Authority to order roll call, please. Louie? Here. Coleman? Here. Johnson? Here. Jost? Here. Kim? Here. Naker? Here. Yang? Here. Seven present, none absent. Approval of minutes, item number one, minutes 20 five-forty five, approval of the October 2025 HRA meeting minutes. Alright. I I trust that folks have had a chance to review the meeting minutes. I will take a motion from Commissioner Yang to approve. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. None opposed.
The minutes are approved. Discussion. Item number two, resolution 20 five-seventeen oh six, resolution endorsing amendments to the Minneapolis Saint Paul Housing Finance Board's twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven qualified allocation plan citywide. Alright. We received a staff report on this item last two weeks ago. Where is it last week or is it two? It's two weeks ago now because we had a fifth Wednesday. I know that there's been a lot of conversations, especially surrounding this item for our all of our offices.
I will hand it over to director McMahon to see if there's anything further you'd like to add. Yeah. Just building off the discussion amongst yourselves and staff report from last week that this proposal includes changes to the qualified allocation plan and that the changes are really to allow for that increased capacity to support additional housing development in the city. The reason for the request now, again, is to take advantage of that federal tax law changes that happened after the QAP was last adopted to be able to utilize that increased capacity once available in January 2026, which now that we are in November,
feels even closer than the last discussion we were talking about in October for this. So these changes also recognize that the post COVID, downtowns are facing unique challenges in financing the development of additional affordable housing in our downtown in particular. So we're proposing to use the increased capacity for downtown projects with a fifteen year minimum affordability requirement. The changes would allow projects to move forward downtown that either otherwise wouldn't or may, but would otherwise require substantial additional public subsidy to move forward. Just quick reminders, this is only for the 4% credit. The 9% credits are competitive,
unlike the 4%, and the changes are only for the twenty twenty six, 27 QAP, at which point it will be back before you again to review and discuss the impact and determine whether to continue with the change or make additional amendments and modifications. Thank you, Director McMahon. I also wanted to just take a chance. Before we move the motion, or actually, I'll just take a motion from Commissioner Naker to approve any discussion. I'll start with just saying, I wanted to take a moment to just thank Rich Pakenon and members of our planning and economic development staff for bringing forward this solution and just taking the time
to meet with us and to talk further about it. Last two weeks ago, I did share some of my concerns with Espati. And as chair, I wanted to take the time to read through this letter, but also just to make sure that I was able to submit those for the record my growing concerns about this change. In part, there are two amendments, and I, you know, want to say I've had a chance to read every letter that was submitted, read it in full for every organization, both depending on where they landed on the issue. I've reviewed the staff proposals, the staff reports fully,
and I think that even after doing that research and reviewing this amendment closely, I am not gonna be able to support this proposed change today, for Downtown Saint Paul projects in particular, because I think public funding projects must provide the most consistent and dedicated levels of affordability and habitability. They are public investments, and the public deserves to have a full return on that investment and not just short term flexibilities for the purpose of more, more buildings. And when we use public uses, we have a duty to ensure that those funds are creating and sustaining long term affordability for people who need it the most.
This is just something that the language as it currently says has been in place for several years now, and it was a step that we took to fix a loophole that gave away, fifteen years of light tech affordability. Reducing that affordability from thirty years to fifteen years is, in my view, regressive. And I don't necessarily see rewards for being in alignment with the federal law at this time or the so called big, beautiful bill, especially when that alignment includes weakening the St. Paul's longstanding commitment to affordability and tenant protections. One of the mistakes I think that previous policymakers made in the past was not building for the future.
