Welcome to the monthly business meeting of the Cook County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This is May 20th, 2026 and uh we're at the Cook County Courthouse. Uh first I'd note the presence of a quorum commissioners uh
let's see go the other way. Nick uh Lamour, Bill Hansen, Richard Olsen, and our county commissioners, uh Commissioner Gamble, and Commissioner Sullivan. And uh I think we're we'll get the
meeting going. Uh first item is approval of the agenda uh which was presented to us uh earlier by our executive director. Any uh questions about the agenda or is there a motion to approve it? >> Move to approve.
It's been moved. Is there a second? >> Second that. >> Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Approve. >> Uh approval of the April 15, 2025 minutes.
Hopefully you've all read them and I know I have, but Maggie's heard about the few corrections that were needed. is a real professional job and so I appreciate her being here and taking care of us with that. Uh, is there a
motion on the approval of the minutes? >> Also move. >> It's been moved. Is there a second? >> Seconded. Any comments? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Uh, opportunity for public comment. And
there's no public member presence, so we'll go on to new business. Uh Jeff, would you want to walk us through resolution 26-15, please? >> Yeah. So, resolution 26-15 is the uh conversation that we have uh
today about our budget, our budget levy, uh our budget request for the uh county levy rather. Um and so, um attached you'll see exhibit A is the budget document that Chris and Bill and the finance committee. So, Chair Gabler and
Chair uh Vice Chair O'Brien put together with some uh numbers that are a little updated from last year and they reflect the changes in pricing of a couple of different items on that list. Um I'm still trying to find it here in
the documents. So, sorry I'm scrolling here. Here we go. It's page seven in your packet. So, as you look here, the 20 uh we did the we just completed our 2025 audit and so we were able to look at what the
budget was versus the actual uh expenditures and that sort of thing. um 2026. We're still in 2026 and so we don't have a great idea of what how we're going to end until the end, but we do have um a great idea, an educated
guess at least of how we're going to go for the rest of 2026. Um the 2027 budget um as you see here, there's a little bit of a uh increase in a couple of different um areas. If you start at the
beginning there, there's the conversation around salary, which is not something that I have actually brought up. It was something that the chair and vice chair brought up. Um I don't advocate for my own salary, of course. It's something that the personnel
committee deals with. Um um and then also the benefits, the uh increase in benefits price. That's the price that the um H pays to uh the HR folks for the benefits that I have as an employee.
Um and then we go down the list a little bit. Um office lease uh at 450 that actually it's 575 a month. We we worked on that last year. Uh we we approved the the additional budget change. We don't
do 450 every other month now. We do 575 per month. Um and then also as you scroll down there, um legal fees and that sort of thing. It just reflects the additional change in fees because of course the our
legal folks um their their time um has increased year to year as well. Our auditing services reflects a higher uh amount. We are paying $21,000 for the 2025 audit which we just completed.
You'll remember and you'll you'll hear from Andy Herring next month, but last year when we talked with Andy Herring, um he talked about the difference in price and of course how that reflects when it comes to the cost associated with airs and emissions insurance and how that's
passed through to the to the people that we contract with and that sort of thing. And so, um, we've we've kind of anticipated that there will be an additional change in that cost for the 2026, um, audit next year. And, uh, throughout
the list there as well, a little bit more in the contingency just because of costs that increase. Um, other than that, um, I'll pass it back to the chair for any additional things that maybe I had missed. >> I don't think we missed anything. and
we've tried to keep the budget in balance and and around 3% if it's possible, but there's some areas that we had concern about. Uh certainly and uh the contingencies up uh only 3% but it
uh that's an area that we're probably we hope we can meet that budget but otherwise uh trying to keep a lid on things other than the audit was a wasn't a well was a surprise compared to our budget that which we budgeted 13,000
bucks and it was 21,000 was the final bill that we got for the audit and uh don't have any option but to pay that if we want to keep the auditor happy and and and productive and uh but I would assume perhaps the county's seen some of
that same increase in their audit price. >> Commissioner Gamble. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. to that extent when you projected your initial cost that you anticipated for the audit. >> Um, and if that firm I don't recall if
that firm is the same firm that was used before. >> It was. >> It was. So, it's not like they're stepping into something new. Um, and so I'm just wondering if that anticipated cost was because getting in and trying to get things aligned for future audits.
