WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=cR6J9nC0Tis NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: cR6J9nC0Tis): - 00:00:20: Call to Order, Open Forum, Agenda Approval - 00:01:29: Approval of Minutes and Consent Calendar Discussion - 00:04:27: Memorandum of Understanding: Brit Home and Schools - 00:07:59: Brit Home Program Approved, Executive Director's Report - 00:11:20: Land Use Applications and Overlay District Discussion - 00:12:27: HRA Discussion, Bonding Requests, Approval of Claims - 00:14:56: Economic Development Authority Meeting Begins - 00:16:36: Revisions to Transformation Loan Program Guidelines - 00:20:06: Transformation Loan Program: Income Limit Concerns - 00:23:47: Discussion and Clarification on Transformation Loan Program - 00:29:11: Further Discussion, Loan Program Parameters & Cutoffs - 00:35:09: Motions for Loan Program Changes and Continuations - 00:37:30: Approving Additional Funds and Executive Director Report - 00:40:51: Approval of Claims and Adjournment Part: 1 1 00:00:20.720 --> 00:00:37.680 like to call the Rich Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of May 18th, 2026 uh to order. Um staff will note attendance tonight for roll call. That brings us to open forum. Uh 2 00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:54.320 participants can share their comments in person, by voicemail, or email, and may also request to participate virtually. Uh for more information on submitting comments, refer to the housing and redevelopment authority agenda and minutes page on the city's website. Is there u anyone here tonight who would 3 00:00:54.320 --> 00:01:12.400 like to uh address the uh H with the open forum? >> All right. Uh okay. Thank you. is um did anyone contact us through any other means? >> We did not receive any comments. Chair Hansen, thank you. 4 00:01:12.400 --> 00:01:29.119 >> All right. Well, that moves us to approval of the agenda. Is there a uh a motion? >> I'll move approval of the agenda as printed. >> I'll second that motion. >> All right. A uh a motion and a second have been made to approval of the agenda. All in favor say I. 5 00:01:29.119 --> 00:01:44.079 >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Okay. uh approval of the minutes and uh director Paleman wanted to make a quick comment. >> Yes, thank you uh members of the board. I I did want to call your attention to the fact that there was a clerical error 6 00:01:44.079 --> 00:02:00.240 um in the um work session minutes. Commissioner Supple Supple was listed as absent and in the regular minutes as excused. So, we've we've just corrected um the inconsistency. It doesn't require an amendment to the minutes, but I did 7 00:02:00.240 --> 00:02:15.280 want to note that we uh we have corrected that for the final version. >> All right. Thank you for that uh that correction. Uh is there a motion to approve the minutes of the uh first the joint housing redevelopment authority 8 00:02:15.280 --> 00:02:32.480 and city council work session of April 20th, 2026. And second, the regular housing and redevelopment authority meeting of April 20th, 2026. Mr. Chair, do they need to be separate motions or can it all be one motion? Uh, 9 00:02:32.480 --> 00:02:47.280 >> a single motion is fine. Thank you. >> I make a motion to approve the minutes of the joint housing redevelopment authority of the city council work session on April 20th, 2026 and the regular housing and redevelopment authority meeting of April 20th, 2026. 10 00:02:47.280 --> 00:03:04.080 >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> A motion has been made and seconded. Uh, all in favor say I. I >> I >> I and thank you for making the correction for the accuracy. >> Okay. And any opposed? All right. We've 11 00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:20.000 approved the minutes. Um no presentations this evening. We do have one item on the consent calendar. So for that, I will turn it over to staff. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen, members of the board. The consent calendar contains in this case just one item which is acted 12 00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:35.680 upon by the HRA in one motion. Once the consent calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further HR action on these items is necessary. However, any HR commissioner may request that an item be removed from the consent 13 00:03:35.680 --> 00:03:52.319 calendar for discussion and placed on the regular agenda. All items listed on the consent calendar are recommended for approval. The single item on your consent calendar tonight is consideration of approval of a license agreement with McNamera Contracting Incorporated for the use of property 14 00:03:52.319 --> 00:04:11.360 owned by the HR at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue South for a construction office, laboratory trailer, parking and staging associated with the Nicollet Avenue reconstruction project. And I submit this for your uh consideration. >> All right. Uh, is there a motion to 15 00:04:11.360 --> 00:04:27.040 approve the consent calendar? >> So moved. >> Second. >> A motion has been made and seconded to approve tonight's consent calendar. