'd say the long-term decline of the labor force is
more reflective of that population we've been talking about because as your population ages, your labor force participation naturally goes down. Um, and uh, the unemployment rate has grown over the last four years from a historic low.
3.4% is the lowest we've ever measured in Cook County. Uh, probably remember um, labor kind of crisis the last couple years. Um, I think there's still probably some business owners locally that um still have trouble hiring people
and housing is intricate intricately related to that. Um, and Cook County can feel those kind of little shifts in labor force and unemployment a lot more than say Duth that can absorb some of these changes a little bit more.
And when I talk about a tight and loose uh labor market, what I mean uh specifically is talking about the relationship between job vacancies, so number of job openings and the number of unemployed people um that are ostensibly available to fill those vacancies. And
in northeast Minnesota, uh we've had fewer than one person per open job for a long time, for the last several years, even predating 2020. that is starting to change a little bit. Uh a lot of the statewide national data are pointing towards fewer job vacancies and more
unemployed people. So that black dot is going to start creeping up towards one again. Um but I would say as of 2024 and into 2025, we still have fewer people looking for work than there are jobs available. That's not to talk about the
matching of those individuals to those jobs. Uh so that in some way really kind of belies the tightness of the labor market depending on what industry or geography you're talking about because each person's going to have their own um
skills, experience uh and preferences and you compare those to the job openings and you know they don't always match up. This is what it looks like statewide in terms of job vac job openings on the blue line. And then the orange line is the same as that black dot in the
previous chart represents that uh unemployed persons uh per job opening ratio. And you can see that those lines are starting to converge a little bit and that is pointing towards a loosening of the labor market i.e. more people looking for work relative to the number
of job openings. a little bit on the industry uh distribution in uh Cook County. Uh probably no surprise that the top industries in uh in the county are leisure and hospitality. Um public administration might be more of a
surprise, maybe not to people in this room, but uh that's the second highest employing sector is government. Um and that can be state, local, federal, um county. It falls under local. Um retail
trade number three. And uh you know those the I would throw healthcare in there as well. Those top one, two, three, four. Those account for well over 50% of the the jobs. Five uh yeah five account for
over 50% of the jobs in the county. Um and then I threw in the overthe-ear percent change. you'll see bigger swings. If I were to show this for northeast Minnesota, um the the drops or the gains aren't as um as high in
magnitude. Uh but a lot of that is, you know, you add 10 jobs in a sector that has 150 jobs total and that's, you know, a pretty pretty big swing. Uh sectors that have been growing over the last year, wholesale trade, retail, uh sorry,
real estate, um and rental. So that would be like management of rental uh housing or short-term rentals would fall under that and then educational services. >> How is this comparable with the other counties in the northeast region when
you look at the profile as to the top? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Healthcare and public administration are more concentrated in basically all of the counties um in northeast Minnesota than they are relative to the state. Um
same thing with leisure and hospitality. So that's not different, but to the extent that it is concentrated in in Cook County is higher. Uh those those two at the top uh specifically. Um healthcare in northeast Minnesota is 20
like 22% of all employment. Healthcare and social assistance. >> I think it's yeah one out of five jobs roughly. Um, leisure hospitality I want to say is like 10 to 11%. Um, and you have both of those much
higher here um, in Cook County. Um, I had another point, but I don't remember what it was. Yes. >> So, I I've been told, I don't know if it's true or not, that the largest industry in Cook County is transfer payments, basically pensions
in investment income of that older population that has money. Is that do you track that or account for that or >> I have not incorporated that into these data. Uh but I would not be surprised if it was a significant like chunk of uh
the income. Um I could pull that pretty easily to see you know like what share of population is receiving social security payments as an example. >> Yeah. >> Um >> but I don't have those data. >> Harder to track I guess maybe through the IRS you could track investments.
Yeah, the Census Bureau also in one of their tables um tracks like the average like social uh I forget the term of it, but it's basically like that payment like retirement payment with retirement income I think is what they call it. Um and I imagine that the share of the
population with retirement income would be much higher than average in Minnesota. it it makes sense that uh if you have an aging population that those are eligible for you know their retirement >> that the thing that need to understand
is that if you have a place like Cook County where homes are expensive >> and the cost of living is expensive that somebody that is elderly that would like to retire but is totally dependent upon their social security does not make it
feasible Yeah. >> So when you're looking at the percentage of people that we have that are on social security because of where they came from, they might have significant investments and other things that are contributing >> Yeah. >> to their ability to live here.
>> Yeah. And it's a good point that um maybe I overlook a little bit in this presentation. It's more of a focus on wages and income, but uh I can do a followup to and provide you know some of those data points to as well because that's a good point. If you have, you know, almost half the population that's
either at retirement age or near retirement age, and then that is a big source of income. I have a slide at the end that compares like the typical wages of occupations in demand to median home prices and median rent. I could throw in
like what would be the typical like so retirement income too, you know, if that was available because that would be much more relevant in say Cook County. And I think it is relevant to communities like well within the seven county region but specifically Aken and Cook >> given our population that's an important
component. >> Yeah that is >> and the other thing if it's possible is and you know this through the IRS is is uh how many of those individuals are solely dependent upon their social security as opposed to their investments and other things that they've you know
accumulated over their careers. >> Yes, great point. Thank you. It's one of my pet peeves that median statistics in Cook County in terms of housing income, they don't they don't make sense. Like there was the big front page article in
the new in the Star Tribune this year about how the median home price in Cook County was the same as Minneapolis. >> Yeah. >> And that's just not true. >> I mean, it is true >> in a very strict literal sense, but we we have two housing markets here. We
have multi-million dollar homes on Lake Superior that are mostly owned by people that don't live here. And then we have people that live out of sight of the lake, much lower uh housing prices there. So >> yeah, >> to give the median is like, okay, but it doesn't mean anything.
>> You're going to be mad at me then for the rest of this presentation. >> I may I may get >> But we use we use the median the so of the of the measures that are available to us, the median at least is preferable to the average. the average is going to give you the the skewed to the
million-doll Yeah. >> houses on the on the lake. >> So, the median at least will be a little bit more. Yeah. >> We're jumping ahead though. Uh >> it's okay. I love your questions so far. Um this is the employment trend over the
last uh two and a half decades. Um you can see very starkly the impact of the pandemic. Um, I can't remember exactly what the percent decline was, but I know that it was larger for Cook County than it was for Northeast Minnesota, which
northeast Minnesota, it was larger for northeast Minnesota than it was for the state >> because we had that concentration say of leisure and hospitality of those service industries. Um, healthcare too, uh, which is usually a recessionproof sector
saw a lot of the burnout, a lot of, uh, you know, direct impacts of COVID. So we were a little bit more exposed to the impacts of of CO on the types of jobs that we had more concentrated in northeast Minnesota and then specifically in Cook County as well with especially with the accommodation, food
services, arts, entertainment, recreation. Okay, moving into the housing and labor market connection. Um, I feel like maybe preaching to the choir a little bit here with the housing
shortage and how it impacts rural areas um and workforces um more acutely. It makes recruiting for a lot of businesses um very difficult. Um I talked to a lot of employers and it comes up over and
over again as a limiting factor. Um and it's all parts of the spectrum of hiring. I think I hear about it more for the like professional like engineer doctor type ends, but that's not to say that it doesn't exist for a lot of the
lower paying um lower educational attainment requirement occupations as well. I think that it just is more front of mind for a lot of these employers because they might, you know, need that engineer to run a process line or something like that and it's very
frustrating to them when they have someone that agrees to uh the job offer but then can't find a house and has to back out. I've heard that story many a time. Um rural demographic trends uh we talked about the aging population. Um they
impact the labor market. So, if you have an aging population, you have an aging labor force. Um, but then you also on the other side, it impacts housing dynamics in that you've got folks that want to age in place or if they don't, uh, where are they going to move to if
they want to stay in the community? Um, and these questions are very front of mind in aging communities like Cook County, uh, rural aging communities like Cook County where about 15% of households are 65 plus year olds living alone. So that is the estimate by the
Census Bureau. Um and that is higher as you might expect than average in the state. Uh it may be hard to see in your screen, but I put the red box around u it's basically how much of a challenge are each of the following factors. And this is a a survey uh of job seekers in the
region even Minnesota, Wisconsin, uh Montana, the Dakotas, and affordability of housing where jobs are um is one of the uh biggest reason um reasons u affecting uh employment searches.