They were building for their now. I think this amendment repeats that mistake. And when we think about ways to really fund affordable housing I asked for the staff, to review on October 22, I believe. The data that was put in front of us on the affordable housing stock in downtown. And the reason why I share we need to be building a downtown for the future, I asked them specifically to talk about the affordability and to share both, for light tech and home funded projects, their anticipated roll off date for their affordability requirements. One thing that I can't,
in good faith, support is that several of the properties they came back with ended between 2035 and 2045. The fifteen year requirement for affordability in these two spaces will also do the same to the point that most of the light tech and home funded projects that we were able to get data for are currently making up the downtown affordable housing stock that will basically be expiring affordability around the same time. I don't understand why this body would choose to continue to be in a space where we no longer have affordable housing downtown in 2035,
2040, around the same time that we'd be looking at that time to our policymakers to fix the gap of affordability downtown, when we can proactively try to prevent that by continuing a rolling basis affordability of thirty years that we have in place now. I just really think that we should be thinking about who we're building our downtown for in many ways. And to me, that includes affordable housing. But most importantly, the proposals that is put in front of you and the and the amendment that is put in front of you around the fifteen year changing it from thirty years to fifteen years of affordability would be the only of its kind in the country.
Other cities have not followed suit. Other states have not followed suit. So this would be something that the city of St. Paul is taking up for the first time and potentially could be a trend that begins in the country, which is also growingly concerning. And so I will, like I said, not be able to support this today. I understand the direction and I understand the intent. You know, I learned a lot about the HEM building project as well, just around, you know, things that I thought were important to acknowledge. I was happy to hear about prevailing wage being paid on some of the on a lot of the portfolio that mister Pakenen has had in the past.
That's important to me. I was excited to hear a lot more about who he what development he has. It's just not enough to change a QAP that's in place to ensure the city is taking multiple steps to try and ensure affordability for as long as possible. So that's a little bit about my, spiel, in it. But I, you know, do wanna say I encourage folks to continue to think of strategic solutions. I'm a huge supporter of the downtown development strategy, the comp plan, but I am growingly concerned about the fact that we are continuing to not address the fact that in 2035 to 2040,
we are gonna be losing a lot of our affordable housing stock here in Saint Paul. And there doesn't seem to be a remedy. There doesn't seem to be a policy change. There doesn't seem to be a plan to begin to address that now so my kids and their children can afford the houses that they're living in twenty years from now. And I wish policymakers would have had that discussion twenty years ago. So I will hand it over to, commissioner Nager. Thanks so much, chair Johnson. And thank you for your thoughtfulness about this issue on which I know we disagree, but I I always appreciate the conversations that we're able to have and the amount of due diligence and,
and and true deliberation and consideration that you put into every issue that comes in front of you. I as you pointed out, we've gotten a lot of correspondence about this. And I I wanna speak in favor of the motion and also just sort of, oppose a couple of the claims that have been made in some of the letters that we've gotten just to be really clear about what this is and what this isn't. This is not a backdoor way to get rid of the thirty year affordability requirement citywide. I think that claim was made in some letters that this is an attempt to try to create a slippery slope effect. We have been more than clear that this applies only to downtown and only for the two year period that director McMahon just mentioned.
There's absolutely no intent to get rid of thirty years and actually more than thirty years, which we often subsidize, which I have often supported in my ward, for the rest of the city. In fact, this actually expands our capacity to subsidize that housing. This is also not a decrease in affordable housing. It's an increase in affordable housing, and it's doing it in a in a smart way. So what this is is a leveraging of federal resources to create affordable housing downtown where we wouldn't otherwise see it. We are talking about projects that would otherwise be market rate, would otherwise be maybe not even housing at all.
And in this case, we are actually going to see them become affordable housing. And we'll be directing city resources where they'll go the farthest rather than sinking our limited city dollars into extremely expensive downtown conversions. We're going to be allowing those to spread beyond every other quarter of our city and use federal resources to get more affordable housing downtown than we would otherwise see. And it's a smart way to incentivize development downtown, which we've all talked about wanting to do, and make it affordable and not use any city dollars, which, again,
are very scarce. And I just wanna kind of reiterate, this is an HRA that has proven itself time and time again to supporting affordable housing. We are going to continue to do that. We are doing that with this measure. And so I think some of the, the letters and opposition that we've received, I think, fail to recognize that that is a value that this HRA has consistently held. And and to your final point, Sher Johnson, I think it is really important to note that as those projects roll off of their required affordability periods, because I think that's a good point to think about the future state, we come forward with dollars to keep those affordable. And that we've seen that time and time again.