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Well, that brings us down to our next item is other 16 00:04:27.040 --> 00:04:42.240 business for consideration of a memorandum of understanding with Henipin County regarding the partnership between Brit Home Minnesota and schools to housing programs. Uh, with that, I will uh ask for the staff report. Thank you, Chair Hansen. Assistant Director Urban 17 00:04:42.240 --> 00:04:57.759 will present the report tonight. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen. Members of the HA, this is an item that might typically go on the consent calendar, but because this is a brand new program for us, we wanted to take the opportunity to highlight the program and give you an opportunity to ask any questions you 18 00:04:57.759 --> 00:05:14.960 might have about the program in general. So, on that note, I will just present the staff report about the memorandum of understanding. In 2025, the HA executed a contract with Minnesota Housing to administer the state-f funded Brit Home Minnesota rental assistance program that 19 00:05:14.960 --> 00:05:36.080 provides rental assistance to lowincome costbur income to be eligible for bringing it home. However, the rules require that administrators prioritize families with children under 18 years of age who earn 30% of the area median income or less. 20 00:05:36.080 --> 00:05:52.160 In order to meet this requirement, the HA is partnering with Henipin County's schooltoousing program. Schooltoousing works with precariously housed families in Richfield public schools, providing temporary rental assistance along with 12 months of case management services. 21 00:05:52.160 --> 00:06:06.639 The bring it home school to housing program will pair bring it home's long-term rental assistance with the case management services offered by school to housing. The memorandum of understanding lays out the details of the partnership between bringing at home 22 00:06:06.639 --> 00:06:22.080 the HA and school to housing. Under theou, the HR agrees to set aside 12 bringat vouchers for school to housing families and allow unsheltered and doubled up families to apply for bring home. If all 12 vouchers are utilized 23 00:06:22.080 --> 00:06:37.360 and there is additional demand, the HR will also agrees to open the waiting list for schooltoousing eligible families. Henipin County school to housing staff will work with uh Richfield Public Schools to identify eligible families, provide up to 12 24 00:06:37.360 --> 00:06:53.840 months of case management services, and assist families in the search for housing. I want to point out the schools to housing program will begin June 1st. However, the general bring it home program will actually open for applications on June 9th and they will 25 00:06:53.840 --> 00:07:10.880 be accepted through June 16th. And if you have any other questions about either theou or the program in general, I'm happy to answer those. >> All right. Any uh any questions? >> I don't have any questions. I just have 26 00:07:10.880 --> 00:07:27.440 a comment um after the motion's made. >> Okay. Uh, see no questions. Is uh uh is there a motion? >> I'll move to approve a memorandum of understanding between the housing and redevelopment authority and Henipin 27 00:07:27.440 --> 00:07:43.520 County regarding the bringing home Minnesota and schools to housing program. >> Second. All right. A a motion has been made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> Can we have discussion? >> Oh. Oh, excuse me. Excuse me. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Excuse me. Um, so I just wanted to 28 00:07:43.520 --> 00:07:59.360 say that I think this is really important to have these 42 vouchers and I know people have been working for all looking for all different ways to help stabilize housing and I think this is an excellent addition to add the um the case management to this. So thank you. 29 00:07:59.360 --> 00:08:18.639 >> All right. Any uh any other thoughts? Okay. I guess now we'll entertain a motion. >> We have the motion. You just have to >> Okay. Excuse me. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. All right. Well, that uh brings us then 30 00:08:18.639 --> 00:08:37.680 to the executive director's report. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen, members of the board. I had a couple of updates tonight. First of all, wanted to update you on our work on a 4D policy. Um you all participated in a couple of work 31 00:08:37.680 --> 00:08:54.800 sessions to discuss uh the 4D tax policy and how the city wanted to handle that. We are planning to bring a policy to the city council on June 9th because of the tax implications of this policy. We have decided that we should go to the city 32 00:08:54.800 --> 00:09:11.920 council first for their approval and then come to the HA as administrator of the housing work and ask for your uh ask you to ratify that policy. Uh I don't believe that anyone on the board will be surprised by this policy although we 33 00:09:11.920 --> 00:09:29.440 don't have the language finalized yet. It is it will reflect the work that we did in the two work sessions. Uh what we heard from you was that 4D um should be considered as a financial tool of last resort. Um that the that we as a board 34 00:09:29.440 --> 00:09:46.160 would consider it um in certain circumstances when specific priorities of the H and the city can only be met using that tool. So that's what you'll see the policy reflect. Um, we're going over it internally, working with the 35 00:09:46.160 --> 00:10:02.399 city attorney or I'm sorry, HRA attorney on that. Um, and again, it will go to the city council on the 9th and come before you on the 22nd. So, you can watch for that. >> What's the 15th? I'm sorry. The third 36 00:10:02.399 --> 00:10:16.720 Monday of the month, it will come before you, whichever date that is. >> The 15th. >> Thank you. The 15th. >> 15th. Yes. >> Thanks, Julie. Uh I also wanted to note that um the developer the of the 37 00:10:16.720 --> 00:10:31.680 American Legion site MSP Loopy will be holding um hosting an openhouse uh to share what they hope to do on that American Legion site. That will be this Thursday at Betts Park from 5:30 to 7. 