And then uh asking uh again it's kind of the similar question a significant barrier to employment and housing is up there and the the top ones affordability and availability of housing and I'll say this is from 2023. I think that it's
higher now. Moving on to a summary of northeast Minnesota housing uh characteristics. Uh about 180,000 um housing units. And I'll, you know, I don't need to like list off all these. Some of the the highlights are where there's a
difference between the region and the rest of the state. And uh that would be the single unit. So having more people or housing more housing units that are uh single unit that are detached. It's about 78% in northeast Minnesota
relative to about 2/3 in Minnesota. Um the occupancy also or the occupied units is a lot lower in northeast Minnesota about 77% relative to 90% um statewide and we'll dig into that specific um data point a little bit
more. Um we have a older housing stock as well in terms of when our housing units were built. Um the median value uh of the owner occupied units is lower relative to the rest of the state. um that's a little bit different when we
talk about Cook County, but in northeast Minnesota, it's lower. And then the uh median rent, um this will come up every time now when I give you 2019 to 2023 uh average numbers because uh you look at these median rent and you're like, who
who's paying that? I want to pay that for my rent. Um so this is the latest data we have. We are going to get the 2020 through 2024 data um in a couple weeks, but this is the most current census data available.
And then those same data points, but for Cook County, about 6,000 at last count uh housing units. I say sometimes slide. >> Oh, sorry. Thank you. Um 6,000 for Cook County. Um, I will say that since you
are on the HRA, sometimes you'll have more local like data compared to the the Census Bureau. So, take these data. They have their margins of error with a grain of salt and trust the local data you have too. >> Um, up slightly from the last 5-year
unover overlapping period, so 2013 to 2017. Um, you've added a few housing units. That's different from northeast Minnesota which lost net housing units. Um slightly higher single unit uh share for
uh compared to both north northeast northeast Minnesota and the state. And then the big one um 44.8% occupied. Um so less than half uh of the housing units in the county are estimated to be occupied.
Um and then a higher share of owner occupied versus renter. So tenure um skews more towards owner um relative to uh the rest of the state. And then we talked about that household size that's gone down a little bit. Um it's a little
bit higher for renter occupied which is interesting because that's not usually the case. Usually owner occupied is slightly higher and I think that has to do with the older uh population and um more older um residents living alone
and owner and houses that they own. Can you explain a little bit more on the if you've got 6,000 units and you got 44% occupied? >> Yeah. >> What does that actually say? Because that's that's not what we deal with.
It's like we can't find anything. Well, if you got >> you know second that's if that's it. >> It is. Yeah. That's the vast majority of that. >> Yeah. So understanding it in that context. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I I will dive into that exact
question in a couple slides. >> Um and you can see the median value of the owner occupied units three basically three years ago. Um about 10,000 less than the statewide median. And if you look at the previous slide, it's about
80,000 higher than the regional median value. >> So quite a bit higher for Cook County. >> That's changed though. >> That's a huge >> Oh, yeah. I have a I do have some data that are actually more current too to to underline that >> dramatically. >> Yep. Uh okay. So percent of vacant
units. So moving into your question. Um you can see that Cook County actually has the highest uh share of vacant units relative to all the counties. Uh >> define vacant. >> Uh yes. So vacant could be not occupied.
Uh so the way that I'll back up the way that the American uh community survey works which these data are um taken from is they will reach out to households and individuals and survey them. Uh so it's not everybody in Minnesota but based off
of a survey I think of it's like 65,000 households in Minnesota spread throughout the state. They'll ask them um are they where they're living? If this is their like current um primary residence um and questions like that and
if nobody is at the housing unit like that that's vacant. Um or if you're there and you say no my actual house is in St. Paul that house is also vacant. So that's the primary reason or there's a couple others that I will get to as
well. So, if you don't mind holding on for a second, I can give you the full list of >> Well, my my question really is how many are actually vacant because we have that here. Yeah, >> there quite a few that are just vacant. Nobody's in them year round. >> Yeah. Um and I think I have the
breakdown of the the reasons. So, I I'll get to that in a second, but thank you for the question. And this is these are census tracks that you're seeing here. um if you're familiar with that geographic unit and this is looking at Cook County
specifically. Um so you know even higher in I don't I don't know what you would call like Gunflint Trail or southern southwestern Cook County um higher share of vacancy um the lowest being in Grand Marray. That
makes sense to me. And then um you know you go up to Grand Portage and a little bit slow lower but still pretty high higher than average uh vacant vacancy rates. Okay, this is the the slide I was referencing. So this is the breakdown uh
by type of vacancy in county. Um the purple being for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. So that is your second homes, a lot of the short-term rentals. But doing a deep read of the definitions in the Census Bureau, it seems like short-term rentals could fit
in a couple spots, but mostly are in the seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Um, in northeast Minnesota is estimated to be about 32,000 of these seasonal, recreational, uh, vacancies. Um, you know, that makes
sense to me. This is the like resort area. Um, second homes. Um, that that makes sense. Um, but to see the the scale of it is is pretty um notable to me. Um, so only Aken has a higher share
of those seasonal recreational vacancies. And um, the other types listed there, it might be hard for you to read read are like for rent. So, it's vacant as in no one's living there because it's hasn't been rented or for sale. No one's living
there because it's for sale. Um or it has been rented or sold and it hasn't been occupied yet. So, I think that would get to your question uh about like just nobody living there. That's a very small piece. Um for migrant workers is a very small piece. Um I would say that
more likely to be in Cook County though. You can actually see the color of that one in there, but it is less than a 1%. Um, I have notes here because I've gotten the question about like what is the definition? So, other vacant
includes foreclosure, personal family reasons, legal proceedings, preparing to rent or sell, held for storage of furniture, needs repairs, being repaired, abandoned. So, a lot of the other vacancy will capture I think some
of your like just nobody's living there. >> I call them shrines. A lot of shrines here where grandma and grandpa die. >> Yeah. >> Kids can't agree on or care and kids can't agree on what to do with it and it just sits and deteriorates. I can think of 20 of them. >> Yeah. >> Off the top of my head where I know the
families, you know, so I know the situation and we're dying for housing and these great houses just sitting there going crumbling down. My guess would be that these numbers probably understate that share. Um just hearing >> other but >> but maybe not you know because if you
ask them they might say well it's you know it's in process. >> Yeah but some of them have been in process for 20 years. >> You've got the technical definition then you've got like how it actually is being um playing playing out in reality. >> Um >> how they can afford to just hold them is
beyond me you know. Well, it's becoming less and less affordable. >> Uh yes. So that is the big point there is just the the large share of the seasonal recreational um vacancies
and that is where they are focused. So, this is a number of where they are and uh looks like in that census tract like Gunland Trail um 1,600 of those seasonal recreational vacancies. Is that what they estimate?
