All right. I hereby call to order the uh Roosevelt Economic Development Authority meeting for Monday, February 23rd, 2026 at approximately 7:52 p.m. All right. The roll call will stand as previously called for the council meeting uh with council member Schroeder noted as absent. Uh we have the same attorney and city manager staffing the meeting. Uh so no further introductions are required along those lines. Uh and uh the next item then uh would be we don't have to do the pledge of allegiance a second time. Uh so consideration of tonight's agenda. I'm presuming there's no changes from a staff perspective. >> No changes, Mr. >> All right. Are there any changes from a council perspective? A motion to approve tonight's agenda would be appropriate then. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by member Bower, seconded by member Stron to approve tonight's agenda as presented. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. We have our agenda for this evening. Um would note that we did do general public comment at the start of the council meeting and is our typical practice. uh we don't repeat that at the start of the EDA meeting that immediately follows uh or vice versa. That then brings us to our business items. Our first business item this evening is election of officers to the our the EDA. Uh that is an annual requirement under state law and we have our um housing and economic development program manager Jeannie Kelsey with us this evening to uh bring this item before us for our consideration. >> Thank you, President Row. as you um just so stated actually this is the first meeting of 2026 for the EDA and so this is standard business that needs to be conducted at the first meeting which is the election of officers um this year um for 2026 you'll see that it's standard um that we need to elect the president vice president the treasurer and because our EDA bylaws already do um appoint the secretary which is the executive director Pat Trean And now our assistant treasurer is the city finance director which is Sam Maganu >> Granu. I'll work on that one. Thank you. >> Um I'm going to turn it over to you then for the election. >> All right. Thank you uh Miss Kelsey. Uh so once again we have president, vice president, and treasurer offices. Uh the past practice has been for the president, vice president to be very boring and just be the mayor and uh acting mayor. uh we don't have to follow that of course and then the treasurer is uh certainly open uh currently the mayor uh would be me uh the acting mayor would be uh council member Schroeder >> uh and we don't have a necessarily a design for the treasurer office uh I would entertain um a motion at least for the um uh president and vice president uh roles if not for the secretary or for the treasurer if somebody is interested in that I move to keep the president vice president both as president as the mayor and the vice president as the acting mayor and in that regard I'd be comfortable being the treasurer. That's council member Sharter would be um vice president. >> I'd also like to be the treasurer. >> Oh okay. We have two nominations for treasurer. Maybe the motion needs to be to appoint the president and vice president uh as outlined. If we can get a second to that motion. draw my motion or amend my motion to >> Yeah, exactly. That would be the >> that way. >> So, your motion is then to approve the president vice president as the mayor and acting mayor. >> That is correct. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Bower me uh seconded by member Stron uh to appoint the president vice president as the mayor and acting mayor for 2026. Uh any discussion on that motion? >> Hearing none. All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. those appointments are made. Uh we have two potential uh uh candidacies or nominees for treasurer. >> Um >> I move to withdraw my motion to be treasurer. >> No need to move. You can just withdraw. Uh do we have a motion for treasurer? >> Move uh Stron as treasure. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council me by member Strong to move herself as treasurer. Seconded by member Grath. Uh discussion on that motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. That passes unanimously. Four to zero. We have our treasurer for 2026. That concludes business item uh A. Uh next on our agenda is uh business item uh 5B, which is to recognize recipients of the annual Roseville Sustainable Steward Award. Uh and I'll turn it back over to Miss Kelsey for that recognition. Uh thank you, President Row. Um and board members. In 2022, we realigned the whole um uh EDA program, which was the green award program. We worked with the public works staff in order to re um up it as the Roseville Sustainable Steward Award. Since that time, we've been awarding uh every year. And this year uh we do a lot of outreach every year by either through the newsletter, social media as well as we do direct contact to residents who have pulled permits for doing the upgrades and also um mail them from all of the energy audits that were completed in 2025. From that we got 15 applicants and three rows to the top and I just wanted to quickly highlight them. None of the awardees have been able to attend it to tonight. Um and so um just wanted to recognize James and Kristen McCon at 2975 Patton Road. Um as you see um they moved here just last year and they completed a home energy audit and that from that they followed up with recommendations installing an air source heat pump and a smart thermostat in 2025. In addition, they switched to using electrical lawn care and added treatments to their exterior windows to prevent bird striking. They also try to um uh they drive an electric hybrid vehicle and they replace uh any trips that they can with walking or biking. The um silver award is being recognized to Kevin Krauss at 2339 Arbach Avenue. Kevin completed also a home energy visit in 2025 and on their recommendations he completed attic insulation and air sealing in 2025. As you can see he attached the pictures of him doing that improvement which is a lot of work but he the payoff will be there for him. He also recently reduced the turf coverage in his yard and planted a pollinator garden and also takes his organic waste to the food scraps at uh the Dale Street. Then the last one um being recognized um tonight is Brown's a award of $100 and that's for Anna Fu and Will Bonan comp um at 257 McCarron's place. Anna and her neighbors applied for the lawns to Legman's um grant to mitigate erosion and remove invasive species along Lake McCarron shoreline. They also planted 128 native plants to provide forage for the pollinators and stabilize the shoreline area. They added insulation, she personally added insulation to their garage and attic, installed rooftop solar in 2025, and have many sustainable practices around their home to eliminate plastic usage and waste. And as you can see, those pictures are also in your packet for you you to review. I want to recognize the remaining awardees will receive either a window clean or yard sign for them um to have as recognition. >> Since we don't have >> many of those, >> yes, many of those. And since we don't have those individuals here tonight as we usually do by presenting them with their award, I just conclude this pres presentation. All >> right. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. I think we can all agree that it's impressive to see these efforts uh that are going on by uh people in the community and their homes and their properties. Um it gives a lot of ideas to people as well as things that they can be doing. Um and so and I've been making notes myself. So we'll be working on that. Uh we'll be keeping myself busy. Uh but it's uh it's great to see that those efforts and that we always have such um such dedicated uh awardees each year. I'm also glad to see the list of the 12 additional awardees with the with the recognition that they'll be getting uh in addition to the uh gold, silver, and bronze uh folks that we recognized and had the pictures from this evening. >> Other comments from council members, council member Gra. I would also Yeah. I would also like to to thank Miss Kelsey because this has been built on work that you've done and by contacting those people that are pulling permits and things, it's really expanded and how great to have someone who's only lived in Roseville one year to be aware of these programs and feel good about moving to Roseville and and what all the city does and offers. So, I think a big thank you owed to your you and your department. >> And we can't forget Noah Bakan as well, our sister and she was not able to be here tonight either because of another conflicted meeting. >> Got it. All right. Well, thank you again uh uh to everybody for that and look forward to uh seeing what people come up with in uh 2026. That then brings us to our third business item this evening, which is to consider a request for a one-time uh uh source of funding for Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity uh to provide land acquisition funding related to a community land trust property acquisition for the city of Roseville or in the city of Roseville. Once again, Miss Kelsey, for this item. >> Thank you, President Row and board members. Um the Twin Cities Habitat has a letter intent to purchase excess land behind Covenant Church that has been subdivided. The land is zoned to low to medium density residential and based on size of this parcel could um could accommodate three new homes. Originally, we applied for a grant through Ramsey County and were awarded and the grant was going to pay for the land acquisition. After um further um discussion with Ramsey County in receiving the grant, they had notified us that prevailing wages would apply, which created a challenge for us to be able to achieve successfully. And while this would normally not be problematic, the grant funds could be administered and what we've done in the past is used them through down payment assistance. But because of the fact that this um this acquisition of this land is in a timeline that does not coincide with our grant um in with us having to expend that grant, we would not be able to use those funds on the back side for the down payment assistance. For that reason, we're requesting that you consider providing the up one-time upfront. Normally, we do not provide funds upfront. It normally is provided similar to like a DPA. We provide the $80,000 per home upon acquisition of a new home owner into a house. That equates usually these three homes would equate it to $240,000 that we would be um supplementing in order to make the homes affordable. But in this particular situation, Habitat because of the new con um new construction is able to achieve affordability with just requesting the 197,000 upfront which ultimately equates to $65,667 per home. I do want to note that up on your uh DEAS and also additionally on the online packet, we did put in additional information about trying to achieve the prevailing wages and that determination. And I do have representation here related to that and I'll uh I'll I'll turn it over to them at the end for you to ask those questions. But I just wanted to highlight that normally that this program when we entered into this partnership with Twin Cities Habitat, we had identified sources up front. Those sources up front that we were using were existing fund balances of the housing replacement program, our existing CDBG fund balance as well as affordable housing tiff. and we were able to achieve additional funds through the ARPA which was the federal funds through the COVID recovery. Until then, we've had sufficient funds but since then along and we've also received other grants since then we have um in the homes that are in the pipeline are speaking for any remaining funds that we have budgeted for that and so we do not have any excess funds in order to use utilize it because this is a different request than already existing program that we have with Habitat. We have convey um discussed with um our attorney Rachel Turney, our attorney Rachel Turney about the use of using Laha for the acquisition of this one-time upfront funds. She believes that we um would be able to successfully use utilize it since we still have fund balances in the other accounts. Um, I do have Jessica Cole tonight from Twin Cities Habitat here for answering any additional questions you may have as well as just to also reintroduce her and the team at Twin Cities Habitat since you don't get to see them very often. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. Um, and I don't know if the representative from Twin Cities Habitat just wanted to stand for questions or had anything else to say in support of the the proposal this evening >> or just wanted to introduce yourself. >> How about that? >> Yeah, good evening. Um, so yeah, I'm Jessica Coyle, uh, real estate manager with Twin Cities Habitat. Um thank you all um for your time tonight and just want to thank you again for your partnership in this in this program and the work that we've done um in concert over the last about four years now. Um so again we're really excited about this new opportunity and just again thank you um for your partnership uh to date and good to see you and meet you all tonight. >> Right. Thank you. I did have a question. So uh and for either of you or both um so the difference in this particular proposal this evening is that normally we would provide that down payment assistance at the end of the project uh and uh because of the fact of the the timing of of the the process uh this is being looked at as upfront assistance for the acquisition. That's the biggest difference between the the typical way we do it. So that sounds to me like the affordability is still maintained by the assistance from the city. It's just uh it's just being the assistance is being provided at a different time in the project and we wouldn't be providing the down payment assistance in addition. Is that correct? >> Not our our amounts any other grants that we may receive. Yes, possibly. But not at the not any other EDA funds. >> All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Other questions from members of the EDA? Uh member Bower, >> are there any other alternatives besides using the LAA funds? I mean, we have some funds in other accounts, you know, funds in other accounts that aren't moving. I'm thinking of like manufactured homes, other area, other things. Could those be moved into account into an account that used rather than LAA funds? >> Certainly, that is up to your discretion. We do have the multif family fund balance and that is in the next discussion of the um the next uh topic on the agenda and we do also in that agenda item discuss other funding going forward in setting aside funds for habitat other acquisition of homes that are possible going forward after the ones that are already currently in the pipeline. >> So are you saying that we could use funds that are in 724 for this upfront acquisition? You can if there's enough funds. Yes. Um >> I'm looking at them. >> We would have to then reallocate some of the other discussion for tonight and that would maybe offset some other Yes. So multif family if that's what you'd like to use. Yes, we could. >> I'm just looking at that. We've never moved any money out of 724. So >> yes, we we have in the past. Yes. >> In the past. I mean, yes, for a long time though. >> Uh last year >> for 724. >> Okay. Two years. Yes. >> All right. different timeline for me but >> um okay so we could use any other account or not any other account but we could use 724 >> certain other account >> any any other accounts for the tonight's discussion yes we would be able to use >> okay other questions from the members of the board >> right so if if the board wanted to provide the assistance we and and it doesn't come from one source it can come from another source and then we just have to shuffle around our remaining discuss It sounds like so it's just kind of like where it comes from. >> Get a point of clarification there. Are we missing a motion that also dictates tonight where those funds are coming from? >> I believe because it's upfront that we need to designate where it's coming from. >> Correct. Because we would come back forward with a a development agreement identifying those funds and a closing for us to wire those funds for the upfront of the acquisition of the the lots. >> And that's imminent >> that since they have a letter of intent. Yes. >> All right. Other questions from the board? All right. If not, we uh will open it up for public comment if there is anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular item this evening in terms of providing the acquisition assistance uh for the uh Habitat for Humanity in in conjunction with the community land trust uh for these uh acquisition of these this property for the three homes affordable home ownership homes. Anyone from the public wish to speak to this item this evening? All right, seeing no one, then we'll close the opportunity for public comment. Uh, and we are asked then to uh consider approving this funding. And once again, I just need to get to the specific request to make sure I got it. We might have a resolution. We always seem to have resolutions. >> We do not. >> Nope. This is just a motion. >> Just a motion. >> All right. So the the motion would be to provide direction to staff uh to support the request from TwinC's Habitat for Humanity to provide the onetime upfront funding in the amount of $197,000 using the source that we identify for the acquisition uh move that project. >> Second. >> Did you want to identify the source in your motion? >> I'd like to use uh the LAA funds as indicated at this time and if we choose to find other funds uh work on the next section, we can address where those are going. >> All right. It's been moved by member Strong, seconded by member Grath uh to follow the staff recommendation and approve that those funds from the local affordable housing aid or LAA. Uh discussion of the motion as the maker of the motion. Member Strong, >> I respect and honor u Miss Kelsey and Miss Gunlock's um opinions on where these need to go and I appreciate our ongoing relationship with the Twin Cities Habitat um and uh all that's done for our community. Thank you. >> Right. As the secondary member Grath, >> nothing further. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. I would just add as we noted earlier, it seems to be that housing funding sort of is housing funding and ultimately we have to figure out how we're going to use it. And if this source is uh identified as a as a source, it's seems to be as as good as any other one, especially given the uh limit of time that we have to actually expend the funds uh coming through that aid program and uh sales tax. So with that uh we have the motion before us. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously 4 to zero. And that is approved. Thank you. Uh that then brings us to our broader bigger discussion this evening in relation to our programs and funding uh more broadly as an EDA. Uh and for that we have our community development director Janice Gunlock with us to uh provide uh the framework for the discussion and and kick things off with the council or the board whoever >> whoever we are the night. >> Miss Gunlack I'll turn it over to you before I say anything else that I'm going to regret. >> Thank you President Ro members of the board. Um this is a broader conversation about the EDA's housing programs and ongoing funding. We had um a similar conversation in I think it was May of 2023. It wasn't as big as this one, but that's sort of the last time we talked about our existing housing programs and how to continue to fund those programs. Um I think a little bit of background information is relevant in this case based on the detail that we're getting into. Um, first of all, the um before the EDA was created in 2016, uh there was an HA active in Roseville and um that H pursued a lot of the housing programs that we're talking about or at least the beginnings of them. Um when the EDA was created, all of the funds and programs of the HR were transferred to the EDA. EDAs have all the same powers of HAS. However, Hres do not have all of the same powers as EDAs, and that'll become relevant later on in the conversation. Um, the EDA has then revised and expanded programming to make use of those existing HR funds, and and we'll get into those details. Um, but as I mentioned previously, because certain funds originated through the HR levy, there are certain restrictions on how those monies can be spent. Um, some background information on funding. Uh, no money has been levied for housing programs through the EDA since the EDA was created. And when I get into a slide about all of our programs, I've tried to outline for you when the last time there was levy support for those programs. But generally speaking, they've been um running through existing fund balances. Uh, as I mentioned previously, in May of 2023, the EDA did authorize staff to reallocate existing fund balances from several other EDA managed funds so that we could continue the housing programs that we were offering because we were sort of running out of money. And now that budget is nearly gone and additional direction is needed if the EDA wishes to continue its current housing program offerings. Of course, you don't have to do that as part of this conversation. Um, I apologize. I'm recovering from a cold like a lot of people are. Um, the other sort of element to this conversation that didn't exist in 20123 is the local affordable housing aid. We refer to that as LAHA. Um, this is a sales tax that was created by the legislature in 2023. It's housing aid payments that are given directly to cities. The goal of this tax was to fund and create and sustain affordable housing projects and initiatives. So there are some limitations on how that money can be spent. The city receives these payments semi semianually um and we need to start making decisions about how to spend that money because once we get it, we have to sort of assign it a use within three years and then we have to spend it within four years. Um but what makes this difficult and complicated is the law creating that tax does restrict how those funds can be spent. Um, one detail we're getting into tonight, which wasn't originally anticipated when we scheduled this conversation for January, was LA is a potential funding source for eviction prevention, which is a program that the public has advocated for in response to the effects of Operation Metro Surge. Staff actually conceptually was going to propose eviction prevention to you in January. However, the need has obviously greatly increased since that original conversation was envisioned. Um, so the EDA offers many programs. Uh, there are six different areas here. One is advisory and energy efficiency programs. Jeie talked about the sustainable steward award that is funded through this program. There are also energy audits and home energy squad visits that's funded through this program. This is actually the only program that has EDA levy support, but it's very minor. It's about 35 $36,000 annually. And then the other programs um do not have levy