38 00:10:31.680 --> 00:10:50.000 This is not a city event. This is an event that will be held and hosted by the developer. Although uh city staff uh both city and HA side will be present to answer any questions that people might have about the process. Um as of now we 39 00:10:50.000 --> 00:11:05.040 do not have an application that would come before the HR but we have um at least heard early uh indications that the developer will make a request to you for some sort of financial assistance. Uh you should have received the invite 40 00:11:05.040 --> 00:11:20.800 to that openhouse. If you did not, please let me know and I can provide you with any additional details you might need. And that concludes my report. >> U Commissioner Haveri. >> Um from the land use side, has the developer submitted land use applications yet? 41 00:11:20.800 --> 00:11:35.519 >> No, a land use application has not been submitted. Their plan is to hold the open house and gather feedback there and then submit later this month is my understanding. >> Okay. So likely June would have a planning commission meeting that considers it. >> Possibly depending on when they would 42 00:11:35.519 --> 00:11:53.360 get that application in in May. Yes. >> Uh Commissioner Supple. >> Um I just had one request. when when that stuff is coming before us, since there's that overlay district for Portland and 66 for the Veterans Park area, can that be included in the staff 43 00:11:53.360 --> 00:12:10.639 reports so everybody's clear of what the parameters of that um overlay district are? Because that's part of the consideration of all of this. Correct. uh when it comes before the city council for land use approvals or when it comes before the if it would come before the 44 00:12:10.639 --> 00:12:27.279 HA well first for the land use. >> Yes. Yes. We will discuss the overlay district as part of the land use approvals. Absolutely. >> Thank you. Because I know we have a few new council members and I want to make sure everybody's up up to speed on that. >> Yes. Good point. Thank you. 45 00:12:27.279 --> 00:12:45.279 >> Any any other questions or thoughts? Okay. All right. Well, that brings us to uh HA discussion items. Uh Commissioner Hayford Liry >> sort of pertains to both H and EDA, but I just wanted to share that I did a walking tour on Friday um with a group 46 00:12:45.279 --> 00:13:01.680 from this conference, NACTO, which is a transportation organization that specializes in sort of bike ped friendly streets, lower streets, um and so on. So mainly it was focused on transportation and I had help from public works staff but I always like to talk about sort of the interface of redevelopment and 47 00:13:01.680 --> 00:13:17.920 transportation and walkability. Um so we looked particularly quite a bit at the Richfield urban village redevelopment, the Woodlake Center of the Pines and Oaks on Pleasant. Um and just it was it mostly mostly just to say it was generally positive reception on the redevelopment aspect. We talked quite a 48 00:13:17.920 --> 00:13:34.320 bit about the like how compelling is like the public private park in the middle. Um, overall people were pretty happy with it. And then also just the challenges of trying to get walkable downtown like pedestrian oriented things in an environment where many of your retailers maybe don't share that vision. 49 00:13:34.320 --> 00:13:49.839 So just sharing it was an interesting conversation and we generally got good reviews from people across the country who attended the tour. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Supple. Um, I wanted to just say thank you to everybody that worked on both the 50 00:13:49.839 --> 00:14:07.360 Ridgefield bonding request and also the um, rental assistance requests. And I, if I understand correctly, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, that 40 million in rental assistance was passed in the legislature. So, that's good news that might be provide some relief for several 51 00:14:07.360 --> 00:14:26.079 people. So, thank you to everybody that advocated for that. Any other thoughts? Okay. All right. That brings us to a approval of claims. >> So moved. 52 00:14:26.079 --> 00:14:56.160 >> Second. >> All right. A motion has been made and second for approval of uh claims. All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Well, that completes tonight's uh business. The uh meeting stands adjourned. like to uh call the Richfield Economic 53 00:14:56.160 --> 00:15:12.160 Development Authority meeting of May 18th, 2026 to order. Um staff will note attendance for tonight. Uh that brings us to the open forum. Uh participants share their comments in person by voicemail or email 54 00:15:12.160 --> 00:15:29.240 and may also request participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the economic development authority agenda and minutes on the city's website. Uh is there anyone here tonight who would like to address the uh economic development authority? 