Typically, you would see that price maintain or reduce once they got in and organized and now we know what we're doing and we are consistent with the provider. It doesn't sound like that's necessarily the the case. So, it must something else that pushed it beyond the
point of what you anticipated. It was kind of new, wasn't it? I mean, wasn't it? >> It was. >> It was a different You're auditing a different set of of figures than before, right? Because the county was taking some of it before and we took that over. >> That's fair. Well, >> so that was the scope changed and then
they had to do a lot of >> thinking to get right. So, you're right. In the future, it should be less. >> A bit of a free ride from the county's use of the same auditor, but >> did change and then it was Sorry. Go ahead. That's all right, Phil. was complicated by the change in leadership
as well. >> Yeah. Well, that that that helpful, but also, you know, exiting that audit, the question is asked moving forward, how do you think this will appear? So that they would say, well, I don't think we're going to have some of these issues here.
if it's a matter that the county uh you know absorbs some of that that cost then moving forward if that's not going to be the case but anyway just just wondering because it is a a a change so you try to understand why is that change
>> sure >> reflected on our >> the other item that we're up a bit 10% it's a fairly minimal number in reality for uh bookkeeping services We're trying to we'd like to have a better
correlation between the QuickBooks that's produced produces our week monthly record of expenditures and the budget categories here. And uh that would help the finance committee for one thing
>> be able to report in relation to the budget without just eyeballing it which is what we do now. We're doing the best we can, but we're hoping that the bookkeeper can help us out on that. And he it's very call on
the on the report following the audit recommendations relative to that, how we might be able to let's just say build some integrity into process and something that's more user friendly when it comes to analyzing figures. If those
recommendations and our own lived experience defines that, then we might be able to achieve what you're hoping for. >> That's the goal. >> So, any other thoughts or questions on the budget request?
>> I'll move I'll move adoption of resolution number I've lost it. Um >> 2615 >> 2615. >> Yes. >> Or it's 2616. 2616 >> 15. >> Oh, 15. Sorry, I second.
>> No, the the budget adoption is the 2015 the payment auditor >> for the auditor that we just talked about. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the budget request? Uh, all those in favor say I.
I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Okay. on to explanation of 2616 authorizing payment to red path. >> Yes. And so in your packet on page um 8
and nine is the uh conversation uh around resolution 26-16 which is a $21,000 invoice that I received from Red Path for the 2025 audit that is now completed. Um, again, they are not able
to make it today. And Andy actually had a medical appointment that was scheduled well in advance and so we'll get them on the schedule for next month and he'll have the presentation next month for us. But um still there's some in-house work with the invoice and so um he's asking
for us to pay the invoice and so I'm presenting it for you for discussion and uh approval >> and the finance committee would recommend approval of this as well. Is there a motion to approve the bill from red path payment?
>> Move to approve 2616 and move. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the item hearing? None. Call a question. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries.
On to 2617. Uh, which would conclude some survey work. So, Jeff, you want to >> Yeah. through that? >> Yep. On page 10 of your packet, um, and page 11 is a map. Um, we're talking
about the former Tom Tabota motel uh across the street from the Aspen Inn as you come into Grand Marray and what I call the gateway district to Grand Marray. And in that um in that conversation, we are
working with the EDA. There's a $1.3 million workforce housing development grant that was received back in 2024 and executed in 2025 with all construction being concluded by the 1st of January 2028
and final payout of that in January 31st of 2028. Still some work to be done in order for us to get this site to be developed. And so, um, Mike Roth and I, Mike Roth, city administrator in Grammaray, and I had a
conversation about, um, where we go from here in conjunction with the development of those 16 units of workforce housing. And, um, I had a conversation with, uh, Charlie Troval over at Northshore Surveying as well.
We were actually all at that site yesterday to kind of figure out what's what and what's where. And the conversation was around who pays for the survey and that sort of thing. We do have some funding in our budget for pre-development costs that weren't um
expended from a previous grant. And so it makes sense for us to use up to $5,000 of that money for the purposes of us figuring out what that boundary looks like for the property that the city is interested in conveying to a developer
for the workforce housing project. And so I'm asking you all today to support a uh resolution uh to get that survey work done. Um, Northshore Surveying does have kind of a backlog of work right now, so
it'll be next month, but next month that work will get done if we approve this. >> Let's get going. Is there a motion on 2617? >> We'll second that. >> Been moved and seconded. All those in
favor say I. >> I opposed. Same sign. >> Motion carries. Uh, other business, the director report. >> Yeah, I'll I'll keep this kind of short. Uh, the Birch Grove billboard. I drove
by this uh few days ago. It's still not up yet, but they are working with a um advertiser to get that billboard up with a new advertising with a new uh client and that sort of thing. So, um, our agreement is fully executed and they're
chugging along as fast as they can to get the billboard renovated and and, uh, ready to go. So, um, it's good to see that we've got some progress in the in the midst here as we get to another, um, season where we're going to get a lot more uh, tourists and tourism for Cook
County. It's nice to see the billboard doing the work uh, that it's needing to do. So >> Jeff, did the I haven't noticed the sign the coming soon sign for the development there is gone. >> It's gone. >> Okay. >> Part of it still in my office.