At this body, we've been presented with projects that we're about to roll off of affordability. They come forward for additional investment. We make that investment, and then we can keep them affordable. Being resourceful with our scarce public dollars in a way like this gives us more of those dollars to subsidize and keep other projects affordable into the future. So I I'm obviously in support of this, motion. And, again, thanks so much, chair Johnson, and to others for your consideration. Thank you, Commissioner Eaker. Commissioner Egan. Thanks, Chair Johnson. Well, first, before I make my comments, I do wanna give a huge shout out to our housing director,
Jules, who I know does a wonderful job always explaining to us, about how our housing work overall and what's in front of us. I've had a couple of briefings with him already, and he's presented in front of us. And so to be able to explain what we are even voting on in very plain and simple terms, I commend you for that, Jules, and I wanna say thank you for your work and also to extend that work to, all of our PED staff, our director McMahon, you as well. Because, a few months ago when we were at this table, one of the asks that I did have was for our PED staff to continue
sharing with us what are more more tools that we can consider in our city here to build more development in our city. And, and you all, you know, have continued delivering on that. I I know behind the scenes are continuing to have more discussions about that too. What I do want to say first off is that I, I am supporting the two QAP amendments in front of us, and for many reasons. I do want to echo what the council president has shared at the table here already. But I, first, wanted to say that it isn't a decision that I make lightly at all. I've heard many, many strong, arguments from you,
chair Johnson, also from the council president. And even, you know, when I think about, what what is that top of mind for me, it really is acknowledging that Downtown Saint Paul is a very challenging situation for all of us and also a very unique situation too. And I I wanna be really clear that if this was if these QEP changes, were changes that would take place all throughout the city, I wouldn't be supportive of that. But because we really are focusing on the changes to to downtown only, that's one of the reasons why I support it. But, also, in addition to that,
I I you know, I know that you all are hearing this too where there's so many financial constraints on our residents right now, property tax property taxes, especially. And what I am taking away from conversations with staff and also from from you all as colleagues too is that if if we you know, there are definitely there's a possibility that without changes like this, it would be harder for us to bring in development into downtown because of the high costs of doing the office to housing conversions,
and I acknowledge that. And so, if we didn't do this, probably, we would be opting into TIF or considering that, and that's gonna have, a very negative impact on families, especially those who are already hurting the most financially in our communities. And so I am supportive of this, and I would really urge for us a couple of years from now to really to, reflect and also, get some results back on, if this approves, what are some of the the impacts and the results of that? And, hopefully, from a couple of years from now, we'll be able to to hear good news about development. But, also,
that even other other tools on the table that we, as a council, have already approved, like the the, permit waivers for the office to housing conversions, that those are also utilized too. And I know right now, they haven't been yet. And so this is, to me about that, that is just rooted in hope for me in Downtown Saint Paul, and I hope we have a lot of good news to come after that. Thank you, commissioner Yade. Commissioner Joost. I'll just chair Joost. Thank you, chair Johnson. I'll just I'll just say quick. I, chair Johnson, I really appreciate, just wanna echo your thoughtfulness and,
detail on this issue as we think about, you know, the future of housing downtown. And I really appreciate the concerns that you raised, and I I, will be supporting this today. But I, I think that it's I'm glad that you highlighted those because I do think those, like like Council President Naker said, this is a body that, that values affordable housing. And I think that, we can do these multiple things at the same time where we are finding ways to, to to creatively use our resources to invest in downtown. And we can look at what does affordability mean over the next ten years for
our residents downtown and outside of downtown. And so I just really appreciate the collaboration and thoughtfulness from all my colleagues here at the table, as we're talking about this really, really complex issue. So thank you. Thank you, vice chair. Commissioner Coleman. Thank you, chair Johnson, and thank you to everybody. I I have so appreciated the conversations that have happened around these proposed amendments. I will be voting in support of both as well. And, really, so much of what I had written here has already been stated by other members of this body. I think the only a few things that I just want to maybe underscore.