55 00:15:29.839 --> 00:15:48.240 Okay. Uh did anyone contact us through any other means of communication? Chie Hansen, we did not receive any comments. >> All right. Thank you. Uh that brings us then to approval of the agenda. Is there a a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. 56 00:15:48.240 --> 00:16:06.079 >> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded for approval of tonight's agenda. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed. >> Okay. Approval of minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular economic development authority meeting of April 20th, 2026. Uh, any comments, questions, 57 00:16:06.079 --> 00:16:21.440 or is there a motion to approve? >> I make a motion to approve the minutes of the April 20th, 2026 meeting. >> Second. >> All right, a motion has been made and second to approve the uh minutes. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. 58 00:16:21.440 --> 00:16:36.800 >> Any opposed? Okay. And then let's see. Nothing on the consent calendar this evening. So, that actually brings us down to resolutions uh for consideration of revisions to the transfer transformation loan program guidelines and consideration of a 59 00:16:36.800 --> 00:16:53.279 resolution authorizing additional funds for the 2026 transformation loan program. With that, I will uh ask for the staff report. >> Thank you, Chair Hansen, members of the board. Assistant director Julie Urban will present the staff report. 60 00:16:53.279 --> 00:17:09.120 Chair Hansen, members of the HA, the transformation loan program provides a financial incentive to homeowners initiating major remodeling of their homes in order to meet their housing needs. Major remodeling projects are defined as exceeding $50,000 in cost. 61 00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:24.000 The intent of the program is to incentivize major remodeling, increase the function and livability of small or outdated homes, and increase the range of housing options available to households who want to live or remain in Richfield. In 2023, the program 62 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:41.280 guidelines were also revised to further incentivize projects that meet city priorities to increase density, promote energy efficiency, and enhance physical accessibility in homes. A the program evaluation that we completed in 2025 found that the overall 63 00:17:41.280 --> 00:17:56.160 cost of projects funded through the program has increased over time. As project costs have risen, the loan has represented a smaller share of total project expenses, reducing its effectiveness as a financial incentive, especially for households with higher 64 00:17:56.160 --> 00:18:11.840 incomes. While the goals of the program remain unchanged, updates to the program guidelines are being proposed to better achieve these program goals in response to changing housing conditions and demographics in Richfield. The following changes to the program 65 00:18:11.840 --> 00:18:28.480 guidelines are proposed to improve equity, efficiency, and alignment with city priorities. Establish income limits, property value limits, and maximum project cost thresholds to ensure loan funds serve as a meaningful incentive and are targeted toward households with greater financial 66 00:18:28.480 --> 00:18:46.000 need and homes with greater needs. Clarify language, guideline language related to eligible improvements and the application review process to improve consistency and transparency for applicants. implement a designated application period in place of the current first 67 00:18:46.000 --> 00:19:02.000 come firsts served process. This change will provide applicants with a defined time frame to submit materials and allow all applications to be compared fairly. The application period will also improve staff's ability to plan for and administer the program efficiently and 68 00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:18.400 help focus EDA resources on city priorities and establish a formal scoring criteria to evaluate applications consistently based on compliance with program guidelines and alignment with city priorities. Additionally, staff is requesting an 69 00:19:18.400 --> 00:19:33.360 increase of $17,500 for the 2026 transformation loan program. Due to several approved 2025 loans not being completed, the amount of funding available to commit in 2026 was reduced. This additional funding would 70 00:19:33.360 --> 00:19:50.400 allow the remaining 2026 applicant whose project includes aging in place accessibility improvements, one of our high priorities, to receive the full approved loan amount and complete the project yet this year. I'm happy to go through some of the specifics of the program. They are um in detail in your 71 00:19:50.400 --> 00:20:06.640 staff report. If you would like more detail from me here um or if you have other questions, I'm happy to answer. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh any questions? Uh Commissioner Hayford. >> I really appreciate the the effort to make this clearer and to make it, you 72 00:20:06.640 --> 00:20:23.280 know, I think when I'd had conversations one-on-one with staff in the past, just making it obvious that before an applicant applies exactly what they can expect and what's eligible. and I'm supportive of most of it. I'm a little bit concerned about the income limit that's proposed um and potentially the project size. The income limit being at 73 00:20:23.280 --> 00:20:39.520 200% of area immediate income adjusting for household size. Like I think if I understand it right, the area mediate income for a household of one is like 45,000. And I just can't imagine like any homeowner that's living alone making 90,000 or less a year is going to do a $50,000 plus home remodeling project. They're probably doing well just to 74 00:20:39.520 --> 00:20:54.400 cover their mortgage. So, I'm concerned that we're actually excluding like a third or more Richfield households um by having that even a twoerson household. It seems like kind of a stretch that anybody would embark on a project of this scale given the cost of housing 75 00:20:54.400 --> 00:21:10.400 where it's at now u and the minimum to meet this. So, I would like to see us well I I sort of question why we do a household income limit on this at all just given that the nature of this program was to create move up housing. So I think following my comments it' be 76 00:21:10.400 --> 00:21:26.799 helpful for staff to share the rationale but if we do do a limit I think I would like to see it be higher particularly for smaller households. Uh my other comment is the maximum project value. I mean I guess I'm assuming that's sort of the idea of like it's it's like a informal 77 00:21:26.799 --> 00:21:42.240 but for test but it does seem weird because like we're getting more return on our public dollars back when it's incentivizing a larger project than when it's incentivizing a smaller one. The other things I don't really have concerns with. I do agree with the idea that you shouldn't be using it for, you know, recently remodeled or brand new 78 00:21:42.240 --> 00:21:57.200 homes. I think the application process improvements all make sense, but the project size and the household income limits both concern me as proposed. Sure. >> Chair Hansen, if I might, I can um respond. So, the process that the housing specialist um went through to 79 00:21:57.200 --> 00:22:12.080 come up with some of these figures was to look at the last three years of applications. we began um collecting demographic information. Um that was part of our program evaluation to we had already started to do that but just so that we could get a better sense of who 80 00:22:12.080 --> 00:22:27.360 we were funding. And so they based that um looking at these projects and um thinking there just have been some projects over the past few years where we've questioned whether did they really need our money and um so that's how they 81 00:22:27.360 --> 00:22:43.760 came up with that those income limits. they felt like the projects that did need our money fell within that income range, you know, so it was just a three-year grouping, right? And so, um, is it perfectly representative? We we 82 00:22:43.760 --> 00:23:00.159 don't know, but so, so that is where that came from. We did talk about do we just do a straight median income for a family of four? There are some programs that do that that don't adjust for household size. And so, we kind of went back and forth with that. and we landed 83 00:23:00.159 --> 00:23:15.520 with adjusting for household site. I was voting for not adjusting just for simplicity of administration. Um, but they both assure me that they're such experts at income qualification from the deferred uh down payment assistance program that wouldn't be a problem. But it's certainly something we could look 84 00:23:15.520 --> 00:23:31.120 further at if you would like. In terms of project size, again, they looked at the last three years and there just have been some really, really large projects, which is amazing. But again, it's this we are such a small portion that is it really are our funds really needed and 85 00:23:31.120 --> 00:23:47.360 that's where that rationale came from. So we certainly can make some adjustments. We could come back with something different. Um >> yeah and I would just say for clarification with the board I obviously um people can disagree with me. My preference would be to hold off on 86 00:23:47.360 --> 00:24:06.240 item A. I do think item B of getting giving the additional money this year is something we should act on tonight since we do have an application outstanding for that. Uh, Commissioner Supple. >> Um, I'll when we get to the discussion I'll have more to say, but I'm just curious is what would be the implication 87 00:24:06.240 --> 00:24:23.360 of delaying that part? Is there a ramification of that? >> No, actually because we have been running out of money, you know, at the first of the year so frequently that we won't be accepting any. I think we for sure want to have guidelines in place for the home tour so that we can give 88 00:24:23.360 --> 00:24:39.440 appropriate information to the next group especially if there's going to be this time limit in which you can apply. So I think there is certainly time to to bring more back if you if everyone you know feels like Shawn doesn't wants to see more um a different option or more 89 00:24:39.440 --> 00:25:01.279 rationale for why this was you know the path we chose. Um yeah, I I think waiting a month is not a um it if the if you could approve the money be that would be helpful. Yep. >> Additional uh questions. 