>> The the actual sign part um is in my office because I didn't know where else to go with it. And so um I think we've we've uh retained it for over 6 months since we uh eliminated any agreements with the developer. And so I've held on
to it for long enough. anybody was looking for some potential firewood, let me know. Um and uh so u in in the eventuality that we actually have um
um a billboard uh that's up. I'll make sure to get pictures of that so you know what the what we're leasing um uh what it looks like and that sort of thing. But uh for right now, we've got the uh the agreements have been fully signed by the township and ourselves as well. And
so we are ready to go for that. So the next uh point that I wanted to make, and I'm not really sure why I brought up the 1800 West Highway 61 project other than I guess what we were talking about today, um and it's just getting some site work and some some work done so we
can continue moving forward on that project. We do have some deadlines that are really important to us. We want to make sure that that money is utilized. It's in partnership with the EDA. Um, and so we'll continue to work on that project together.
Uh, recent legislative activities. I just received an email a couple of days ago from the Minnesota housing um folks. The dust is still sort of settling over at um the legislature about what was passed at the legislature as it always
is the case, right? But um there was a request to thank legislators and so I I know that job is a tough job. Um especially at the end you're you're not getting lunches, you're not getting suppers, you're just discussing stuff all day
long. But um there was a package of legislation that total $165 million that was passed. You'll remember at the beginning of the year when I was mentioning the budget and not budget year items and interest
in spending some of the money that they might have or might not have to play with at the legislature. There was there's a fiscal cliff that they're looking at for a fiscal deficiency in out years. Um, and so they didn't spend
a lot of money, but they spent some money in some very strategic ways. They passed a a bipartisan $165 million package for housing um at the legislature in the last few days. $100 million of that went to housing
infrastructure bonds. $40 million went to family homeless prevention and assistance programs. And that was through the Tyler settlement. Um, and that was the Tyler settlement had to do with forfeite land
and how that uh that funding goes, who gets what. And then the last $25 billion went to greater Minnesota workforce housing, supportive housing and homelessness across the state, manufactured home infrastructure grants,
home ownership education, um, and tenant education and hotline services uh, for folks across our state. So, of the $25 million, all of that stuff fits into that $25 million, but um it's definitely some money will go to a
good need across our state. Any questions on that before we move topics? Okay. And then I guess the financials are the next step of the discussion. That's all I had for my report.
Yeah, that's nothing unusual in the financial statements that were spending some money, but uh really the finance committee's uh done its job and looked at it and don't have anything to say other than
we'll keep going. >> Yeah. Other topics, any commit committee reports? Well, that was the finance committee. It was reported and I don't think we've had other committees meeting at this stage, but uh any commissioner items that we
want to discuss? >> Commissioner Hansen, >> I had a conversation with uh Kim Wolf who's, you know, kind of the she's the Gary Latz of Norris Skogan. She said if she had any idea how much work it was going to be, she never would have gotten into the but now she's in too deep to
back out. So um but um uh she so just an update maybe everybody else knows this so I didn't know but they are doing work and they have one they have two lots sold at least on paper that I don't think they've closed on either one but one was going to close
in May and then the other one I think in early June there and then they're they're thinking those are the two that will get built this construction season and and the others won't but they'll continue to sell lots. So I asked her about their model and it got me to thinking. But their model is that they,
you know, initially when they proposed that they were going to build 12 houses and sell them all for the same price, identical houses. Well, now they're selling only the lots, but they you can only buy one if you have a construction loan in hand. >> And then they have their model home,
their plan that you sort of commit to building, but you are allowed within certain limits to customize it. >> So you can kind of make it your own. They're going to be different colors now, not all one color, which I think is nice. >> Okay? >> And you can build, you know, like a different porch or, you know, whatever. You can basically do whatever you want
as long if you're willing to pay for it and still stay within the HOA restrictions. >> Uh so they have two um two uh sold the one the first one that's sold is someone who rented at the heights.