I've appreciated that this conversation, despite disagreements, has centered on how do we achieve the goal of making our city more economically just and more affordable for every single person who lives here. And I think that in order to do that, we have to constantly be thinking about how do we grow our tax base, how do we bring in the new development, how do we increase our housing stock and how do we ensure that, that housing stock is truly affordable for the folks in our community. I think that those can feel occasionally like they are in competition with one another. But I think that with the types of changes that we are talking about here, it allows us to take thoughtful,
tailored approaches. Again, really just emphasizing that this is for a limited period of time in a very limited part of the city. Where we are making this change, where we know that there is just a really urgent need to build more housing and to engage in these these very expensive projects that, to underscore, what Commissioner Nager said, have been required public subsidy even for entirely market rate apartments. And one of the things that I have heard consistently from folks, throughout World four is that they are very concerned about the use of public dollars to subsidize housing development, particularly market rate housing development.
And so I think that having more tools in our toolbox to think about how we support the development and increase the stock of affordable housing is is critical. It's an important step. I I have so appreciated PED's work on this, and the conversations and just time that people have taken to make sure that that I can take this vote in confidence that it will result in more affordable housing in our city and in doing so will result in a more economically just city. So I will be voting in support and just really wanted to appreciate the folks who helped, bring this to this point.
Commissioner Buoy? Thank you, Chair Johnson. I just really, you know, wanna just echo everything that was said. I think, it's really important that we all just have a chance to just really, share how we're approaching this. You know, for this vote, it was really simple to me, and thanks to the leadership of, the housing director, really, and then also deputy director, McMahon, walking through just, like, what is the goal? What is the purpose, of this QAP? I honestly see it as an opportunity for us to be more innovative, and I know that was echoed by you, council president,
at our last discussion. And it really gives us the opportunity to do things differently to truly activate affordable housing. There's no one size, or one type of tool. And I think particularly, you know, as a Ward 1 council member, I've heard overwhelmingly from my, constituents, the the the city's over reliance on TIF, and the city's over reliance on city subsidies to really build affordable housing. And I think to the extent that we can utilize this federal tax credit, really, you know, to incentivize building affordable housing,
particularly for downtown that needs it the most, I think this is an opportunity for us to champion this. And I, you know, live right on the border of downtown. So the future of downtown really is gonna be impactful, to all of us. And I think it really depends on our abilities to not only adapt, but just really meet the moment and the opportunity to try something differently. I would say one of the things that gave me ease with, taking this vote and being supportive of this change is that it's just two years. Two years, we will we will review,
and we will have the results. We could see if it actually worked. And the worst case scenario, we built affordable housing. You know? And but the worser case scenario, we don't do anything and no affordable housing is built, because we are currently in an economy right now that is very, very, very, very expensive to build affordable housing. And we have seen time and time again developers come to our table asking for us to subsidize them, asking for us to close this gap. And I think to the extent where we can utilize these federal tax credits,
you know, we should definitely be leveraging those tools differently. So I, I do appreciate all the thoughtfulness to it. I will be in thoughtfulness to it. I will be in support of both of those changes. I have also have, heard from my community members and also developers and people who have interest in building in Midway. They have knocked on the door and asked, well, how can we get a QAP for Midway? How can we get a QAP for Rondo? How can we get a QAP for the university corridor to actually jump start,
affordable housing? And I think, you know, we, as policymakers, we can create what those conditions are. But right now, what's most important is, like, we need to create an incentive. And that incentive is in in this isn't we're not choosing the developer, and I do appreciate, you know, having the the chance to talk with, Rich Peck, and and learning about the Hams, site and also learning about all the other development. But this vote isn't about this this this vote isn't to pick that developer. This vote isn't to even pick who's going to be building downtown.