support. We have a revolving loan program. Um we've tinkered with it over the years. We've moved some money around and how to fund it, but that is generally a traditional revolving loan program. We have a a senior deferred loan program. This is a program specifically for seniors where they can uh get a loan that doesn't need to be repaid until they sell the home. We have first generation down payment assistance. This is also deferred an emergency deferred loan and a manufactured home loan. Uh we haven't actually ever done a manufactured home loan, but other than the revolving loan, all of these other programs are deferred, meaning we're not getting revenue for those until the home sells. Um, this slide here attempts to outline the details of all the programs I just summarized. I'm not going to go into the individual details of every program. But as we, excuse me, talk about funding, it's important to note that many of these programs do not currently have income restrictions. And in order to use LAHA, you need to have income restrictions. So, I did want to point that out. For example, um the revolving loan, the deferred loan, those do not have income restrictions. Instead, um we limit it to uh the median value of the home because we're focusing on a certain age housing stock in order to keep that improved. Um some of the other things I wanted to point out on this side is the column about the last time funds were levied to sustain these programs. And as I mentioned, it's almost solely through the HR going back to 2014 with the exception of those home energy squad programs. Um the outstanding balance is what we've got out there in terms of sort of assets for these programs. Um you'll note the estimated monthly income, the only one we're receiving monthly payments on is the revolving loan. And then the remaining budget other than the home energy squad really is referring to the last time we brought this forward in 2023. We allocate um Thank you, Rebecca. We allocate money to these programs, but then to make sure we've got enough money for each individual one, we kind of assign a budget that CE who administers most of these programs works with. And so, um, that remaining budget is what's left after, uh, that 2023 conversation. And that might have even changed since then depending on some loans that have closed because I've seen some invoices come in, uh, just in the last couple of weeks. So, those are our existing home loan programs, all of them created by the H levy. this next slide. >> Before you leave that slide, I just it may not be clear to people, but the revolving loan program is for um housing renovation projects basically. It's that's the the the use of those funds typically as I understand it. >> Um yes, President Ran, it's important to note that all of these programs don't really relate to the creation of new affordable housing. it. They relate to people being able to continue to stay in their homes and improve their homes, namely homes that are at or below Roseville's medium median value. And we we have that amount in here. I think it's 379,400. So, yes, you're correct. >> Okay. Thank you. This next um one I've uh sort of allocated on its own slide because it does sort of relate to creating new affordable housing opportunities. Um albeit they're not necessarily new units of housing, but taking an existing unit of housing and reserving it for affordability. So um you're aware of this. The previous item you just talked about was our affordable home ownership land trust partnership with Habitat for Humanity. We created this program in 2021. Um there was a conscious pivot at that time to work towards the creation of affordable home ownership units because prior to that a lot of the city and EDA's efforts were on the creation of new affordable rental units. And so there was a very conscious effort that we need to look at ownership units. Um at that time we adopted the EVA adopted some program guidelines and one of those guidelines was we would um do a maximum of four units per year that has actually been realized since we created this program in 2021. It's actually very popular. I believe Habitat has been approached by other cities wanting to implement a program similar to ours. Um, interestingly enough, of all of the homes we've added to our trust, only one of those was acquired and it was actually the only vacant lot we've done so far was acquired off the open market. The rest of these were, you know, sort of missiondriven sellers who found out about our program and contacted Habitat and wanted to sell to Habitat. Whether they were missiondriven or they just had a home in a situation where they didn't want to put the effort in that maybe their realtors were recommending to ready their home for the open market on the MLS. And so that's how most of these have come to be in our partnership, which we find very interesting. and um satisfying that these are missiondriven sellers who want to put their home in this in this program. But it it is expensive. The upfront costs for this program are expensive. But one thing we've kept in mind is the peryear investment across a 99-year trust actually makes it much more affordable when you sort of rightsize that initial $80,000 investment into the yearly cost across that 99-year lease. Um, but having said that, homes in Roseville are expensive. Homes in general are expensive and we found that additional gap funding has been needed beyond the EDA's investment just because our homes are expensive and then a lot of these homes have rehab costs and um Habitat is uh taking that on. So this um table here just sort of outlines the general guidelines, the funds that the Rita has put in, the amount of funds that other grant or partners have put in, which far exceeds the EDA's investment since we created the program in 2021. We've got 11 homes that have been sold to buyers, and we've got six already in the pipeline. And um when we start talking about funds and budget, you'll note that most of the money we've set aside will be gone once the homes in the pipeline are finished off. Um you know, this conversation was really about housing programs and how to continue funding housing programs. And because of that, we talk about all of the funds that are under the EDA's purview and what you can and can't do with those funds. And so there's a natural sort of conversation of, well, what else could we do with this money? So I I didn't want to ignore that the EDA does engage in other things outside of housing programs. And so this slide attempts to just sort of outline what those are. Um, we have the Grow Roseville Economic Development Marketing Program. This has an annual impact of $15,000 and that's all levy money. We do have a small business loan program that we've partnered with the Minnesota Consortium of Community Developers. This has had no levy impact since 2024. There are funds available to continue to do loans if if we are approached. Um we have a SAT credit policy to assist small businesses and we've done that a few times. And then we have um probably our biggest tool which is our public financing options and we have a policy uh about how we will use that. There are you know several different types of tax increment districts that we can create in order to do a variety of things in the city um beyond affordable housing. The most recent one is one um the city manager talked about for the upcoming EDA meeting, which is a pre-development agreement with Hyde Development where we're using, you know, hazardous substance subdist TIFF in order to create a new 155,000 55,000 foot building that will bring in 50 jobs plus to the community. And so these tools that the EDA has used have actually grown our tax base within those districts by over a,000%. And I know our public finance consultant has presented to you on that in the past and so I didn't want to overlook the efforts that the EDA engages in um outside of housing. So here's sort of the funds and the money conversation. Um there are lots of funds that are managed by the EDA. Um the only funds that have current EDA levy support are 725. That's our operating fund. Um, and then we've tried to sort of outline what funds originated through the HR. Those are 720, 722, 723. Um, Council Member Bower brought up funds 724 in the prior conversation. Those are EDA, those were HR um, originated funds. And so it's important to recognize this because as I mentioned earlier, if they originated through the HRA, we can only use that money based on the powers that an HR has, which which are not the same as the powers that an EDA has. HA powers are generally limited to housing and redevelopment. Um, EDA powers branch off into business assistance. So, that's the most general way to describe the differences, but I only bring that up because you couldn't take money in 724 and use it for business assistance because that's not a power that the HR has. Um, the column on the right hand side of this uh slide just attempts to illustrate for you how much money is available in these funds. Um, but as I've said and and Jeannie mentioned too in her previous uh conversations with you, the money in 720 and 721 will be extinguished once those six homes that are in Habitat's PIP pipeline are finished off. Um 722, we could certainly have a conversation. We maybe don't need $126,000 in that fund, but that's a fund that we use to pay for our property abatements. Um, and you've had those in front of you many times. Um 723 is the primary fund that we use for our revolving loan, our senior deferred loan and emergency deferred loan. And so a lot of money is going out, some money is coming back in. Uh 724 is the fund with the most money. That's the multifamily fund that the HA uh created. H started leving money for that. I and Jeannie and I were looking into this going back to like 2005. all the way up until the HA terminated its levy. The last year was 2014. And so that's how this money accumulated. Um the original intention for this fund was to provide loans to multif family properties to help them deal with deferred maintenance or you know distress that these aging multif family properties have. um only one project was a taker for those loans and that was uh Sienna Green and that has since been paid off and so the money has been sitting there accumulating interest and um as we mentioned previously money from this fund was transferred to 723 back in 2023 to continue to be a source for the revolving loan fund. Uh 725 as I mentioned is our operating fund. The only money there is the um energy efficiency programs and then 726 is our small business loan fund and 727 is uh Southeast Roseville which is how we continue to pay our Rice and Larpender um partnership fees. So those are existing funds that we've had. Um this next slide talks about sort of this new LAA funding. This is this is new funding that was created. We received our first payment in 2025. Again, it's proceeds from a sales tax created during the 23 legislature. Um funds can be spent on emergency rental assistance, financial support to nonprofit affordable housing providers, affordable housing development and financing, distress property operations and management, emergency shelter, and there is a in the statute this like catchall of other but um it has to contribute to affordable housing creation and preservation, keeping families housed and housing the homeless. So really the intention is to create preserve affordable housing options and to provide emergency shelter. Um we received and I I apologize we received some money in 2024. Our first full year of funding came in 2025. So we've got about $771,000 sitting in our LAA fund. Funds must