>> Yeah. Okay, there we go. Got the counts. Um and you sum it up to about third uh 3,300 units. And that I don't know why I included this but that includes seasonal mobile homes. I don't know if that is a a large chunk of the housing units in the
county. >> There are a number of people that Yeah. >> Okay. >> A lot of people live in mobile homes as they're building. >> Ah interesting also. Okay. >> Um okay, moving on to cost and affordability. Um median home
value. Um you can see that Cook County has a quite a bit higher median home. Uh this is owner occupied uh value of housing units relative to the rest of of the region. Um in Northeast this value
basically over the last decade grew 45%. Um and most of that growth occurred in the last five years. So um or six years from 2017 to 2023. So quite the spike in in um growth of
the median home values. And then looking at uh median housing costs in Cook County specifically. So this is a little bit different from value. Um but talking about um home values for Cook County specifically,
they rose less. Uh and I will say this is not going to include the like last three years, right? last two and a half years when a lot of the increase has happened. Um 24% over the decade, 20% 22% over the last six years. So again, a
lot of that growth happened more recently. >> And then um the homestead estimated market value, that's where we have actual recent data. 57% in the last three years is is what it grew according to the uh Department of Revenue in Minnesota. Um and gross uh rents have
actually gone up um faster than home values. >> Is that true over the region? That's that's you know that we're 57% Cook County. How about the rest? >> I didn't pull Well, I have the data, but I didn't summarize it. Um so I I can't
tell you for sure, but I could follow up with that. My guess is that it's not as fast as Cook County. Yeah. But similarly, >> I I would say um when this information has been presented like a dozen years ago when it was
presented by deed, it it seems like the the numbers are are not reflective of what our reality is. I mean, you spoke to the issue in the Tribune article which I I brought with me. Plus, if you if you look at what the I mean the median value that is stated in your
presentation compared to what it what it is now current. Granted, we're talking two years old data. >> Two years and it's an average of five years. So, it's not just 2023, it's 2017. >> Because it's about 116,000
lower than what our reality is. Yeah, >> to really understand the numbers it it would be good to have it in two categories which are the high-end and then you know what the others so we understand that but we >> 800,000 and under 800,000 or something like that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. To have it in two categories because when you take a median in extremes it skews the numbers that your understanding of it can't be accurately applied. All we can say is that we know that affordability is a huge issue
>> and um there are individuals that if they just want to get here, if they can find something, I mean Jeeoff, you're looking for a place, but if you find something that meets your expectation, >> then fine. If you don't and you're desperate, you'll pay more for something. And they referenced, I think it could have been in that article that
they referenced a home that had been purchased this summer and uh on Lake Superior and the price price uh that the individual paid was $100,000 more than the asking price just because they wanted it.
>> Yeah. That's going to just >> it wasn't yours. >> That skews it. But but understanding that is important because the problem is is if we look at the cost of government, if we look at the cost of housing, if we look at the average income, if we don't understand
those numbers accurately, then it's easy to hide behind them >> to push agendas and that's a problem. >> Fair point well taken. Um what I could do is present I know that they have uh like share of housing units by value. Um, so you could show kind of the
bifurcated like housing that you're describing the at least the the values um a little bit more clearly. I don't know if I could break them apart and then give a median of each though given the data that are available. >> Well, and how it it plays out is that if
you if you take it what your tax rate is and then you take it what your median price of the house is because I mean where your value of your home is in your tax rate. If you take St. Louis County, St. Louis County's median price is significantly lower than what it is in
Cook County and yet St. St. Louis County has a higher tax rate. We pride ourselves in having a low tax rate. But if you take a low price tax rate against a high value, you're going to end up paying more in taxes than you do in a place where you have a low. >> The two are connected.
>> It's the next slide. >> That's the next slide. >> Yeah. Well done. So yeah, you can just you've seen this. Yeah, >> the straight >> man. We got that's what that slide is. >> I mean I looked at these but >> I know but that it's a it's a great
point and I was thinking along similar lines like the the the residential homestead effective tax rate has gone down over the last several years while the price or the value uh yeah estimated market value has skyrocketed. Um, so I
did some quick math. Um, dang, I didn't write down I think. So you do the 0.5% into that $425,000 EMV. That's like $2,125. >> And then you do the 6% I think it is or
7% into the uh yeah 7% into the 270 and it's like 200 20 yeah $220 less. So you're still paying more in taxes even with the like decline in the uh effective tax rate. Um so
that's just exactly the numbers showing the point >> and the information is important understanding the information because data driven deci decision making is hugely important and and >> I uh couldn't agree with you more that's that's why my my role exists.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But having an understanding of the data, I mean that that that's built upon um understanding the the data themselves and you know you can tell a lot of stories with one data point, right? >> Uh a little bit more on affordability.
So the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank has this handy um visualization that it's only for uh metros. So I can only give you the duth metro. Um, so it doesn't include Cook County, but it's like the closest proxy we can get. Um, so it's at
least in the the region. And, um, this is basically just showing kind of what we all feel. Uh, the rising unaffordability. Um, the orange is when the share of median income greater is greater than 30%
uh, of what you need to pay for the median housing costs. So when it's greater than 30% um you get the orange lines there. >> What was the what was the time frame on the exact time? >> Oh yeah. Uh it's the same one as this
one. So uh 2007 through 2025 and that is monthly. Um so those last three spikes are in the last three years. >> Yeah. Sorry. I don't know why the x- axis isn't showing there.
And then this is uh there's a lot to kind of parse here but it is the estimated drivers of that uh affordability or unaffordability. Um so you can see the different contributions of whether you know >> they're contributing to unaffordability
so below the the the um yaxis there or above it. And currently, um, what has been contributing more has been the median sales price. Um, that's probably not a surprise. That's been going up. Um,
mortgage rates have actually been on the positive side of it, but they're still around like 6%. Um, so, um, I think that maybe is a little bit individual taxes are on the negative side. And then property insurance, uh, is also on the
negative side. So those are things that have been rising I think more rapidly relative to income. >> And then this is just another way of showing it. So the orange line is the qualified income and the blue line is
the actual income. So you can see it's been rising um the qualified income to u qualify for the median um home ownership costs. Okay, so there's affordability. This is kind of the supply uh section. I think
I've got a little more affordability in here, too. Um, so this is new private housing units authorized in Cook County and Minnesota. Um, you can see Cook County largely has followed the same kind of trend as the state has. Uh, the big drop off after the the great recession or during the great recession
in 2008, 2009. um and then slowly increasing uh every year since. Um this probably So this is through 2024. I don't know if this is going to include the most recent ones that were just
built. >> Um >> depends on how they're looked at, you know. >> Yeah. >> Well, the 51 unit apartment building didn't open until May of 2025, >> right? So I doubt that would be in there. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
So keep that in mind. So this will go up. >> How many units are in the >> 36 >> 36 36 in 51 51 36. Yeah. >> And that it's pretty big relative to the >> It's huge. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, congrat congratulations. I think is in order for that. >> Uh that was easy. >> Yeah, no problem. Sure. >> Just took money. Uh I meant to include this a little bit earlier, but the housing burden uh this is defined as having more than 35% of
your household income contributed to housing costs is the housing burden as the Census Bureau defines it. Um and you've got areas of the region where more than 63% of the population is in that category.