This vote is about making sure it's competitive, and we're actually attracting the, investment and people coming to the city really, you know, seeing that we're putting our best foot forward to make sure that they have what they need to actually afford to build affordable housing. Alrighty. Seeing no other hands, commissioner, I need to remove the approval of the item. All those in favor well, we probably should do a roll call vote since it'll be different. Commissioner Buoy? Yes. Commissioner Coleman? Yes. Commissioner Jost? Yes. Commissioner Kim? No.
Commissioner Naker? Aye. Commissioner Yang? Aye. Chair Johnson? No. Five in favor, two oppose, that being Chair Johnson and Commissioner Kim. The resolution is adopted. Item number three, Resolution 20 five-seventeen oh nine, authorization to release the four d Affordable Housing Incentive Program Covenant on 1048 Central Avenue West, St. Paul. All right. So this is an item that is in front of us that we received a staff report on. Director McMahon, is there anything to add? Yes. It's just, again,
as a reminder from the staff report that under our four d program, to help maintain naturally occurring affordable housing on our property In our city, properties in the program receive the tax benefit, and they must send a declaration of restrictive covenants when doing so. 1048 Central Avenue has requested a release of this restrictive covenant from the program in order to have clear title to proceed with the sale to Saint Peter Clavier Church, which has plans, to expand their programming and offer early childhood programming in the community. The property owner, also noting from the staff report, has other properties in the city and is committed to providing relocation to the tenant
in another low income or affordable unit. We recommend approval of the actions as outlined in the staff report. Thank you so much, Director McMann. I'll take a motion from, Commissioner Buoy to approve. Is there any discussion or questions? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. None opposed. The resolution is adopted. Staff report. Item number four, staff report 20 Five-two20 two, introduction to Ramsey Hill Apartments, District 8, Ward 1. I always love it when Larry is a a staff member from the planning and
economic development team who's about to deliver their first staff report. So welcome, miss Lawson. Yay. I'll hand it over to doctor McMahon, and we'll do our one and only staff report for today. Yes. Wonderful. This is a loan extension request to maintain affordability while Trellis works to secure financing for rehabilitation and recapitalization. With more details and explanation, we do have a new PED team member we're very excited to have, Libby Logsdon, who will be going through more information for you. Welcome, Ms. Logsdon. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Johnson, commissioners, my name is Libby Logsdon. As you've heard, I am a very recent member of,
PED's multifamily housing team. I'm, serve in the role of, senior project manager. And before I dive into content, I just wanna, have the record reflect that, Danielle Sindelar, who, recently, moved on from our department, did the majority of the work and, gets all the credit for all the work done, in, this request. So today, we will be discussing a quest request for, a community development block grant or CDBG loan extension for Ramsey Hill Apartments. The purpose of this request, as, director McMahon stated, is to,
maintain portfolio affordability while developer Telesco, secures additional financing for, rehabilitation of, these apartments. So the current maturity date of the CDBG loan is, later this year, 12/21/2025. And the request is to extend that maturity date until, 12/15/2031. The main, goal of that specific date is that, to align the maturity dates of the other debt that, the HRA has, on this property as well as to, well and, all other terms are proposed the same.