So, it's a nice progression and shows probably we'll see that route in the future again. >> But it did get me to thinking about their and their plan. Their goal is uh next year to build four and then four the year after that and then the final two the year after that. And she did
comment just I don't want to put words in her mouth, but she said that might be ambitious, but we're that's what we're going for. So, >> okay. >> Uh might might go better than they think too, I think. But uh because I think there'll be demand there. But um it got me thinking about Birch Grove.
>> Oh. >> And that that might be a model for the first phase of Birch Grove where we basically fund and and develop the infrastructure and the plan and then have guidelines for the building. >> Mhm. >> And then we we sell lots to people who
have a construction loan. >> And it's actually the model they used um in Schroeder up on the Kramer road. I forget the name of the development. Years ago, 20ome years ago, they really did the first the first uh land trust deal in Cook County. The Schroer
Township did it on their own and they had I can't remember now how many, but it was a substantial number of lots. I think maybe a 60 acre >> parcel and they sold lots for development. I don't think they had a lot of restriction on what you built, but they all sold and they all got built
on. There is I think there was a requirement to build. You couldn't just buy a lot and hold it. uh but it's fully been fully subscribed for many years and it's real boon to the town of Schroeder. So >> there's a there's a precedent out there. So just something I thought I'd bring up
for people to be thinking about as maybe a way forward at Birch Grove where we could get that first phase up on its feet because we've done so much of the pre-development there. >> Mhm. >> That it'd be a shame to let that slide away, you know. >> Yeah. >> Well, I think the transition at Skogan
from uh the realtor and developer building everything and switching to this model of, you know, requiring a construction loan before they buy a lot. It just makes a lot more sense for the organization that's doing it and uh a
lot less risk over time and I so I think that model is certainly well well worth >> uh considering. I do for example, >> you know, the we'd have to dig back to see the Schroeder project is a land
trust project. So, the land stayed with the township. >> Um, and I don't know if they actually formed a land trust or township's going to just do that or if they just did it and didn't ask anybody. I don't know how that worked, but it would be nice if Birch Grove could be in that model as well because that ensures affordability
going forward. So, >> whatever it takes and we always have our partner uh one roof housing to >> at least consult with if not act as the as the land trust. >> Yeah. >> On that but uh yeah so anyway just as
usual I'm scheming and thinking about housing and >> nothing happens >> after that conversation I was like hey that might work for Birch Grove. >> Nothing happens without scheming and considering Commissioner Gamble. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a brief
conversation with with Jeff um um in in the area of evidencebased uh from the marketing standpoint. Um and the community, you know, we get feedback when we see structures going up and the
community makes their assumptions and we try to give them what the reality the facts are. It would be beneficial, especially in in the partnership relationship we have with these entities and specific to Gunflint View and the Heights,
>> if we could get a generic profile of who is renting. >> Mhm. >> And and uh why that is is important is it would answer public curiosity and would also demonstrate how specifically
we address need. And so when you look at the various groups, you you've got people that are looking for housing that are workforce housing, and we have testimonials to prove that this these properties have addressed that. We also have people that are downsizing, which
given our demographic and age, that they're looking to downsize and to be able to stay in the community. That is a certain demographic. And then there are individuals that are are moving up and maybe like the area and can work from
home and so they choose to be able to do that because there's affordable housing. And then there might be another element which are individuals that cannot afford to buy a cabin or a residential house that comes up in the market but they could rent an apartment because they
have the wherewithal to do it. And I guess it's a matter of what we can do in the context of what's allowable for disclosure, we'll say. But I think if it's simply generic, it would be good something to understand and it would
help to direct what this board does in future housing. >> Good comment. One of the responses I'd have to that is that at the meeting that you both were at earlier uh commission or the superintendent of schools made
the statement that he's actually made in an an email before but that this was last year was the first year that he had filled all available teaching positions and they were all able to find housing and that's in part because of Gunflint View which was pretty well located for
teachers as it turned out and then it turned turned out, I can't remember if it was at that meeting or another one I've had that the new EDA director is living at the heights. >> Yeah. And so those are that was kind of a target market was people who've got
some potential jobs in Cook County but need to find housing to be able to take those jobs and and uh so I think so far we're making some tracks but uh good suggestions >> and in in my experience too in managing