>> Um you can see it's a little bit more concentrated in Cook County. I think that might uh support the previous comment about fixed incomes. Uh this is the housing burden for renter
occupied slightly less uh in Cook County. Um I think it also might have to do with just having fewer renters and maybe higher income renters relative to the rest of the region. And then uh this is um not just I mean
the title is is incorrect. This is still housing burden but it's all three. So it's renters in blue uh 2008 to 2012 and then owners in orange uh without mortgages. So those have their houses paid off and then um those with mortgage
uh without mortgage. Sorry, the green is without uh mortgages. Orange is >> listed as orange. Yeah, I know that's a that's a typo on my part. So, the higher burden will be those that still have mortgages. >> Mhm. >> Uh so, orange is with mortgages. >> Gotcha. >> Um and you can see how this has changed
over time. Uh I was actually kind of surprised to see that the housing burden went down, but I think that might be more due to rising incomes than it is due to housing costs. So, um, incomes, uh, have been higher relative to housing
costs, um, at least in the 2019 and 2023 period relative to the other periods. I will point out though that owners with without mortgages have seen their their costs go up a little bit higher, and that's probably supporting um, the
non-mortgage related increases um, in housing costs. Uh Lake Superior Area Realtors has great um >> reports. You're familiar with these? >> Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. >> Uh so sorry if you've seen this already,
but their housing affordability index is a very handy visualization. >> Um this is of course related to private sales um but still um very useful um for showing the housing market locally. Um, and you can see that the housing uh
affordability index has declined uh pretty much since 2014, but then marketkedly in 2022. Um, and this, you probably won't be able to read this, but this is measuring um an index of 120 for example. So, you see
the y-axis goes from 50 to 300. 120 means that the median household income is 120% of what is necessary to qualify for the median priced home um with the prevailing interest rate. and it's below 100 now. So
unaffordable is the main takeaway, >> right? >> And then of course related to that is the increase in median sales price. Um and this is again this is through November of last year. So more current
data than the census data is showing you. Um the increase appears to have slowed a little bit. So the increase from 2023 to 2024 was 17% and then over the year into 2025 was only about 3%.
And median sale price. Um so could be slowing down slightly. And then I think this is my final slide. Um this is oh no I got one more slide for this. This is out of date. So you'll say you'll see the numbers here. I'd say
don't pay attention to the numbers as much as the relationship of the underlying um titles. So this is uh from the Greater Minnesota Partnership and the Center for Rural Policy Development. They did a a great assessment of rural
housing affordability gaps and um especially looking at what it costs to produce the housing units. So on the top it's showing um you know you have the home affordability for new labor force. So those that are entering the workforce, younger families, etc.
>> The appraised value of a starter home being higher than that. And then the starter home costs being even further up. So basically, it's under it's underlining the disconnect between what young uh families can afford and then
what it costs to build new homes. So showing the gap there. And then the next line down is rent that you can typically earn in in rural areas and then the gap between that and the rent needed to support multifamily housing development which I think you probably are most
acutely aware of. Um so that is the the point in the second one and then the third which I think is also super important is the uh value of homes um current homes uh after renovations and then the price uh of that home uh plus
the cost of renovation. So basically showing you know even to renovate homes might not be um cost effective um depending on the the home situation and that is super relevant for a lot of um older residents that want to you know
remain in place. A lot of times the housing quality declines significantly as uh residents age and then those costs for renovations just increase over time. This is actually my last slide I promise. Um this is uh basic this is the
occupations in demand in the region. So some of the top occupations in demand um but also in number of of jobs. So you know nursing assistants, resident uh registered nurses, cashiers, retail salespersons. I tried to pick ones that would be especially in demand for Cook
County specifically. So focusing on uh you know retail, accommodation, food services, um education, healthcare, and then the green line represents uh the income needed to afford the median value home for Cook County. And then the red line represents the income needed to
afford the median two-bedroom apartment rent. >> And this is 20 I think the the um housing costs are for 2024 and the wages are for 2025. So, the wages are actually probably a little bit higher than what they would be otherwise.
Um, >> again, I point out medium uh medium value home might actually be a little lower in reality if you eliminate the mansions. >> Yep. Point taken. But that applies to the wages, too.
>> It does. Yeah. >> So, >> yeah. The other thing when you're doing comparables is that if you're using the same matrix for evaluation, it's equal across counties. >> Yeah. >> So, so then error factor >> that's Yeah, I'd say that's probably the
better comparison to make than Yeah. Yeah. Um, so yeah, it's just just a a visual way to to show the relationship between, you know, uh, the occupations and what they typically make in in the region and
then how that lines up with the costs. You only, you know, you've only got one here where if you're just depending on the wages of one person that could afford um, the median value of the home and that's assuming that the homes are actually be available at that median price. So,
>> Mhm. >> And that's at 294,000, >> I think. So, yeah, >> I pulled from the latest HUD data for 2024. >> Yeah. Well, >> Carson, thanks very much for the >> pres I know I went over time, so apologies.
>> Very helpful for us to see this uh in this presented in this fashion. >> So, we appreciate it, Commissioner Gamble. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Car. Appreciate it. So, how many years have you been in your position? >> Six years. >> Six years. Y >> over the six years immersed in all these statistics,
>> what do you what are your takeaways? >> The biggest one that um that well so the housing thing has been kind of a newer uh piece that I've I've talked about. Um I got pulled into this basically the same discussion at Taska County a couple
years back. Um so educated myself in the housing piece of it. Uh, but the big kind of takeaway that I try and let people know about that I don't think a lot of folks know about is the lower labor force participation of northeast Minnesota. And it's not just that we
have an older population. Even when you compare say 65 plus labor force participation from northeast to the rest of the the state, we're still lower. Every single age group, every single race and ethnicity, every single educational category, we have lower
labor force participation in mot in northern Minnesota. Nobody wants to get out in the cold, I guess. >> And I don't have a like a a straight answer for it. >> Good fishing. >> Yeah. The quality. Yeah. Like there are other things than work that bring people
to live in northeast Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you for your time and your great questions. Yeah. I really appreciate it. >> Really exciting. >> Uh and I have my notes here on a few things to follow up on, so I'll make sure to do that. >> Great. Thank you.
Well, back to the agenda. Uh, we have a couple of resolutions here, but uh, I'd like to suggest possibly uh, moving item D up. Uh, our auditor has been waiting patiently and now knows
more about uh, data in northeast Minnesota than he may have, but uh, yeah, I think if that's all right with the commissioners, let's take it at that. >> And then, chair, that would be item D. and F. They're kind of linked together. >> Yes.
>> But yep. Um we've got um Andy, I think he's on hold or is he Andy, are you there? >> I am here. Yes. >> Great. >> Thanks for holding on that long. Um and I'm really glad that you're here to give
us the report about the audit. >> Yes. Um did you want me to just provide a summary or do you have questions or what would what is your preference? >> Well, I think a summary would be helpful and yeah uh might lead to a few
questions but uh yeah I think the summary is the essential aspect of it. >> Sure. Okay. I'll jump into that. Um we issue four reports as part of the audit.
The first is the independent auditor's report. It's um it's near the front of the financial statement document. It's also known as our opinion on the financial statements. Um the first two paragraphs in that independent auditor's
report. The first paragraph defines what we audit. The second paragraph says in our opinion the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects. So that's an unmodified opinion or the
highest level of assurance an entity can receive. Um in all material respects that's audit lingo saying um we don't audit every single transaction. We're not verifying that all amounts are
recorded to the penny but it goes we audit on a concept of materiality. um making sure that there were no differences that would affect the user of a financial statement is how that's defined. So overall a clean opinion. Um
so good news there. The rest of that independent auditor's report just defines our responsibilities and your responsibilities over the various parts of the financial statements. the numbers themselves. I don't know if you've got a copy of the financial
statements in front of you or want to go into any numbers, but I I find I I'm looking myself at statements three and four. It's numbered pages 14 and 15 on the bottom. uh
overall fund balance increased $528,000 during 2024 and much of that is due to funds that were received but just not spent. >> Um and the balance sheet shows
that fund balance broken down um restricted for I'm looking near the bottom of the balance sheet on statement three. There's a portion that's restricted for federal grant purposes or the the ARPA or the LATCF dollars.