So it's, the request is an extension of the maturity date. So some background on the developer, Trellis Co, they have thirty four years of experience in, nonprofit affordable housing space. They act as developer, owner, and, property manager. They're based in the metro. The majority of their portfolio is also in the metro, but they do have, some work in Greater Minh as well. So Trellis Management Co. Has managed, Ramsey Hill Apartments since 1995. And in 2014, Trellis Co. Purchased or acquired, Ramsey Hill Apartments. And as you can see,
Trellis Co. Has a good, number of projects in Saint Paul overall, as you can see listed. So Ramseyville Apartments in particular, is 54 affordable apartment units. It's a scattered site project, so there are five different parcels with six different buildings between the two hundred and six hundred blocks of, Marshall And Dayton Avenues. You can see there's diversity in the unit mix. There's studios up to three bedrooms. All units are affordable at 50 to 60% AMI. Lots of transit opportunities, really close to the Selby Dale commercial hub,
Amenities for the, buildings in particular, there's a playground, on-site laundry, off street parking, and storage lockers. Here's a map. You can see the the, dark blue outlines. The rectangles are where, the specific buildings are located. So currently, the project has four section eight eleven, project rental assistance units. The project was recently awarded six additional section eight eleven project rental assistance or project eight eleven PRA in how it's, typically referred to. The project was also recently awarded, four housing support units and 13 Saint Paul Public Housing Authority,
project based vouchers. And 12 of those are intended for, family units, so two or more, bedrooms. So the current financing the HRA has on this property is the home loan, that matures, 12/15/2031, and then the CDBG loan, that this, request is part of, that matures 12/21/2025. So the CDBG loan is, a combined mortgage with, Minnesota Housing as well as Family Housing Fund. Minnesota Housing is seeking, this extension request from their mortgage credit committee,
mid November, and Family Housing Fund has already, received approval. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I not speaking into the microphone? Received approval for this request. So in the future state of this building, Trello School has proposed deeper affordability with more subsidies. They were recently awarded $660,000 from the Ramsey County Housing Development Solicitation. They have Bridgewater Bank signed up for their first mortgage. They will find out in December if they, are awarded funds through the 2025 Minnesota housing RFP. And part of that,
contingent upon, the Minnesota housing award, the HRA, has committed a deferred gap of up to $1,400,000. That's, of course, subject to, underwriting and HRA approval and some future requests that are anticipated or interest forgiveness and rate reduction. That could be, late twenty twenty six to early twenty twenty nine. And it does look like we have a minute. I know we have, we have Melinda, Studer here from Trellis, and she had a couple of remarks prepared on just, adding a little bit of color around, the future proposal.
If you would like to come join me. Welcome, Melinda. Thank you. Thank you, Libby. Good afternoon, everyone. And thank you so much for taking the time today to discuss Ramsey Hill. And I wanted to just say say thank you to, council member Louie for supporting, this measure and Libby for bringing this loan extension request forward today. My name is Melinda Studer, and I work for Trellis Cove. As Libby mentioned, we are a nonprofit organization, who is a developer and long term owner of affordable housing in the Twin Cities and across the state.
In partnership with our management company, Trellis Management Co, we own and manage more than 50 properties, and 4,500 units in Minnesota, including, inclusive of Ramsey Hill's seven properties and 485 units in Saint Paul. Ramsey Hill's six buildings were constructed between 1884 and 1929, so going on a 100 for some of them. And they are beautiful examples of three different architectural styles that were present during that time. This property, as Libby mentioned,
has been in our management portfolio since the nineties, when it last went through a significant renovation. I think that Libby has done a great job of just sharing information about what our next steps are for Ramsey Hill, but I just wanted to really highlight, that in order to preserve the affordability of this housing community, improve property operations, align with funder priorities, and address some very critical physical needs that the property has now. We have taken a number of key steps to improve Ramsey Hill, and this loan extension is a critical next step in continuing this mission.
This includes what Libby mentioned, the 13 project based vouchers that were awarded, by Saint Paul PHA earlier this year, which brings our rental assistance project based rental assistance at the property from four to 17 units out of the 54, as well as the city Of Saint Paul's gap funding commitments, for 1,400,000.0 and the county's support of our renovation I would like to also mention that our application that's currently under review by Minnesota Housing, does include 10 additional rent through the section eight eleven and housing support program.