90 00:25:01.279 --> 00:25:15.919 >> Commissioner, >> I I have no objection to waiting a month. I don't necessarily disagree with the way it's written, but I think just so that we can all be comfortable with what we're looking at. If it doesn't hurt anything, let's wait a month >> and look at it again 91 00:25:15.919 --> 00:25:35.840 >> and approve whatever money is necessary right now. Just a point of clarification like what's going to happen between now and next month um so that we feel comfortable taking a vote next month or is there a discussion to be had right 92 00:25:35.840 --> 00:25:52.880 now so that we can feel more confident taking a vote in the next month? I I have no problem waiting but I don't want us to then in a month be addressing the same questions that you could address them today. Like is it more data that you're asking for or do you just on 93 00:25:52.880 --> 00:26:08.080 principal you don't like the number? Like >> I guess it would be helpful to to know what you think about my concerns or if there are other concerns that you share because if everybody is like no this is fine we should have a limit of 90,000 for a one person household then I'm outvoted and that's fine and we can act 94 00:26:08.080 --> 00:26:24.400 tonight. I agree that without discussion and some direction tonight there's no point in delaying it. I would like when we have the discussion to break out the two points you were talking about because I have I agree with you on one and disagree on the other. So I don't know when you want to 95 00:26:24.400 --> 00:26:42.400 have that discussion. Um chair, Mr. Chair. >> Um I guess would it be good to have it right now since we're on the topic or >> Yeah. I mean unless we're asking staff to schedule a work session, I think this is the discussion. 96 00:26:42.400 --> 00:27:00.159 Okay. All right. Uh, any additional questions? Uh, Commissioner S. >> Well, it's not a question. It's more of I'm comfortable with authorizing the extra money. Um, and I'm comfortable with the income like 97 00:27:00.159 --> 00:27:18.240 the the maximum limits so that if if you're already making so much money, you don't really need it. But I need to understand more about your concern about um like the $50,000 for that that's too 98 00:27:18.240 --> 00:27:35.760 high for an for a oneperson household. >> Well, it's specifically that I just think if you are so and if I'm getting these numbers wrong, I'm just looking at the my council site. The household median income for one adult and two and zero kids is 45,000 a year in the 99 00:27:35.760 --> 00:27:51.919 region. um for two adults and no kids it is $100,000. So that does mean in those instances double that would be $90,000 um or $200,000. I guess my my speculation, my opinion is that if 100 00:27:51.919 --> 00:28:08.720 you're making $90,000 a year paying your mortgage, you're very unlikely to embark on a loan at all. Um that would be $50,000 or more to be taking on a rem remodeling project of that scale. likely if a single person living alone is going to do a remodeling project, they probably have a higher income than $90,000. 101 00:28:08.720 --> 00:28:24.159 So, is is that okay? Do we do we not want to encourage that type of homeowner to remodel and sort of focus this on like larger households and kids? Because I think that would be the the deacto effect of what we're doing. But I don't really see when the purpose of this program is to create move up housing 102 00:28:24.159 --> 00:28:39.840 that there is a need to exclude single homeowners or for that matter a couple without kids. Whereas if we were to do it to the household of four, that would be more like a maximum of 125,000 times 2, 250,000, which seems to me to like better fit like what is the 103 00:28:39.840 --> 00:28:55.840 point at which this is no longer making a meaningful subsidy difference. There's a lot of households making over 250,000 that could afford to do this on their own and one's making just under 250,000 that would benefit from this subsidy. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. 104 00:28:55.840 --> 00:29:11.840 I thought you were objecting to that the fact that it had to be a $50,000 minimum project value. That's >> not that is fine. I'm just saying given that we have this minimum project value, we should consider like who we're cutting off because you need a pretty big project and you need a decent income to pay for that project even with our 105 00:29:11.840 --> 00:29:28.159 subsidy. >> Okay, that helps me to understand what your objection is. So, do you want to have no cut off or do you want a different cut off? To me, I think saying the cutoff should be a family of four regardless would be close to the 106 00:29:28.159 --> 00:29:45.679 intent of what staff did and I think it aligns it and makes it more realistic for everyone. Um, that would be fine with me and I think it addresses the concern of the really, you know, significantly wealthy households that don't need this. >> I apologize that we should have had the 107 00:29:45.679 --> 00:30:02.559 income levels in