be committed within 3 years. So that's 2027 for our first sort of initial receipt of that 211,000 in 2024 and then we have to spend it by the end of the fourth year. Meanwhile, we're getting new money every year. So um the numbers I put forward to you don't include anything that we're anticipated to receive in 2026. Um the other sort of complicating factor is funds cannot supplant existing affordable housing efforts but they can supplement. And so that creates additional sort of complications for how we might be able to use it to fund an existing program. And so I just wanted to point out out a couple of things with that is um when we're talking about using LAHA for existing programs, we need to be mindful of whether or not that existing program has income restrictions because lots of our programs do not have income restrictions and if you want to use LAHA, you would have to then impose income restrictions. Um, we also need to look at uh whether or not the funding level of the what the funding level of that program is currently at and where you want to be in the future. That gets back to the supplanting versus supplementing. And then um whether or not we're funding the program with levy fund balance or grants. And all of this is just things that we need to be mindful of making sure when we're reporting on use of these funds annually that um we're not going to be caught using them inappropriately because if we are we have to return the money. Um staff has provided some conceptual ideas for how we might want to spend this money. It's attachment six of your packet. Um, we weren't intending to get into a lot of details on that because based on the conversation we had last month on the strategic plan or last meeting on the strategic plan. We intend to create sort of a cross department team to bring forward to you ideas on how we might want to spend LAA funding. But if you have any ideas about those concepts, we're certainly willing to take that back to that group. Um, of course, anytime you create a new program, we need to complete the equity and inclusion toolkit. We haven't done any of that for those con those concept programs we put forward. However, based on what has come up since January, eviction prevention seems to be something that we maybe need to do quicker and maybe don't have time to follow some of the other sort of protocols we might with the new programming. This need has arisen. And obviously due to the effects of operation metro surge um we have updated so if you remember the packet from January compared to what you see today we've updated sort of the numbers for eviction prevention based on what we think we might need to address operation metro surge. Um we do think we have plenty of money la available to fund a program. It's just figuring out how to do it. So, um the conceptual idea we put forward to you was to work with a nonprofit to administer it. We'd um set aside about $60,000 a year for at least 2 years. Um we've outlined some maximum assistance per renter. we would have to income qualify because we're using LAHA money and there are some administrative costs that come with using another person to do it because our staff certainly is not qualified or capable of income qualifying and processing these loans. Um, in your packet, we talked about using Neighborhood House. Um, back when Genie was originally working with Neighbor House in Jan in December and early January, they were willing to work with us. Um, they've been less communicative with us since then because like all nonprofits, they're just completely overwhelmed with need. And so, uh, Genie has been very agile and has pivoted. And, um, this isn't in your packet because it just came up really late last week after the packet was published, but CE, our partner nonprofit, who's already administering administering all of our loan programs, could do a similar program, the same program, if if we chose to move forward and wanted to move quickly. Interestingly enough, neighborhood house would only provide eviction prevention for rental, not ownership. There very well could be a need on the ownership side, too. I know, Mayor Ro, you've brought that up. And CE could accommodate that, whereas Neighborhood House could not. So depending on where you are with eviction prevention and what sort of direction you give us, that we feel like is probably a better option than neighborhood house, but we would have to come back to you anyways with more details. And um the other thing I want to note is it's going to take a little bit of time to get agreements in place in order to run these programs. And there are reporting requirements and those things are all in place to protect against fraud. And so I know the community is very concerned about the urgency of this need and we would move as quickly as possible. Um I've talked to the city attorney about is there other money that we could just give to somebody to provide really urgent assistance and she's really not excited about that and we can explore that further if that's a conversation you want to have. But we think CE eviction prevention based on how we've outlined it would be something we could put together relatively quickly. And there are some people in town that are providing assistance in a more timely fashion right now. I do want to note a lot of the EDA's uh housing programs and the use of LAA align with our economic vitality strategic priority. I want to just remind you that goal number two states that housing types and programs are provided in a manner that contributes to the economic success for households at all income levels. And so um we have several success indicators associated with this goal and a lot of these programs um have contributed to this strategic priority. Um, I won't go into tons of details, but um, on the income side, the programs usually help people at or below 115% of the area median income for ownership and 80% of area median income for rental. Sometimes that goes even lower. Um, we tend to target housing stock valued at or below Roseville's median valued home, which is 379,400. So, we're not giving a low interest rate loan to a home worth a million dollars. We're really focusing on a subset of our housing stock that's in need of help where people maybe aren't as capable to go into the go out to the open market and get a loan to do the work. So, decisions to continue or discontinue these programs may have equity impacts if the private market can't take up where where we leave off. Um, our existing programs promote housing stability. seniors who wish to remain in their homes longer, modernization of aging housing stock, affordability of critical repairs and emergency issues, and then first generation home ownership. And then again, we would complete the equity and inclusion toolkit to inform decision-m if you want to create a new program. So, what are we asking of you tonight? Um, you know, we've talked about a lot of different things, but really we would like some direction on our existing programs and how to continue to fund them, if you want to continue to fund them, and if you do, how. And so, I'll go through each program and outline what our recommendation is, and then we can certainly ask questions. So, the first one is the revolving loan program. We are recommending that you move $600,000 from fund 724, that's the multifamily fund that has a million plus in it to continue to offer um revolving loans. We don't think LAA funding uh is something that is reasonable here because this program does not have income restrictions. Um and if you want to impose income restrictions, we can certainly do that and explore LAHA. that um we think that the program as it's currently working is very popular and so we need to spend the money in in 724. So we think this is a good source and this is something that EDA has done most recently in 2023. Similar for the senior deferred loan, we would recommend you move 350,000 from fund 724 in order to continue to do senior deferred loans. Again, if you wanted to use LAA, we would have to impose income restrictions. Right now, we don't do that. We've sort of settled on 350,000 because we've already got about 650,000 of deferred loans out there. And having a a million dollars plus of deferred money out there seems a bit high, but certainly if you're willing to um do something different, we're we're open to that. But I just wanted to state that that that's where we came up with the $350,000 number. And all of these recommendations are based on staff's belief that they will sustain the program for an additional two years plus without having any new levy support. Uh which I think is obviously important given the levy pressures that the city is facing. The third option is um or the third recommendation is our emergency deferred program. Right now, that one is deferred, but they do have to pay it back at the sale or refinance of a home. We are recommending that this be forgiven over 10 years. Um, the 2-year budget is 50,000. We think that is plenty of money. It will last more than two years. I think we've done two of these to date. Um, and we think the forgiveness change is appropriate given we want to fund this with LAA moving forward. And just based on the accounting and reporting requirements, if this is coming back and we're using LAHA and sending it back out, it's going to get real complicated quickly about about whether or not we're meeting the the timeline reporting spending requirements. The next program is our first generation down payment assistance. We want to um Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Pat. We want to modify this program so that we can con so that we can fund it moving forward with LAHA. And so the revisions in order to comply with LAHA would be lower um income qualification from 100% AMI to 80% AMI targeting those in most need of this program. We want to change the maximum loan amount. Right now we're at 25,000 and we want to change that to 10% of the purchase price of the home. So that depending on the home might increase it a little bit. We do want to require the buyer to have to come to closing with at least $1,000 cash. We don't have that right now and we've seen buyers come to closings without any cash and I think it's important that that that be added to this program. But then we would forgive the assistance over 20 years. Another change we want to make is you cannot stack it with Ramsey County's program, which is fairly lucrative. And again, we're we're trying to establish a two-year budget. So, a two-year budget we think is about 160,000 of LAA money. Um, we want to make sure given we don't have a ton of money to be doing this that we're targeting those with most needs. and the county's program already provides up to $93,150 uh per program. So, we feel like not allowing that to stack on top of ours would allow our program to target those that Ramsey County's program maybe is not needing. And then um the second to last one or the third to last one is the manufactured home loan. We would recommend we just terminate this program. Nobody's utilized it and not for a lack of trying. We've marketed this program multiple times to the um occupants in the manufactured home park and we have not originated any loans. Um we think partially it's because the county has a grant program and that's obviously much more desirable than a loan. Um secondly, in order to continue our community land trust partnership with Habitat for two years, we are recommending funding that from multiple different avenues. Um that previous item that the EDA just voted on was spending $197,000 of LAA for the acquisition project. um we would completely extinguish