>> That's Pink 35 in your packet. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yep. There's a a bucket there restricted for housing uh the affordable housing aid unspent dollars and then the remaining is the the 1%
um contribution received um is the 63,000. So, and it's I do have a recommendation near the end to um and may maybe you're doing this somewhat informally already, but just to make sure you're tracking those different
buckets and knowing, you know, how much of each type of funding is available um to be spent. >> But overall, the the numbers some adjustments were made during the audit.
I think there was initially um just a few complications relating to when or relating to the conversion from when the county was doing the accounting to when it switched over to a third party. Um but we got that straightened out
>> as well as some approvals as of December 31st, 2024. the excuse me, the the footnotes are fairly generic. Um, not too much notable in there
other than there's a footnote three and it's on my paper copy. It's numbered page 20 at the bottom, but that highlights a a $250,000
loan that I believe by now maybe that has been repaid. >> Yes, >> that's correct. >> Okay. Okay. Perfect. Um, so that has been collected. So really not an issue with that then. And
>> that's on page 41 of your packet. >> All right. Um, so if that's page 41, I'm going 42, 43, 44 of your packet would be a budget to actual statement. Um, provides a
little more context, although um really what's budgeted is property taxes and expenditures meant to be paid by those property taxes. it can be quite
difficult to budget some of the the grants and funding that was received through the county. Um so that's why you see the the significant variances there um between budget and actual >> other reports let's see I think that was
44 so there's a report on internal control on page 48 internal control being the policies and procedures of the HR um we identified
let's the three findings relating to internal control. Um, let's see. I think I'm on page 50 now in your packet. Finding 2024-1. Anytime there's significant corrections
that are identified by the auditor, there's an indication that your controls over financial reporting did not um catch those items up front. So, it's kind of a a finding that's uh triggered that
almost have to report, but it's it's really not all that uncommon, especially for smaller organizations that don't have a robust finance department. Um, the important part is all of these items
were corrected. Mhm. On the next page there again a a finding common to smaller organizations a lack of ideal segregation of duties. Um, ideally you'd have a system of checks and balances where you've got multiple
people involved with a um an inputting approval oversight would all be kind of done by different people. Um, and that's just not possible. And then lastly finding 2024-03
we requested to see a variety of invoices during the audit and a few of those could not be located and I my understanding uh was that just you know based on the transition between
executive directors um the the filing of where those invoices was located at just um it some of them um were um either misfiled
or I I'm not sure what the exact cause of there, but um we were able to audit those expenses using different procedures and found um that the expenses themselves were um correct.
On the next page is a Minnesota legal compliance report. As part of the audit, we test for compliance with state statutes. The state auditor issues a guide that we follow and complete um testing for
compliance with um not all state statutes, but the the statutes that the auditor wants us to that the state auditor wants us to test for. Um, so we're testing for compliance as part of our audit and did not note any findings
of non-compliance. So those are the main audit reports. There is also a a letter a communication with those charged with governance letter. This is a letter of a a variety of required communications
from the auditor to the commissioners. Um, there's not a whole lot substantial in here. The first page highlights that there are, you know, your significant accounting policies. It goes in note one
to the financial statements. Um, there are a few estimates in the financial statements, although not nothing too significant. Um, page two of that letter highlights there are no difficulties were performed
during the audit. no disagreements with management. So, good news there. Um, there is a paragraph on corrected and uncorrected misstatements that refers back to that finding 2024-1 where we identified items that were
corrected. And lastly on the top of page three is that recommendation I um referenced a little bit earlier. Uh Cook County HR receives
funding from a variety of sources. Those funds may be externally restricted or internally assigned for specific purposes. We recommend management track the usage of significant funding sources such as ARPA. uh the
available housing aid and CRV funds um so that the balance of those funds is readily known. So that's a fairly high level summary of the audit. Um, I I definitely um think kind of or I
anticipate the 2025 audit going smoother um now that this will be um your accountant's second year working on everything. um the the director
will actually be you know his year versus the us auditing the previous director's work so to speak. Um so yeah from a from a timing and just smoothness I ought uh
perspective I anticipate this upcoming audit going um much better. So with that does anybody have any questions? Well, we one thing we did note the additional
uh cost of the audit uh over the what was projected as the original agreement of I think $17,000. And uh I think our feeling is that accurately reflects uh some of the issues that you've addressed here uh
where um it's been really difficult tracking down some things from the previous uh situation and I think one of our jobs as commissioners will be trying to work that out so that even if there is a change in directors it's not quite
this uh costly or dramatic I guess uh way to put it. But I'd also like uh Commissioner O'Bri O' O'Brien to talk a bit since is uh with the finance chair uh about our just our general reactions so that you can hear them too.
>> Yeah. No, I think that the one of the things that that we we we took to heart was what we're very pleased about the the clean audit and the um and appreciate your support and sort of u in in following up on some
of the um transactions that were um had to be recategorized or re um um re reclassified. And I think that we're just you know what came uh you know the separation of or segregation of
management responsibilities as you point out is is is a challenging issue for very small organizations. Um I think nevertheless we take that to heart and try to and you know I think we're going to um think through ways in which we can um you know provide some
additional resources inter internally to to um oversee the preparation of the of the financials going into the next 2025 audit. So that's otherwise just appreciate your support.
>> Well thank you and I'll I'll just add one more comment. you know, the the smaller the staff, you know, you get that segregation of duties issue that then the greater the importance of the board or commissioner oversight becomes,
right? Um where um or maybe a a welloiled machine on the staff side, I think commissioners probably tend to rubber stamp things a little more um where, you know, you've got to be paying
paying more attention, honestly. Yep. That's >> Well, thanks very much. Uh, any other comments or questions? One, Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just comment that the the county itself in
its audit has worked with the state and uh then the state made provision that we could go outside and so the county has had discussion about the fact that when we went outside for our audit we found that the benefit of the narrative that came back we could understand better
what we needed to do to ensure the integrity of the process. So that's something to be noted in this process that we learn when we work with good auditors. and we're doing the same here and
appreciate that uh thought and the direction. Uh the one one thing I would mention that I I saw in the audit report, Andy, it's just you list seven commissioners and um that is true. There are seven of us here that participate in
the meetings, but two of them are non- voting members that they're the county commissioners. So that the you know a majority is three uh versus four and it's so next year if maybe you could make a note of that it would be
appreciated. >> Yes. Uh we will do that and that organization page that you're referring to that can be that can be presented however you'd like. So, I will definitely work with um Jeff to make
sure um we get that how you'd like it uh next year. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> All right. I think uh any other questions? We'll move on to resolution 2603, which is authorizing the payment of
$20,672.50 to Red Path for the completion of the 2024 audit. Uh, is there any is there a motion of acceptance of the resolution? >> All right. Is there a second to that? >> I I'll second that.
>> Are there any further points of discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of the resolution say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed? Motion carries. Uh on the 2 resolution 2604,
resolution authorizing the director to enter into a contract with Red Path uh for this 2025 audit in the amount of $21,000. Uh is there any is there a motion on that resolution?
>> Maybe just a well I'll get to discussion. I'll I'll I'll move to >> I'll second that. >> Oh, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the uh resolution 4604? >> Just Andy, maybe this is a question for
you. If you could uh just give us a little more background on the evolution of the estimate from uh you know the original 17,000 estimate for this year to the actual 20 20,000 and change to an estimate of 21 for next year.
>> Sure. I um I had that email up. Here it is. So the the original estimate for 2024 was 17,500
and then we also had a 5% technology and support fee built into the contract on top of that. Um, so then it came to 18,375 and we found that that was confusing to
add the extra 5%. So, um, it's all all been rolled together. So apples to apples, it's going from 18,000 about 18,400 to 21,000. And that's really recognizing the the
additional activity that the HR is entering into more and more projects each year. Some of the projects are getting more complex, um, taking more time to audit. So that's a little more of a it's more than just an inflationary
increase, but it represents the the anticipated time that it'll take to audit the 2025 financial statements. >> Great. Thanks. >> Y questions or discussion
>> hearing? None. All those in favor of resolution 2604 say I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thanks again, Andy. We appreciate your work. >> You're welcome. And thank you for working with uh me and Red Path.