there. So, I think that it would be helpful if we came back. >> Okay. >> For sure bringing that information. I was thinking it was in here and um I remember I added the median home value and not the income. So I think that would be helpful >> um for the discussion but um 108 00:30:02.559 --> 00:30:19.520 >> yeah and maybe we can bring back a couple of options. >> Okay. >> Um you know the housing specialists and I can have a conversation and maybe if we brought back more of sort of the the background of >> who who we served um and and where where 109 00:30:19.520 --> 00:30:34.960 that that would fall. you know, x number of I just don't know it off the top of my head, right? How how many folks would have been excluded under these rules and and what kind of a project. So, I think that um I could both bring more 110 00:30:34.960 --> 00:30:54.720 information and then also maybe a revised recommendation based on what I'm hearing if people are thinking um along Sean's lines. Commissioner >> it would be helpful for me to see if I mean um if we maintained the income 111 00:30:54.720 --> 00:31:10.720 limitations that as proposed in the packet today uh do we have enough applicants to fill the amount of money we've allocated to this program? >> Um because while I hear what you're saying if it would help some of our 112 00:31:10.720 --> 00:31:27.200 lower income families and folks And if we would use up our program funds with that with that with the income limitations, I have less concern about it. Um so just having a better sense of 113 00:31:27.200 --> 00:31:44.559 like which I'm guessing is hard to show given that we are running out of money, but um somehow you guys landed on these numbers and a little bit of like y >> um showing the need and uh would be helpful for me >> and One other suggestion that that maybe 114 00:31:44.559 --> 00:31:59.679 staff could include in the options would be could we have this be a scoring criteria but not a hard cut off. So we would still prefer in that period. But if there's a pretty >> a pretty bad project and they have a slightly lower income um and a pretty excellent project that meets all our city goals that has a slightly higher 115 00:31:59.679 --> 00:32:17.120 income above that limit like I think like it could be weighed in to make sure the benefits going without completely excluding >> Yeah. I mean that's a that's a good good option. Yep. To have that as as a priority and we we did discuss that idea 116 00:32:17.120 --> 00:32:34.720 of prioritizing at a lower income. >> Um, >> did it make it in? If we're going to get rid of the limits, and I don't know whether I I've got to think about it between now and the next meeting, but if we are going to get rid of the limits, I definitely would want to prioritize 117 00:32:34.720 --> 00:32:53.039 the income levels to help somebody that might need it more because they might not do the project at all versus somebody that could get by and do it if they had didn't have the help. So I I guess question I have is with this one change that we're talking about 118 00:32:53.039 --> 00:33:09.440 of you know implementing an application period in place in place of a first come first serve system would this help address that because staff could evaluate the applications that are on the table. So, so yeah, if you at the very end of 119 00:33:09.440 --> 00:33:24.159 the packet, we do have our scoring criteria and that is a a priority is that an even lower income would have a priority over. But we could um tweak that a little bit so it's clear either that's the only way we deal with income 120 00:33:24.159 --> 00:33:43.399 or um yeah have a we'll give that some thought about can that be completely um does that yeah does that cover all of the needs by doing it just as priority or if we we need a little bit of both. 121 00:33:43.679 --> 00:34:01.360 >> Okay. Any uh any additional questions? I have a parliamentary question before we get to the vote, but I don't want to interrupt the discussion of the the motion. >> Okay. Any uh questions related to the uh agenda topic? 122 00:34:01.360 --> 00:34:18.320 >> Well, just to clarify, the other comment I made was is the cap on project size reasonable? And I'm curious what others have to say about that. >> I think that was what I was trying to clarify is is the 50,000. >> Oh, yeah. I wasn't objecting to the minimum. I was saying does the is the 123 00:34:18.320 --> 00:34:33.440 maximum >> is imposing a new maximum which we don't currently have useful >> when arguably we're sort of getting more of our dollars back. But it also means that we're maybe maybe it's another symptom that we're we're subsidizing a project that would be fine without it. And so I don't feel very strongly about 124 00:34:33.440 --> 00:34:51.839 that one as I do about the income limits. But I'm just kind of curious what people's reaction are reactions are to that question. And it was 200,000, right? Was the max? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Unless they're meeting our priorities, 125 00:34:51.839 --> 00:35:09.040 right? We give them >> and I I do appreciate that ADUs are excluded from that because it is very easy to burn $200,000 on an ADU. So, >> exactly. >> Okay. I guess uh Commissioner Supple your parliamentary question. 