funds 720 and 721 to get through the homes that are in the pipeline. And then to do we would recommend instead of doing four homes per year, we go down to two homes per year. So we're looking at 160,000 per year for 2 years to come up with that money. We're recommending we use about 95,000 from fund 724 and then some existing fund balance in the EDA operating fund 725 about 225,000. Um I do just want to make one comment. Some uh we do have some grant money that's reimburseable money out on the land trust partnership. So, it's possible we might not need all of that from 724 and 725 depending on when those homes close just because if we get some of the money reimbursed, some of the grant money reimbursed, they'll it'll be there. But we wanted to just outline the worst case scenario with that. And then we would also recommend you continue the home advisor, home energy squad, and home energy audits. Um, as well as a sustainable steward award for the next two years in its current form, which is a levy impact of about $36,850. And then originally we weren't going to ask you for any direction on LAA programming, but because of eviction prevention and operation metro surge and the urgency behind that, we are sort of seeking one carve out for LAA on that, which is um you know whether or not you want to pursue an eviction program as we've conceptualized in attachment six and described uh in this presentation. And if you are um we can bring something back as quickly as possible on that on that one and not wait for the strategic plan team to sort of have the broader conversation. So looking for direction on that. So I'm sorry I probably talked way more than I should have and you have lots of questions. So with that, I will try and answer them and Jeanie is really sort of the day-to-day boots on the ground with these programs and so she'll help me answer any questions as well. I thank you uh Miss Gunlock. Um and I did I think given the the request from staff for the the feedback and the direction on the eviction uh prevention program, perhaps we focus our conversation on that to begin with. >> Sure. as a board and then kind of work through that and then we can have the broader discussion of of other uh things that we may want to talk about in relation to the to housing program funding. So, let's uh if we can focus the questions at this time for staff on that eviction prevention program. Uh member Strong, >> thank you. Um so, in attachment six where you indicate this eviction prevention um line item, so would the 10% admin fee be the same for CE as it was predicted? No. higher. Okay. So, potentially a little less impactful than indicated here. >> So, the admin fee to CE would probably be higher than the 10% to neighborhood house. Um, we don't believe that that's a problem in terms of the law allowing us to spend that money on admin and we could get it set up a lot quicker than we could with neighborhood house. So, we feel like that additional cost might be worth it just for that element of it. Okay. And then um so this is looking at kind of a longer stretch which obviously the need for eviction or um foreclosure prevention doesn't go away in a month or six months. So this is a two-year kind of estimation still in here. >> Yes. Board member Sean. 132,000 was based on thinking we needed about 60,000 per year with an admin cost on top of that. I would say I'm not very concerned that we will or won't have enough money to fund eviction prevention based on what the need is. So if you're interested in a program, we will come back and try and come up with some better numbers on admin. But I think if we're funding it with LAA, we've got plenty of money to do whatever the need will be. We think um just because we actually haven't been approached yet for anyone needing eviction. >> I've had some people reach out to me and said we don't have anything set up yet. So, and I'm sure um Carrie is back there is ready. Aren't you ready? >> Um she's ready. But I just want to make sure that we know um you but we were talking about that um mortgage assistance as well if someone was late on the mortgage or other things as well. So not just eviction but it actually feeds to the uh resolution that we had uh passed a couple weeks ago. >> Yeah. The original sort of concept was just eviction prevention for renting and that's what neighborhood house could do. If we move to CE, then we could deal with the ownership, the mortgage side of things. And again, if we needed more money than what we anticipate, we can come back to you and let you know what's happening with needs once a program, if you want to create one, is up and running and what we're seeing in terms of requests. >> Well, I'd be very much in support of the eviction prevention. We don't know what our need is or the duration of it, but I think that need doesn't go away. I mean, people always have that need and if it's not this issue, there's there'll be some other, you know, we had COVID and other things that people can't predict or plan for. So, >> great. Other questions on the eviction potential foreclosure prevention program. I I did want to clarify too that that um is there a duration of assistance? Is it a one-time uh assistance or is there some other time frame we're thinking about? Because if you just do the 60,000 divided by the 2500, you get about 24 potentially 24 payments. Is that like I said a onetime thing or how do we look at that? >> We were envisioning a one-time thing, but we're open to whatever sort of parameters you're interested in and then we can come back >> to you with that based on our conversations with CE andor Neighborhood House. Right. Um and I think in addition to our own uh you know housing folks, we also have uh the folks that were here earlier this evening from um um St. Michaels as well as the the Roseville uh schools foundation as well as Mounds View. Uh they're doing a program through their Ralph Reader food shelf. And so I think all of those people can be sort of feeders into the program and helping us be informed about, you know, the need and and I I am imagining based on their levels of funding that they are providing for the most part one-time assistance. Um, but it may be that they, you know, if they have the funds available, if there's a need available, that they they may be able to provide some additional assistance. But I think we we would want to have that conversation, too, how ours, how our program might work with other programs. And then, you know, what kind of limits do we want to put on it if any? Those are just thoughts I have. But I I would be supportive of trying to move forward with something uh as as quickly as possible and to look at investigating the the the foreclosure side of it. Granted, the calendar is a little bit different for people who pay mortgages. Uh you know, eviction is much more of a sometimes an immediate uh concern as opposed to foreclosure, which can take some time to work through a process. uh but it doesn't mean that there isn't potentially some of that need out there that we need to be concerned about especially given uh the income qualification requirements that we would be talking about through the use of LAAHA funds. Uh Council Member Grath or member Grath and >> part of the problem with the with uh foreclosure is that usually people are behind more than one payment by the time it gets into that part of it. So just something we'd have to be aware of and look at when we plan this. Um, I would like to know how we would have one time is great, but I don't think that people recover in one month from these situations. So, I think we'd have to look at something that allowed more than one month or maybe work with the other groups to uh see if something could be done to cover those more extended periods. Uh, member Bower, >> are you are you envisioning a need or a requirement to demonstrate need for these programs? You know, we've noted Okay. So, both these whether it's CE or neighborhood house would have something like that. >> Yep. Board member Bower, in order to use LAA, we have to be very conscious of meeting the requirements. So, um, recipients will have to income qualify and demonstrate need. And so whether or not that's a letter from their landlord saying that they're late or whether it's from their lender saying they're behind, um the beauty with you of working with a third party like Neighborhood House or even CE is those entities are equipped to do that and work with um those owners andor renters to get the proper documentation to income qualify and demonstrate need >> and I think that is a requirement even for those other providers in you know that are in the nonprofit sector whether it's the foundations or the food shelf um you know that there there's it it may not be a legal requirement as relates to state statute as the LAA funding is but certainly it's it's a best practice uh anyway to make sure that funds are going to people who who can demonstrate the need uh member strong >> I just wanted to say anecdotally and I'm sure Carrie can uh reiterate this, but as someone who worked with frontline care workers and we offered up to $3,000 loans um from the our organization to our staff, often times $2,500 was the thing that they needed to to get through. There was a car and there was a there was a major medical issue. There was they had to put their dog down and like they were things that were unexpected. So, it may not address a current situation with Metro, you know, with everything going on here and the ICE surge, but there are a lot of times where $2,500 is the thing between them and and stable housing. You know, I'd have someone who's 6 months pregnant and they needed to take a loan so they could have enough money to put a down payment on the new place or whatever, you know, and I'm like, okay, how long are you going to work for? But, you know, had to kind of negotiate. But I think for so many people that is enough to to kind of it is it's that close to the line or or they don't eat or whatever. So if they knew that that was something they could do. So I think it I still think it's beneficial. Is it helping people for a year? No. But is it helping them maybe just avoid this catastrophic loss of their their place to stay? I think it it can be still very beneficial and had so many people thank me over time for giving them that one loan that they still had to pay back. If we are giving an opportunity for grant or they didn't have to pay back, I really think it can still be beneficial and impactful to people. >> Right. Um I do want to before we make any decisions on the uh eviction prevention program uh andor foreclosure prevention provide an opportunity for public comment related to that specifically. Uh so we'll uh open it up for public comment uh on that. And once again, the rules of the road for public comment stand as they have been uh through the evening here, which is a three minute time limit per speaker. We just ask that you begin your comments with your name and street or address to identify yourself and direct comments or questions to the council and one opportunity to speak per agenda item. >> Are we splitting like the eviction immediate stuff and the like longer stuff into two items? Okay, cool. >> Yeah, but I will provide another opportunity for people to comment on that. >> Great. I've got questions there, too. Hi, Andy again. Uh, still on over by Acorn Park. Um, reading this packet that I didn't have before and like in here on line 139, I guess it starts on 138, EDA staff has been working with the city's housing housing navigator in the police department who has indicated that St. Michael's Church coupled with Dog