>> All right. >> Have a nice evening. >> Thank you, Andy. >> Yep. You're welcome. Thank you. Bye. >> Bye. >> Bye. So, back to the agenda. Uh, resolution 2601 approving the acceptance of real property from Cook County
for the purpose of supporting the construction of single family homes in Grand Murray. Uh, Jeff, do you uh want to mention what that's on about? >> Yeah. So, this is kind of we're back to the public hearing part of our
discussion for today. And this is a um a situation in which in April of last year we had this same discussion but um the description has changed a little bit. You might remember and this is jogging back your memory back in April. We were
really concerned about giving away some of the town ditch or Nature Boy Creek in this transaction. And since April, I've been on the phone and have had conversations with the city um city administrator, Mike Roth. I've
had conversations with um highway engineer um Robbie Hos. I've had conversations with um Anna Hamilton and I've had conversations with a whole bunch of different people in this process trying to get straight answers that we can use to move and proceed
forward. And so what we were able to do is that we were able to get a new version of the property description which is in your packet on page number 11.
It's a revised um description by Northshore Land Serve. Um in talking with Charlie over there, we were able to get that um squared away. So, this is what we're really doing is we're um now adjusting the description to no longer
include that waterway section at the south border of the property. And you might remember in the last meeting in December that we were just we just had spoken to the county commissioners and the county commissioners had passed u a
similar resolution conveying that property to us. And so this particular resolution is us accepting this property from the county commissioners. The next resolution will be us kind of being the
intermediary between um ourselves and the Hamilton Habitat LLC operation for the process of building workforce housing. >> Is there a motion on uh resolution 2601?
>> I'll move acceptance. I second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion, questions? >> I just wanted to say thank you to the county um for bearing with us as we try to figure this out. You might remember that last year there was a period of
transition in January that occurred between Jason leaving and my coming on board midFebruary. And during that process, we also lost um our county attorney Molly Hicken who was part of this process as well. And so this just happened to be the same time that Charlie Troval was out in the field
looking at this property. And so he did the best he could with what he had in front of him. And um and so I really thank them for their help and um I'm really glad that we're able to get this to where we need it to be so we can get this done right.
>> Any further comments, questions? Not uh we'll call a question. All those in favor of resolution 2601 say I. I. >> I. opposed. Motion carries. Resolution 2602 authorizing the executive director to enter into a land
sale agreement with Hamilton Habitat for the conveyance of real property for the purpose of supporting the construction of two single family homes. I think that's been covered. Is there a motion on resolution? >> I'll move >> 2602.
>> I'll move for passage of 2602. >> Second that. >> There's a moved and seconded. Any further discussion? >> I do have one point of discussion. I just wanted to bring to your attention to in this public hearing. Uh there there is nobody here in the audience today of course and there's nobody that
have emailed or called or said smoke signals to me saying you need to know this or that or the other things. So I just wanted to draw to your attention on page seven of our packet there was a public hearing notice that was in the Cook County News Herald and that was
published as well. um following state statute. So, I just want to make sure that we dotted our eyes, crossed our tees, and minded our P's and Q's. All right. Uh did we move move on that?
>> It's moved to second. >> Okay. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion's passed. We're on to resolution 2605 authorizing reimbursement of $19,041.31
to the Cook County auditor for 2024 payments. Jeff, you want to briefly just bring what that was what what occurred with that. >> Yes. And scrolling down as fast as I can in this very large packet that we created. >> 71.
>> Page 71 in your packets. There we go. Thank you. we bounced around a little bit. Okay. So, um in early 2024, and this is brought out in this audit of the 2024 year, um there were some accounts
that were transitioning from Blue Earth Blue uh from Cook County to um the HA itself. Uh Brady Powers was and in his office was part of that process. As we switched to Carl Hansen, our bookkeeper,
as we switched to Grammar State Bank, our banker um and all of that, well, we had debts that we had to pay, right? And so, um, it was discussed between our, uh, my predecessor, Jason Hail, that we would, um,
have this $19,41.31 paid for by the county and that we would get a bill eventually and we would pay that back just as a matter of how things worked out. Um, and during the audit process in 20 of the 2024 year in this
last year, it was rediscovered that maybe the auditor's office didn't send us an invoice or maybe it didn't get paid. And so we wanted to make sure that we corrected that action by taking action at this January meeting to make
these things right with the county. And so I'm asking you all to consider paying the county back. uh for those those debts that we incurred um back in early 2024 in January. >> Thanks. Is there a motion to approve the
uh payment to the >> move to uh pass 26-5? >> Second. It's >> been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? >> Make Brady happy. >> We like to keep Brady and the county happy.
>> Our books are clean now. As soon as we say all those in favor of the motion say I >> I opposed. >> Thank you. >> Motion carries. >> Uh resolution 2606 authorizing the executive director to enter into amended
and restated grant agreement with Harborview LLC to contain lowincome rental classification statute. Jeeoff, you want to talk about that quickly too? Yeah. So, you might remember in the past the H has taken action on this um this
Harbor View um developers grant um agreement. Um, and in July, we received notice from Steve O'Brien over at Minnesota Housing Finance Agency that we were missing a small portion of some very vital
information that was regarding state statutes that needed to be incorporated into this document itself. The document, um, I'm pulling that up right now. Um well it's in I'm sorry it's in your
packet. Um and it is page is >> 78. Is this compliance requirements? >> Yes. Okay. Yep. So it's um page 77 onward. >> Page 78 under definitions compliance requirements. >> Yeah. Yep. Exactly. And so under
compliance requirements article one page 78 I get the note. You must be reading my notes. Um it said um specifically under compliance require requirements means that during the compliance period pursuant to Minnesota statute section
730 or 7 3 what 273-128 subdivision 1 A4. Now that was really important that we added that in there. And what um what that is I printed off the statute itself and uh 273.128
requires a certification of low-income rental property and the option four which is really important that we highlight was that the units are subject to rent and income restrictions under the terms of financial assistance provided to the rental housing property by the federal government or the state
of Minnesota or a local unit of government as evidenced by the document. recorded against the property. The restrictions must be required must require assisted units to be occupied residents whose household income is at
the time of initial occupancy does not exceed 60% of the greater of area or state medium income adjusted for family size as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. The restriction must
also require the rents for assisted units to not exceed 30% of 60% of the greater of area or state medium income adjusted for family size as determined by HUD. And so that is included in the
new restated and amended agreement. And then also I provided with you um a red line cut of an um let's see that would have on page
it's exhibit B and that is on page right here page 94 of your packet and essentially what we had our lawyer do was kind of eliminate a redundancy. Um, so this was drafted initially by my
predecessor, Jason Hail, and then our lawyer at Fiber, Christopher Vera, also built some stuff into the into the agreement when it was initially signed last year.