subsidized housing that people when they're they're desperate they have an opportunity a job but they need to find housing and so they just look and they'll call and say, "You got anything available?" I said, "Are you, you know, to find out if they even qualify?" And basically, they're they're just saying,
"I I got a job and I just can't find any housing." And so, what I would say is in our experience of 16 years in managing subsidized housing that we have uh 90% at least of the calls that I get are
people that have been looking for housing, have no idea it's subsidized. They just need to find something whether it's the forest service, the school, the hospital. So I'm I'm completely in agreement with you on we need that we can't it has to
be sort of anecdotal and generic because of privacy issues >> but we actually had a presentation I think before you were sitting on the board from Gunflood View when they were filling up >> and they said it was a third a third a third basically um a third people
downsizing and probably will be long-term residents are planning to stay there the rest of their lives or until something changes >> about a third uh people upgrading from uh less desirable housing that they've been in but they live here already and they're yeah
>> doing better >> and a third are people coming and taking jobs that are coming for jobs that land there they don't plan to be there long term >> it's just something they can get start the job they'll network in a year or two they'll go
>> and that's been a question Gary Gary the the heights is now well over 70% filled. In fact, there's rumor around town that it's completely filled, and that's because people are calling asking for two-bedroom apartments, which are gone. >> Yeah. >> So, it's not full, but the the
remainders are certain types of apartments. >> And uh he's he echoed almost exactly the same thing. It's about a third of people >> upgrading. So, that twothirds population, some of them probably will stay there long term, >> but most of them are looking at that as
a temporary solution. >> Yeah. >> And turnover. That's important for us to remember because we don't want to overbuild in that category. >> Sure. >> Um and that's borne out by the project the one roof project in Luton which is
48 apartments I think there and they >> 16 unit four 16 unit buildings I think. >> Yeah. Whatever that a lot and they've they're actually >> kind of at saturation. They're not anxious to build. There were supposed to be a second phase of that. a lot of them going. >> But they said they thought people would
move, get jobs at resorts and live there. And there is a some of that, but most states people get jobs at resorts, move there, and then they move elsewhere in two or three years. So they see that turnover. And they actually >> asked us last year if we would allow that. They have a restriction that you
have to live and work in Cook County. >> Sure. and they ran into people that are working on long-term construction projects that wanted to be there for 9 or 10 months and didn't qualify because of that. >> And they were like, "Well, so then the apartment sits empty. That's stupid." >> So, we actually granted them permission
to have a little leeway that way for people that really are working here and living here. >> Sure. >> But they're not they're going to go away, but they're still long term. So, um, so that's the intelligence I get informally from >> Yeah. from the heights and and from down
there. Um >> the base based on Go ahead. >> So the missing piece it seems like is the is the 50% AMI level. >> Mhm. >> There's still high demand for that and then and senior housing and then sort of
entry level housing ownership, home ownership. >> Yeah. >> Is still a a need. >> Yeah. I think the important point in my comment is is that that this is the evidence our our response of the community investment of dollars is is to
show the evidence of what we're accomplishing whether the mission we set out and we've specifically identified either through our own or outside surveys we're addressing that need how well are we doing and I think because we're partnershiping on the financial
and and other areas with these entities ities that there would be a gentleman's agreement to be willing to do that in the context of the provision of the rule of law so that it's demographic in nature but we don't want to lose that
information because it informs moving forward. >> Absolutely. Well, that's those are good comments and I don't know if his ears were burning, but uh talking about partnerships and people moving into the heights. Uh Lucas, would you just
introduce yourself to the housing and redevelopment authority board, please? >> Why don't you come up to the microphone? >> Yeah, that way the public will be able to hear you. >> Of course. >> Well, hello everyone. Uh, for those of you who I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, I'm Lucas Wakefield and as
of last month, I am the director of the Cook County Grand Marray Joint Economic Development Authority and yes, very interested in establishing and deepening partnerships with the HR however possible and happy to answer any questions you have as well.
>> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Nice to meet you. >> We appreciate you being here >> and uh so does the Heights. It certainly is nice to have somebody else in the office with me. >> Long overdue.
Any other uh commissioner items? Hearing none. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? Don't be bashful. >> Also moved. >> Thank you. It's been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Any
discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I oppose. Same sign. >> Record record meeting. >> That's close to it. >> Good success. Close to our record. >> Yeah.
Well, um, you know, 10% of what