126 00:35:09.040 --> 00:35:25.040 Um, so if we haven't made the motion yet, so do we just only make the motion for the second one and you'll automatically bring it back or do we need to ask do we need to do like a postponement because there's no motion there yet. So can we just ignore it and 127 00:35:25.040 --> 00:35:46.000 go on to the second part? Chair Supple, I am not a parliamentarian, but um based on my years on the planning commission, I would recommend that someone make a motion related to letter A to continue the item to next month and then uh 128 00:35:46.000 --> 00:36:03.680 separately make a motion on the budget item. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh any final questions? Um, I guess getting back to Commissioner Hay for the Lir's um, question, it 129 00:36:03.680 --> 00:36:20.119 doesn't bother me to have the $200,000 cap because if you're doing a project that big, you probably have the means to >> make it work. That's not a huge deal. But I understand your concern about the other thing. >> Okay. 130 00:36:20.560 --> 00:36:36.480 >> All right. Um, is there a motion then for item number one? I'll move that we continue the um continue um action on approving the 131 00:36:36.480 --> 00:36:53.440 recommended revisions to the transformation loan program guidelines until our next EDA meeting. >> And I would imagine we would need a second for that. >> I second that. >> Okay. Um, a motion has been made for a 132 00:36:53.440 --> 00:37:12.119 continuation of this item uh to the U next meeting. Uh, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Um, any further discussion on this particular item? 133 00:37:13.200 --> 00:37:30.400 >> Okay. Commissioner Young, >> uh, I believe we're making a motion now for item number two. Well, that's we will go to that next. Yes. >> Okay. >> And so I guess hearing no discussion on item number one, I will uh entertain a motion for item number two. 134 00:37:30.400 --> 00:37:46.599 >> I make a motion to approve the resolution authorizing additional funds for the transformation loan program for the 2026 economic development authority budget. >> Second. >> Okay. And is there any discussion? 135 00:37:48.880 --> 00:38:05.839 Okay. Uh, Commissioner, >> no, I just I think it's a good idea that we'll continue on the other discussion, but I think it's really important if there's somebody waiting for um a loan that we should get them the money to go forward if it's a good since it's a good project. 136 00:38:05.839 --> 00:38:24.400 >> All right. Any uh further discussion? >> Okay, a motion has been made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Okay. All right. That will bring us then to the uh executive director's report. 137 00:38:24.400 --> 00:38:40.000 >> Thank you, President Hansen. Members of the board, I just have one announcement. I wanted to give you an update on the uh business resiliency funding that you approved. Uh as I noted last week, we received 26 applications. Those that made it through the pre-screening with 138 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:54.960 the city were sent on to our partner NextStage. Next Stage has since done um their preliminary review and have reached out to all businesses that appear to qualify to schedule an in-person meeting. Um that is the first 139 00:38:54.960 --> 00:39:12.720 step is to meet in person at the site of the business with uh a member of Next Stage staff. So things are moving along. I just wanted you to know that we're making progress. Um there is a site set up where businesses will upload their documentation um to prove their losses. 140 00:39:12.720 --> 00:39:29.119 Uh, and hopefully we we can get this money out the door to help businesses as soon as possible. >> Uh, Commissioner Sel, >> um, a Richfield business owner asked a question about the county through Next Stage about the documentation process. 141 00:39:29.119 --> 00:39:45.440 If there are extenduating circumstances and an alternative form of documentation is needed, will that be allowed? Uh my understanding is that next stage is working very hard with applicants to find alternative documentation um when 142 00:39:45.440 --> 00:40:00.160 what is when the traditional documentation uh is not available. That said, um there have been some instances where where um you know, business owners have just not been able to show 143 00:40:00.160 --> 00:40:18.160 financial statements of loss. Um and without that documentation for whatever the reason, um they are not going to be able to get funding. So, Next Stage is working diligently with businesses. That's part of the upfront meeting with 144 00:40:18.160 --> 00:40:33.920 people to help um business owners understand the exact financial documentations they need. Um and so I I do hope that this um now that Next Stage has a little practice with Henipin County and with Bloomington's program um 145 00:40:33.920 --> 00:40:51.280 that we're making improvements through each iteration. So yes, >> thank you. >> All right. Any additional discussion items? I guess seeing um no further discussion items, we'll move for approval of 146 00:40:51.280 --> 00:41:08.400 claims. >> I move approval of claims. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh motion has been made and seconded for approval of claims. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? And that completes 147 00:41:08.400 --> 00:41:13.440 tonight's business. So the meeting will stand adjourned.