Good Roseville has acquired sufficient donations to address short-term immigration enforcement related needs. What can I see objective evidence of that? Like is is this notion that like there haven't been people calling to ask because they're locked in their houses and are not regularly participating in the city and like have no idea any of this exists or did they like go and talk to people and check it out? I mean that that's frankly not true, right? That's that's an absurd statement to have in this packet. And >> I don't know that we know it's true or not, but we're not going to get into a debate on that with your >> Okay. So, in my experience, I guess we'll say it's not true. And my experience is grounded in sort of reality that's around us. So, I guess I see that super concerning. I like the overall conversation. I think it's good. Um, I think it's wild that we're like looking to someone in the police department for this. Like, I'm a reasonably wellto-do white guy and I don't like cops. So, like I can't imagine what someone who's a frequent source of, you know, getting abused by various folks would feel about it. So, I think that's like a tough thing to look to as well. Um, I guess I wonder about what the means testing aspect of this looks like and like what the outreach looks like it is because I think the biggest issue is just finding out that the people need the help, right? And so I guess I would be kind of inquiring if this group you're partnering with is able to do that outreach or if we need to partner sort of more broadly with other members in the community or if this is something where we're like, hey, you know, send an email here, you know, like sort of what are the tools I can have as like just some guy in the community to help usher people to these resources. That'd be really helpful for me. Um, and then I Yeah, I think sort of you got at this right. But I hope it's for people with mortgages and rent. That'd be great. Um, and I I do think that you're kind of hitting on as well. You're just raising these points like uh $2,500 is going to get you two months, two and a half months, three months. I don't know. I I've heard about like lot fees at mobile home communities and I they're a lot closer to my mortgage on my like shockingly large house than one might expect. Uh, I read a book called Evicted sometime in the middle of whatever 2017 or something and like private equity buys up these places and then ratchets up the prices because mobile homes, fun fact, are not mobile, right? In fact, I don't honestly why do we call them that, right? They're really just a stationary home that can't possibly move. So, I mean, it's like a uniquely vulnerable community. Um, so yeah, mostly just like awesome. I like that you're talking about it. It's good. We should do it. It's wild that this packet says the need's been met. I can't believe that. Um, and I just, you know, I sort of I guess I like the open-ended nature of it. I think that's good. I think recognizing that people might be back a couple times and like, you know, whatever we can do to help people who are victims of a frankly insane situation with the federal government, uh, sort of hopefully cobble together what they can with their life and like come out on the other end. I mean, ideally still able to live in Roseville and like have a fulfilling life and sort of, you know, experience their conception of the good in whatever way they can. Uh, yeah. So, in favor, uh, please do it. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. There public comment on the proposed eviction and foreclosure assistance. >> Hi, so Carrie Galley again, 36 and Dale Street and I pretty much second the previous speaker. Um, and thank you to the team, to the folks who have been speaking and explaining this to us. Thank you for the work you're doing. Um, and I agree. I support any creative brainstorming, problem solving that supports our targeted community members right now and prevents eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure, and other financial harms as a result of Operation Metro Serve Surge. Um, and and I concur. I think $2,500 for one time if that means we have $60,000 and it goes to 24 people and I'm maybe not doing the math right, but I think we're going to have more than 24 people who will need this. And um if people have been staying inside since December and not going to work um and we're almost at March now, that's multiple months of rent or mortgage payments, right? Um, so again, thanks for the work. I do urge you to move as quickly as possible. Make it as accessible as possible. Make it your outreach multilingual. And I think we're going to need to do much more active outreach than we typically might do and just having on the website, hey, we have these programs. Um, I had a conversation with Jeie a few months ago and as someone who's lived in Roseville for 36 years, I didn't know a lot of these programs and some of like the other ones um that you're going to be talking about later I kind of qualified for, but I needed like a sit down like almost hourlong conversation to understand it. Um, so anyway, just using myself and as as an example, I think for folks who are um under trauma right now um and maybe not as used to accessing city services, I think the outreach might need to be more robust. Um, and it sounds like there are funds available to do this and if you use LAA or you shift other funds around, you know, I just encourage you um to think creatively and kind of outside the box to be doing those sorts of things. move quickly, do more outreach, any of those sorts of things. I have to be volunteering in community early in the morning. So, I'm going to leave and trust that you all do a great job tonight debating, motioning, voting, and all the things that you're going to do. So, thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Are there other comments from members of the public related to the uh proposed eviction uh prevention program and foreclosure prevention? All right, we'll go ahead and close the opportunity for public comment. Um, and I I thank the the commenters for their uh support of uh doing something along these lines and doing it quickly. And I think that's that's certainly the objective that I personally have. Um, and I agree that that outreach is going to have to potentially be different and more than than what we might otherwise do um on other programs. And so I think we've got some of that going even with some of the outreach we did related to know your rights information and things like that that we've been getting out into into you know apartment communities and things like that. But that doesn't mean that uh that's the end all and be all and that we can't improve or move uh forward with more. Um I did want to just address uh and this just may be uh something that that members not all members of the public are aware of but the individuals who are in the police department who work with people uh on housing issues are not police officers. uh and they are uh located in that department primarily because that's where oftentime need is encountered through interactions and and so that just seems to be given that we're a city that doesn't provide a lot of uh social services otherwise uh that seemed to be an appropriate place to house it and we do also have two social workers I believe it's two make sure that's the right number two social workers that are part of that group >> a total of three >> three okay right >> two of them are here >> okay um and So, um, just wanted to clarify that point. Uh, so that if that helps at all in that regard, but it's it's certainly not police officers or uniform people in that sense. Although we do have officers who are part of the overall community action team who who work together in the whole effort. Um, but certainly that's that the people that are doing those those, you know, connections with people are the social workers and the housing navigators. Um, the other thing I just wanted to note um in terms of what we might have heard from the folks at St. Michaels may have been as I read it was that they up to that point had received enough support from the community to provide the support that people had come to them for. I don't think that was at all meant to be a characterization that the need is gone and everything's done and we're done. Uh that's not at all how I had interpreted it. So just to clarify that point as well. Other thoughts from council members? I think council member Bower, did you >> I was just going to note that uh building on what you said, the large amount of success that we've had with the CAT team over many years and really addressing uh so many different needs. Um I think their position within the police department, the way that they go about their work um and their interactions with the community along with uh the police has been just stellar and in fact I you know something that other cities are I would think envious of. All right. Uh, council member or member Strong, >> I just I don't think this is going to be something that you're going to put out on the website for every person. It's going to be a passive thing that will be filled by the people who need to know about it. And I was curious to know if um, our housing navigator had anything to add to this conversation knowing that you're the person in the streets every day. Um, did you have anything that you wanted us or the people in the public to know about this? >> No pressure. But you you do have you do have to come up to the microphone so that it goes to the folks at home. Unfortunately, we got to get you in the public spotlight here. >> Um I just have to say the needs there. Um the needs there and um we are partnering with St. Michael's right now doing the best we can and um the requests are coming in a lot and strong and fast and we're doing the best we can and um this would definitely help and it's not going to go away when metro surge goes away. This has been going on long before that. So um we are doing what we can and this would definitely help a lot of people. >> Thank you very much. Thanks K. All right. Uh a board discussion about the program. Um certainly my thought is that we get it started. Uh it seems to make sense to partner with CE. Um they do the income qualification. They're used to do that. And and I think that that the because of the requirement for income qualification through the use of LAAHA funds. That's one thing. But I also understand that that there's a high correlation between being in that 80% AMI or lower income area and the challenge to make those keep up with those payments, you know, whereas it's maybe a little less of a challenge as you get above that, but it doesn't mean that it isn't still a challenge and I think we recognize that as well. Um, so food for thought, but I think we would like to have a motion probably to get the discussion going. >> I would move >> second proceed. All right. >> Second. >> All right. So that's >> yeah second a motion to uh move forward with event eviction pro prevention. >> Yep. >> And that's as outlined with the understanding that we can amend and modify as we go forward. >> Um and potentially I think it'll probably have to come back for potentially further decisions to enter into the agreement with CE and those sorts of things which we can schedule special EDA meetings if we need to to do those sorts of things. All right. We've got the motion before us as the maker of the motion. Uh member Gra. Uh I think this is a good step forward. Uh it's a complicated process. I think having CE do the qualifications is really a good move because we want to do this correctly. We want to use the LAA funds correctly. So everything in the outline is uh is done correctly and and done well in my opinion. I look forward to seeing the details when they come forward. >> As the second member strong, >> nothing further. Other discussion on the motion? And I did want to just clarify with the maker and second of the motion. Uh it wasn't explicit in the program description in the in the materials as to foreclosure prevention. Did you want to specifically include that in the motion at this time, at least to explore it? >> I would like to. >> Okay. I just wanted to clarify that uh so we know what we're voting on and the staff knows what they're going to be taking a look at. >> All right. With that then we've got the motion before us. Does that change the need for any further discussion just to be sure? All right. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. That program is approved to get underway in the planning and development and hopefully we can get it underway underway sooner than later. All right. Now back to the broader discussion. Um we've this is an opportunity returning back to the board discussion if there are questions for staff uh at this time and we'll proceed through that process and then more public comment. Uh member Bower. >> Uh thank you for pulling all this together. really conversation I was hoping to for us to have at least on the housing side look forward to later in the year having conversation about the business side of it which is a whole another thing. Uh I will say then going through all of this um maybe a request going forward and I'm happy to work with you on this is the presentation of this in a list a little bit different format corresponding what between what the funds are the programs that that they ha that they're involved in the cash balances uh before and after the original amounts also then like what we've actually done in each of those programs and what each of those you have as budgeted able to kind of do it by piecing together multiple uh slides of yours but that would allow me to see a better picture of like what is the health of the EDA right now because you know looking at the actual fund is one thing but then knowing which actual program is pulling from which particular fund is important also knowing and being able to see what is and some of these funds are restricted as you mentioned with H either wholly or like uh part portions of them I believe um to be able to see that that would definitely help out and help me understand the overall health of PDA and what it's actually be moving also be able to see with these movements that you're suggesting, what is the after effect of all those different funds and those accounts. So, we can see like, okay, if we do take this action and do do this, this is what we'll end up with and this is what it will look like. Um, again, able to do it kind of on my own. Um, but it'd be nice to be have you do do it because you actually have more of the raw data versus me just pulling it off the slides and I'm more than happy to kind of come in and assist with that. So just maybe an ask for next time with the uh movement of 724 funds that you're talking about. Would that end up zeroing out the 724 account? It looks like it's pretty close. >> Pretty close. I don't think it's every dollar, but nearly. I would be, you know, I'd be comfortable with zeroing out that 724 account um and discontinuing that or I mean I guess you don't discontinue the account, but like zero out that account. I think that's a possibility. It certainly doesn't seem like a program that the marketplace is looking to take advantage of. We have done the one with Sienna Green and and there's so many other different funding sources out there for those in the multif family area for their rehabilitation and things like that that that it just doesn't seem to be something that people are taking advantage of. And when it was envisioned back in the early 2000s, it may have made some sense, but clearly it didn't make that much sense because it hasn't been too much taken advantage of. Um, and then regarding the move that you're talking about doing, uh, specifically, um, using some of the LAA funds for the firstgen down payment assistance, I do have a concern if that those LAA funds you have to be 80% EMI, uh, qualified for. No, >> not on home ownership. >> Oh, okay. >> Home ownership you can go up to 115%. The priority is 80% or less AMI. >> Okay. And then uh what the medium value of the home is up to what >> we choose the median value of the house. Meaning every year the median value is based upon Roseville's median. We give it a medium value plus 110%. So right now it's about $420,000. >> 110% >> 110% >> dictated by LAA as well. No weate. >> We dictate that valuation just because of the fact what affordability is usually won't get you above that. >> Yeah. Okay. That's good to know because I would hate for us to move these funds into this program and then not be able to it be utilized either because we don't have homes at those at that price point or we can't have buyers because they don't qualify for for that. Just making sure we balance like homes at this price and you're at this and there's just no way you can get even with this program a conventional loan or any kind of loan to make up that difference. And then uh when we're talking about the LAA funds, one of the things that uh looking at with Minnesota housing and the attorney's memo also states this, you know, other qualifying programs. I would like us to kind of explore that a little bit more too. Roseville, we got a real, you know, an aging population very interesting interested in aging in place. I'd be very interested in us providing maybe like $5,000 grants to seniors. So the again seniors would be c most likely 8% AMI to make improvements to their homes so they can be able to live in you know live in place or stay in place and it' be I'd be curious to you know throw that to Minnesota housing and to see what that would do because that would help maintain those homes help maintain those people to stay within their move to assisted living or something else would be significantly more expensive. Um, and so I would be curious to get staff's thoughts about investigating programs such as these. >> So I think I have a couple of responses to that question and the first one would be we'll definitely take that feedback to the cross department team that the strategic plan has allotted to explore how to program LAHA. But also, attachment six outlines a program Genie has looked into called Help at Your Door. Um, that is an existing nonprofit organization that um provides essentially grants to seniors. I they I'm not sure the way their existing program is set up as a grant, but the way we have envisioned setting it up, it would be a grant to seniors where they would bring a contractor in the home to help them do something that they need done that they don't have capabilities to do. That would be a LAA qualified use. We would have to income qualify. But that is one program Jeanie has worked on to help seniors age in place in their homes. >> Yeah. So something very much like that. I mean obviously we'd have to work with another part you know just like with CE that we talked about just previously. we'll have to work with somebody and so that sounds great and I'd be very interested in you know hearing more about that and funding that uh significantly with LAAHA dollars >> when um so what was the um idea of this is that I've gotten phone calls from seniors in their homes and sometimes they need help changing a light bulb and they can't because they can't get on a ladder and that's what um I was made aware of this organization who can do it at a cost-effective means minimum price though. Um and that was an opportunity for us to bring this forward to you that there was other things too. Maybe handicap, you know, making their homes handicap accessible, right? >> Um or other modifications, maybe they're in code compliance as it relates to a board on the face of the house has fallen off. Minor um improvements of that nature can be done underneath that program. Um they do offer other things but we were not looking at any of the other services they provide. It would just be the handyman services that they would do and they would be able to income qualify because they currently have to income qualify. The difference is the individuals would not be have to pay for their services unless they're over that income. Then they would pay that nonprofit directly. >> And this nonprofit uh uses other contractors or they do the work themselves. they they actually do find the contractors and bring them in for whatever the services are depending on what those services needs are. >> I have more questions, but I'll let others ask. >> Okay. And just to be clear, so that program is a kind of a small scale project program as opposed to something like a $5,000 grant for something more substantial. >> Um, you can determine how much you want to provide up. Um, >> no, I'm just saying that what was envisioned here was much more smaller scale. >> Um, yes. Unless if it's something like putting in grab bars in a ramp or something else like that, it could get up to $5,000. So again, it's it's related to how much and I think it's supposed to come back to the strategic plan group to discuss, >> right? I was just noting that it was a $6,000 budget per year, which >> correct >> would not do too many $5,000 programs. Yeah. Okay. Um and I did want to just note that Help at Your Door is an organization that at one time was headquartered in Roseville. uh and I got to know them through that process and they do uh a lot of services related to people that you know who can't get out of their home in terms of shopping and things like that. So it's actually a good organization in that regard and seems to be a good fit for those services. Um and unfortunately for some reason they decided to move to Golden Valley but you know we won't hold that against um was it council member Strong or member Strong? Yeah, I was just curious. I mean, I'm a little there's a lot of folks there's a lot of access for like through senior linkage line and other um senior resources. So, I don't know if we want to coordinate with some of the state programs or just, you know, I I still think it's a great idea, but it's a small piece. And I'm just wondering, you know, there may be some other um services that people could tap into, especially seniors in some other gosh, if Sarah Barcel doesn't know what it is, it probably doesn't exist. Um but, you know, just wanting to make sure obviously it's great to have services, but it'd be really nice if we kind of tapped into existing systems and kind of paired with those if we could instead of recurring our own kind of thing. So, just that's what came to mind. Well, and very clearly these are we're talking about housing assistance at this point uh to >> Yeah, I think when we were talking about like making putting in hand grab bars and things like that, >> which is housing related. Yeah. I I did want to just check in again because I I believe I brought this topic up >> earlier in in a prior discussion about potential LAA funds back when it was still a gleam in the legislaturator's eye. Um and that was, you know, one of the things that we pivoted on. At the same time we pivoted from a lot of the support for say 50 to 80% AMI rental to um affordable housing. We also talked about um or affordable home ownership I should say. Um we also talked about looking at ways to try to you know lift up and support those deeply affordable rental or multifamily projects. Um, and one of the