Some of that stuff ended up being kind of redundant when there's two authors. Sometimes that can happen. It's just how it goes. And so, um, Kevin and I met and we discussed it and we agreed that that red line redundancy doesn't need to be
it just cleans up the the document by having that. So, those are the only two changes and I'm asking for approval again of the restated restated and amended amended uh agreement. Just and just a reminder the importance of this
is the owner of that the new owner of that development agreed to uh reserve up to 22 if I remember uh units. >> Yes. >> Uh for qualified people and meet these all these qualifications and and in the meantime we made a significant grant. We
made one, the county made one and uh I think the two significant ones so that the uh owner could improve the units as people leave particularly and uh and it says up to 22 so that if there's a
practical reality that there's no renter available for an assisted unit, they can rent it at a market rate. But uh but they've got to go through quite a process to ensure that there's no
qualified uh renter. I think Commissioner Gamble knows more about some of this speak to the issue that there are 30 rentalable apartments and 26 of those are subsidized. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So it's an important project. Yeah. Chris, >> I I'm just finding I'm just a little confused about the categories. Um >> uh so 100,000 is available to reimburse
actual construction cost. 150,000 is available to reimburse the delta between construction cost and what the construction actual um the portion of construction costs that that are higher because of the requirements for prevailing wages. What the the last
50,000 of the proceeds will be available to support the developer on a reimbursement basis upon receipt of invoices from the developer. Is that related to what category of expenses? I'm I'm just >> Oh, uh that would be related to damages
uh damages incurred by the renters. >> Okay. >> Y and so and I've got a um kind of an update on that as well. I talked to Brady this morning just to make sure everything was >> Oh, there we go. I'm sorry. >> The next page. Yep. Right to it. >> Good. My apologies for that.
>> No problem at all. No problem at all. It's great to ask these questions. It really is. You know, one of the things that I think we all strive for is transparency. And so, we want to make sure we're all on the same page as well. >> Um, >> didn't read far enough. that that section 8 that last 50,000 that you were talking about. We've had two payments
that we've had in the last well since since the agreement was was um agreed to and finalized and those that was $42,500 of the $50,000 fund. So, there were a couple units that were pretty badly trashed, needed to be cleaned up, needed
a lot of repairs. So, that happened and then there were two other payments and totaling about $4,800. um and then so as well. So um yeah, so we've got uh and I'm sorry that
the $4,800 was for cleaning up and then the $42,500 was from the $100,000 construction fund. And so that was what I got from Brady today. And and and all compliments to Brady, he's keeping track of the
different sources of uh uses of of this because there's different grant sources and uh they're for specific purposes and >> um that's uh good work and we appreciate it. >> I'll move adoption of resolution 266.
>> It's been moved. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Is there any further discussion, questions? If not, we'll uh all those in favor of resolution 2606 say I. I >> opposed.
>> On to resolution 2607 authorization. >> So just wanted to point out from here this will go to the full county commissioners next week on the 27th. And then once that's done then um uh administrator uh treble will have to sign and then also the the pres chair of
the the county commissioners will have to sign afterwards if if approved. Then it'll be recorded everybody will get a copy and MFHA will be happy. >> Well so will we. >> Absolutely.
>> Hopefully so will the owner. Yes >> thank you Mr. Chair. Just a related question with the transition in ownership. Uh also what changed for applicants when applicants are applying and they they are looking to receive the
subsidy that because uh Lake County and Cook County's HR do not handle that process. It's handled through Duth. It means that applicants who previously would apply that uh if we had an opening
they could move in right away. The way it is right now is they go on the St. Louis County HR waiting list which is extensive and I don't know if the HR if our AH what is involved in be able to
have our independent list so that we aren't because it restricts what our intent is which is to provide affordable housing you know that's subsidized locally because we have to lump it all together with St. Louis County.
>> I think those are good issues. It was clear from the beginning, I think, when uh the executive director got this thing working was that we didn't have the resources on staff ourselves to do that.
But it would be worth some investigation into what exactly is needed. And uh it might be one of those functions where you know we as we mentioned during the audit we are considering ways of uh increasing our support in certain areas
so that the executive director isn't the only set of hands here. And uh that might be one of the areas where we could use some help. And we've got a couple of ideas that'll it's going to take some while. But uh I think it's worth certainly worth considering if we could
do it. And I' I'd be interested in finding out from the owner uh how that is affecting their income uh for one thing in the time of getting a tenant qualified through DUTH. So if we could maybe just uh do a little tracking with
uh Kevin, >> I'd be happy to find out a little bit more information. I'll track with Kevin. I'll also talk to the HA in Duth which I've had some conversations with about other related issues in the past 6 months or so. um for the next meeting in February, I'll have a report.
>> And as a followup, Mr. Chair, that the it because we exceed the agreed 222 that um it's not an issue that we're saying it's encumbering our ability to do it >> because we had so many people grandfathered in. But now with that
change and the administration there and I had inquired to find out with the monies that are allocated by HUD HUD are they allocated amongst the counties Lake County and Cook County or are all of those vouchers handed out and meaning
St. Louis could >> could >> use them all and then we don't get them and they were allocated. So in that regard, it just saying, can we facilitate a process that makes them more accessible? >> For example, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't
really out to get you. >> That could be the lake or the other H. But I I'll I'll give them more credit than that, but let's just was what was the other one? Trust but verify.
You just experience problem council. So they inform that. >> Uh let's go on to resolution 2607 authorizing executive director to work with our attorney at Friber to draft a developers grant agreement with one roof
community partners to support their Nordic star drive development expansion up to $250,000. Uh Jeeoff, you want to >> Yeah. >> take a highlight the this? So, as as mentioned in the audit, there was
$250,000 that we received back once the U Birchwood Apartments in in Grammaray were um transferred to One Roof Community Housing. And so, that was a deferred loan. We received it back and
um a couple of days later I received an email from Chad Dipman over at One Roof and he wanted to communicate with me and so we set up a Zoom meeting and um had a conversation and from that is the letter that you'll rece that you see is exhibit
A on page uh 98 in your packet. Basically, um, what they are looking to do is they are looking to expand their Nordic Star Drive into a phase two of that development. They're looking at about 10 new single
family homes in that land trust portion of um, Grammar in the northwest corner. And um you know they they just like us you'll remember back when we were talking about the coalition that
we created somewhat with the city and um the uh John Peter uh Peters with his um Buorkberg 3.0. >> We we tried for that same pot of money and we also did not receive any funding either. And um there will be opening up
a new um opportunity for some some housing funding through the HR or through the IT rather. But in that process, they would like to start working on some things like uh infrastructure and getting some things ready. Obviously, we're not going to go
start digging out there tomorrow because of the weather. Um you know, it's very non-conducive to digging and moving dirt and things of that nature. But um they're looking at wondering if we would support $250,000 going back into this
trust fund um project because it does have a lot of things that agrees with what we really um are targeting. You know, you'll see in the resolution that it would reduce um the cost of housing.
it um will provide you know obviously safe, stable and attainable housing in Cook County. That infrastructure if it can be subsidized obviously reduces the cost of the overall price of the house as well. And so this is one of these
things where it's up to you all to decide, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Um there's a lot of options we could do. We could do nothing. We could do something. We could table it. But I know that in previous conversations, you all seem to be very
supportive of working with one roof community housing on this land trust model to create new single family homes for Cook County residents that are waiting at the door, waiting in the wings to get into our community. And this is one of those opportunities, I
think, to really start proceeding. Obviously, it doesn't show that 175 175 units that our housing study shows we need to build a year. We're talking about 10, but it's a number and it will add to the bottom line for new people in the community. It'll it'll also help
with the uh the overall need for housing for the workforce that live here that want to live here. >> Do I hear a motion to approve resolution 2607? >> So move second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Is there
discussion on that motion? I would say the it's twofold important things going on here. One is encouraging one roof to be more active in Cook County because we're short of developers and we're short of contractors and
>> they've got they've got a resources and uh they have a track record and uh secondly is the development of the inc increasing the land trust uh idea for really workforce housing and u that's I
think at least my conversations with the commissioners have all been positive along that Commissioner O'Brien, >> just a um I I agree with what you're saying, support one roof's um strategy and and the results that they've
achieved in their track record. Um I I'm wondering if uh you know this is uh are there could you clarify the potential for finding alternative sources of the 250,000 than our own balance sheet to to
fund this? Is it is that I is it possible to come up with a development agreement and then in parallel with that apply Ir to to to fund this or is it >> um as far as the R their intentions are to apply for funding in April with R for
this project again just like they had done last fall um and they strongly believe that that $250,000 that we would contribute to the bottom line would help leverage getting the ITR funding in this next round >> as a local match.