So we are truly committed to increasing affordability at Ramsey Hill for the long run for residents. While we certainly hope that the development project will be funded in full this year, the reality is that these funds are highly competitive and there is such a high need as we all know in the city, and in our state. And so it can sometimes take multiple application rounds before it's possible to fund a development in full. And so the extension of the HRA CDBG loan along with Minnesota Housing's extension and
family housing funds, will create the opportunity for us to be able to continue this very important work and preserve Ramsey Hill and its affordable homes for decades to come. So thank you again for your consideration of this request. And thank you so much for being here as well and being able to talk to, you know, and add some I would say add some color to the request. We are familiar with the Ramsey Hill Apartments because of, the actions that the spotty has taken, but it's always helpful to put a face behind the request as well. So we appreciate you taking the time to be here.
So just to kind of circle back, the purpose of this request is really to, as Melinda shared, to maintain portfolio affordability, as Trellis Cole continues to secure financing for the rehabilitation, with the current loan maturing, in December, December 21, and the requested extension of, 12/15/2031. Question slide, which is why I wanted to let you finish. So commissioner Burley. Thank you, chair Johnson. Thank you so much, Libby and Melodi Melinda, for for being here and just giving some context and clarity around this. I am supportive,
of this item and in support of making sure that we have the extension so we could sustain affordability. I do have some questions, and I think also too, I'll just, like, save everyone the time so we can make sure that, you know, I can get some of the the the the details, finalized. But, but you you conveyed it very well in terms of what the gist of this vote will be. And it sounds like this is a staff report. And would, I guess I look to Deputy Director and Chair Johnson, what is the next steps for this vote? Yes. So the vote, so the previous slide,
if you could go back, Ms. Logsdon. That's fine. Yes. So the previous slide, there will be a loan extension request that will come to us next week for a vote. And so for the questions that you have, Commissioner Buoy, feel free to, to would it be for Libby and Director McMahon for the questions to make sure that we can get just the information that you need, and any clarifications that you need on the item? I will look to you for your, motion of support next week. And so, this extension maturity date would be basically from the end of this year, so twelvetwenty one, twenty twenty five. The request is forward to be extended till 2031.
And so, I will share that I hope that a lot of our Saint Paul projects are a little bit more successful than with the past, MHFA, requests. There are a few requests last year. And so I'm rooting for every project that is seeking that additional funding because of how important it is and, yes, competitive. But for sure, in nature, it would be very helpful to get some assistance from MHFA in doing some of these endeavors. So I want to make sure you get the information that you have, and then, Libby's, contact is here too. But feel free to cc us if you want, and we can help making sure that it gets to you before next week because
this would be coming back for, request for next week because there's a timing, right, there's a timing piece to one of their approvals they're hoping to get in front of the board this month. Yes. And Minnesota Housing apologies, chair Johnson, commissioners. Minnesota Housing plans to bring this request forward to their mortgage credit committee, mid December. And given the, presentation and then the action timeline, we, thought that this timeline would be best to present, to work in collaboration with Minnesota Housing. And, Minnesota Housing, will be leading the majority of the,
the new or the updated, like, loan agreement, and those details. There are a couple of, items that our, staff are currently working on, to get prepared after appropriate, within this process. But, yes, in November. Okay. Thank you. That was helpful to know the timeline. Believe it or not, we have two remaining meetings in November. So, that is one of the reasons why I wanted to make sure that the Scott in front of us in the staff report model to be able to go for it. So if anyone has any questions about that, feel free to reach out. And, Libby, thank you. I hope it wasn't too intimidating for your first time in the staff report.
We only bite on Sundays. I'm just kidding. So it's great. I was expecting some harder questions, but thank you so much. Appreciate it. Alright. So we don't have any other items in front of us. And with that, we are adjourned.