>> It's a local match. >> Match academy. >> Yep. And so we can look at it as a local match and we can we can help with that leverage as well. And we've done that before. We did it with um the Heights Project, Norris Skogan. >> Mhm.
>> Um come to mind and so um I'm happy to have our >> legal folks create that for next month. Great. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of resolution 2607 say I. >> I.
>> I. >> Those opposed. Motion carries. >> Okay. >> On to other business, the director's report. >> Yes. Um and so the first thing I wanted to mention was Norris Goen on the northeast part of Graham Marray had some
early I shouldn't say late early late fall early winter um work that was done in November, December. Of course, you know, with the weather the way it is, and again, they are not able to do any more work, but they were able to do some work. We were able to make two requests
for reimbursement from, uh, Irr funds that we received, um, through the North Skenan project. And so, um, one payment was made and and sent off and we're still waiting for the second payment. Be a couple months again before they get back into the ground to finish that work
up. Um, I did talk to Kim Wolf this morning and um, she referenced an article from a couple of weeks ago that might have been in the newspaper talking about the price of housing and u there was a there was a number
floated at about $350,000 per unit and she said that that's off. It'll be lower. She said, "Don't quote me the price now. We're still working on the final calculations, but if there's no overages it'll be significantly lower than that." And so wonderful. That is
great news. And so I just wanted to thank the ILR again for supporting Cook County Housing. Um they are a major partner of ours and we really do appreciate that. And for what it's worth, um thank you for that. Um the next discussion I wanted to have was
with Whipley, um the assisted living market demand analysis. We're still waiting for a contract. It'll be in the next month's um agenda packet for consideration and approval. Um a timeline on that could be
as quick as 8 to 12 weeks. We'll have a finished product a finished project um that we can look at and and discuss in the future as well. So that'll be coming next month. Again, thanks to the um the
Graeme program Cook County joint EDA for supporting half of the funding for that project as well. Um just wanted to say that I continue to have discussions. Uh you remember back in December, just to jog your memory, we're talking about some legislation to maybe help tie
funding future workforce projects and development of new workforce housing in Cook County to those second homes and those second home mortgages. A lot of different ways to skin that. And so we're just trying to find out maybe is the most palatable or maybe
what is the most opportune given the environment politically that we have in Minnesota. And so um the session starts next month and um we'll be ready to have those conversations uh next month here to see where we could possibly go.
H website um just a couple of clicks away uh not on my end but on the other end um once the domain has been sorted out trying to figure out who owns our domain and and that sort of thing. So that's something I just could not get to
today. But we'll have a live HR website I think you'll all be proud of here very soon. Um the developer and I went through this last week and a couple of changes were made. Nothing significant. So much better than what we had. And so
that'll be coming up. I'm happy to take your feedback. I'll let you know when it happens. I'll make sure that there's an announcement that is live. But um we've incorporated a lot of new information on that web page and it looks a lot different as well. >> Not only would it look a lot better
probably, but the old the other website is 2 years old. There's really nothing in it that's going to be helpful to anybody who goes to it. So that'll be a big improvement. and the website do or not domain but the the the folks that
are in charge of um kind of managing our website or where we went with Squarespace just wasn't very intuitive >> and what we have now with WordPress is going to be so much more intuitive. I'm going to be able to go online or somebody's going to be able to go online
download the minutes updates with what's going on in the news and the area and things of that nature and really keep that up to date and refreshing. Um, for people who want to know what's going on, >> you're going to have a place to click to join meetings. >> Oh, possibly
>> online like the YouTube channel. >> Sure, absolutely. Um, well, that's, you know, that's the biggest thing right now is we have that YouTube channel for people to see that live. >> Um, if we want members of the public to Are you talking about members of the public to join? Yeah. And participate,
>> why not put it on our website? >> That's something we could discuss for sure. A pet peeve of mine is the the EDA doesn't they they publish their agenda ahead of time but they don't pub uh post a packet. >> Yeah. >> So you see during the meeting they're like refer to page 34 in your packet and
you're like >> so it' be really nice to post before the meetings for the public the full packet >> they can actually follow along. >> And with this last one I apologize it was a little bit delayed in trying to get the packet on our computer. this
this unit here is um maybe towards the end of his livelihood and so um we'll be looking at some recommendations next month but the PDF wouldn't PDF and that's all I have to say about that financials.
>> Yep. There's reviewed the uh both the statement of financial activity and the balance sheet for the month. The big um big uh items for the month were the receipt of the uh $295,000 from the county. That was a uh transfer related
to property taxes and then uh receipt of the repayment of the $250,000 loan. Um yeah, um the otherwise transactions are um uh uh quite normal as and and and as
as reflected in the packet, there's I need to work with Carl on a couple items that I flagged beforehand just in terms of um um the way some of the receivables are listed, but we'll make those corrections. >> Uh well, let's go to that was the committee report, I guess, unless there
are others. Uh I guess speaking I guess it's now that I think of it as a member of the personnel committee uh their executive director's uh first year anniversary will be February 24th and so
uh we will be doing the same kind of review uh that we did with the previous director using the same forms if we can find the template for the commissioner's comments uh if that's aail available. I
did put a call into the county HR office. We don't we don't we couldn't find one. Uh I I have the one that I filled out for the previous director, but that that would be key. And then uh we'll uh and we we did find the uh form
for the director to fill out on questions of how does how does he feel about his performance in certain areas. So, we'll expect that to be glowing and uh but uh we'll just be aware that you will be getting a questionnaire to fill
out his performance uh probably around by midFebruary towards late February. Uh are there commissioner items? just briefly mentioned that there was a meeting held between the uh Cook County
Community Fund or Cook County Real Estate Fund >> uh not community fund um and ideal homes and uh one roof community partner had a meeting um they invited me to come but I declined because they basically they
were just and it's pursuant to uh getting the u uh land trustee involved with phase to at the heights >> which they're interested in. And so they just in the past Ideal had expressed some interest in being the developer on
that. So basically Gary Latz got them together just to make sure that there were no hard feelings and people didn't feel like things were going on behind their back and it was a cordial meeting and it seems like the land trust is interested and I was interested in working with them. early days but all
all everyone's happy and moving forward on that which could be very significant that it would be the concept is there by getting the land trust involved it would be 24 new units at 50% of am >> apartments >> yeah
not row houses or any >> no just like the apartment buildings that's >> wow >> but that's a market that I think apartments make sense for >> absolutely >> any three bedrooms included >> no problem that 50% AMI is the scariest
but also the most necessary next besides senior living here in our community. >> I mean, >> as I say, early days, so >> I think it's really known, but that's the goal. >> That's good news. >> Yeah, it's fun. That's another >> It's one of the reasons I was so happy
to support the resolution for One Roof because they're re-engaging with Cook County and I >> very grateful. >> Welcome back. >> Do we have any further news? I I've not heard any about the the mobile home. Um
>> um I don't recall their names, but um they live in Minnesota. They have a summer home near Skyport. >> Awesome. So it's PE >> and so it's local. You know, they're here a good portion of the year and they are not going to make any changes.
>> That's great. >> That's really good. I got a copy of the letter that was sent to all the people that are living in the mobile home >> uh park. So, they are very relieved as well. >> That's an important asset. >> Y >> certainly.
Any other comments? If not, is there a motion on the floor to adjourn? >> Been moved. Is it seconded? >> I'll second. >> All those in any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I
>> Yeah, thanks. That was >> That presentation was fantastic. >> Yeah, it was very helpful. Well, you know,