things that, you know, is a challenge for those is is providing the supportive services that that kind of go with that. And I'm not sure that that's qualified under what Laha can can do. >> Qualify, >> but I also remember that it was usually a pretty significant sum of money as well. And so I don't know, you know, I would hate if our total aotment wasn't enough to do anything in that regard, but if there was something we could do, I know we're still looking at, you know, un unbudgeted sort of, you know, whatever. I can't find where it was, but a couple hundred thousand or more. Uh that, you know, potentially that's something we could look at. But I was curious if I'm right in recollecting that it's a pretty significant amount per project and we may not be able to get much for it. um or if I'm wrong about that. >> I know the >> or if you can answer >> I don't know that I can answer it. I know the supportive services is an expensive element to some of these projects. The LAA qualified uses does include supportive services. Um, we actually haven't been approached by a developer to build a deeply affordable project in Roseville, at least recently, that would include supportive services, just because they don't we're we're not positioned right for them to get all of the other resources on the scoring applications for that. But, um, there are organizations that multif family owners could contract with to provide those. Currently, currently the deeply affordable units that have been incorporated in our last developments that did get um uh tax credits for doing this, they get resources for those nonprofits to provide those services within their units. They have to contract with them and they get money in return from Minnesota Housing to pay for it. >> Okay. So it may not be a need per se that we >> it it would have to be somebody who works within already affordable housing providing affordable housing who knows how to work with those nonprofits. >> Okay. So you're not saying it's not necessarily a need in the area, but rather that that it has to it has to coordinate well with whatever the the project is doing. Okay. Okay. >> And and one thing I just wanted to note too for the council EDA, we're we're asking the strategic planning team to sort of brainstorm on how to program LAHA. Obviously, eviction prevention is something of more dire urgent need, which you recommended us explore, but something could come up that that team didn't envision, that we didn't envision. we can still bring that forward to you and at that time and you can still make a decision of does this make sense? Do we have the money given all of the other programs andor monies we have for those programs? Is it available? So, please don't feel like there won't be opportunities to do something outside whatever programs we envision and create because there will be we'll, you know, Jeie gets those calls, we'll bring them forward. Maybe Carrie and Jeie talk on a regular basis. If something comes up, we'll we'll definitely bring it forward if we think it makes a lot of sense and and it's not covered under an existing program. >> Okay. Uh, member Grath, >> I think two the first question is pretty easy. I just need to know the details because that's the way my mind works. How do we know when a home is sold that use the senior program? Is there a lean on the property so that it's we're paid off that it goes back into our fund? >> Correct. That's why right now it is a loan with a mortgage, but it's deferred. Yeah. And then once it sells, title has that recorded and then we're repaid. We have not had one yet those sell. So >> I know I noticed that. That's why I was wondering wasn't And then the other question I I had was under the first generation uh down payment assistance. >> Why would a buyer use our program rather than the Ramsey County program? >> They run out of money very fast because of the fact that suburban Ramsey County is all competing for those funds and normally they're out of those funds by June of every year. However, I do want to clarify something. Ramsey County also does have regular down payment assistance. That is a separate pool from the first generation. That doesn't mean that people couldn't combine our program with that amount. It's just a way lesser amount to put those together. We were just saying the first generation two >> should not go together because that is well over $120,000 that somebody would be having. >> Yeah. Makes sense. >> As opposed to spreading it amongst more people. >> Correct. because we run we ran out of funds as well and then Ramsey County runs out of funds and then not now we're not able to help anyone. >> Right. Sure. >> The last half of the year nobody has an option. >> Right. >> Um I did have one uh very quick thing. So one of the funds and I can't remember which number it is but that was primarily I think originated through CDBG funds. Is that just not something that uh cities andor Roseville get anymore? So, those are old funds from actually Ramsey County a long time ago that when they used to award um funds to a project in a city, the funds went back to the city to have. And so, we have utilized a lot of those funds such as we've um probably had well close to a million dollars that we've allocated some funds to Sienna Green got some of those funds. We've also allocated some of those to acquire a home that Habitat ended up that we donated to them. Um, and then there's other various funds. So, there's some existing CDBG loans existing out there still that were done pre pre old, these are old agreements. Um, when they come back, they come back to us. >> However, um, many of those that were out there that were in the senior park villa was one of them that had a lot of CDBG. It no longer has any loans left there. However, we do have some homes over in Applewood Point that have CDBG funds still on them. >> But I guess my question is, so as I understood it, and maybe I'm wrong about the CDBG funds were originally federal funds that came to the the localities >> to to Ramsey County, right? >> Then we applied to them, >> right? And so I guess my question is, is that just not a source of funding that's even out there anymore >> to the to the cities? It's never been in Ramsey County. However, it's Ramsey County still. >> They still get it. They just >> still at this point they're still getting >> Okay, but they're using it for their programs. >> Um, no, you actually apply for it and we can apply for it on for programs and projects. >> Got it. Okay. That's I just wanted to clarify that. It seemed like that was something that that wasn't something we were regularly seeing necessarily as a new income source to the city per se, but it's it sounds like it's something you apply for specific programs in specific situations and that >> and now when they're repaid, it goes back to Ramsey County. >> Got it. Okay, that helps clarify it. Okay, thank you. Right. Uh, I have another question, but I'll defer. >> Oh, no, go ahead. >> No, the only thing was on the This is kind of along the lines of member Bower's request is on the abatement fund specifically. Can we look at sort of like on an annual basis or a three-year look back kind of what the the ins and outs have been and and you know what that's meant for the fund balance because we could certainly look at if we need to keep that at the you know 122,000 or whatever it is uh or not and you know I know that those funds are repaid when people ultimately through their property taxes or whatever pay their debatement costs. Um so that I was just curious about that as as with some of these other ones just understanding sort of what the churn is in the account. >> Yeah, we can definitely um take a look at you know the last three years what did we spend on abatements. Um it's hard because when abatements are ordered um sometimes they do actually pay the invoice. So we never actually have to pay any money out of this account but we'll we'll see what we can come up with like on three years about what what came out of that account. And I picked three years kind of randomly, but you know, whatever whatever it makes sense to kind of look at. >> And the we do think there's probably what more money in there that needs to be in there. The the largest abatement we do these days is maybe $5,000 if it's a really bad situation. Um, having said that, we do have a at least one home in the city on Fair View that's been condemned since way before I got here that that neighborhood has constantly been asking the city to demo. We've sort of taken the position that that's maybe a bridge too far on the use of abatement, a demoing a home that's been condemned. Um because if those homes fall into foreclosure and those are recorded against the taxes, there's not always a guarantee we're going to get our money back. And so losing out on a, you know, junk car for a couple hundred bucks is one thing, but a $20,000 demolition on a condemned home, that's something different. So those are the things we sort of evaluate and what we think the right amount of money is on that on that fund, but we'll we'll come back. We'll look at the history. >> Might be worth having that conversation about that policy decision as well with the with the board too. One never knows what the point of view may may newly be on that >> and I don't either. >> Other uh so I think member Bowerer, you had uh some things you wanted to return back to that you had. >> Okay. >> And I know it's getting late. uh 725 the balance on that is quite large. uh concerned at all about that cash b that balance. Does some some of that need to be moved out or looked at as well? We were just talking about the abatement, but that's well above like what our normal cash reserves would be. You don't have to answer that now, but like I would coming back. I'd be curious to know because that amount is larger than our normal um what we normally have for like we you know uh pre-entered the reserves. So, just to note, I did ask that question of staff earlier and and they pointed out to me that it is in the on page seven of eight and also in the presentation that for the land trust funding, there's about 226,000 coming out of 725 to fund that, >> right? Which goes back to my whole thing of earlier. That's why it's important that we can actually have a document that actually shows this because again, that's where I'm was confused. So >> maybe a sand key graphic. >> A sand key would be fantastic on this uh diagram. >> I just learned about those from member Bower not too long ago. >> The sand key. I have to look that. I will say um based on you know closing the 25 books, updating all the balances for this conversation compared to where we were at in January with that initial report and based on the recommendations made by staff for the funding our existing programs for the next two years using $100,000 of reserves and maintaining the what is it 35 or 35% of our operating in reserve reserves. We're basically spending everything except about $120,000. So, we we have made a recommendation that has been conscious enough to draw that down as much as we can, >> right? >> And we have lowered the levy every year since 2019 to try and get our arms around why that has been growing. So, it's not growing. So, we don't think that fund balance is growing anymore. So, we're not expecting huge fund balances in these next years based on the cuts that we've been making since 2019. >> Right. Yeah. I would just say that it's still $120,000 above what our 35% is for all of our other accounts um in the city. >> Yep. Uh the um I guess I forgot what my next question was. So I'll pass the porch. >> I think uh member Strad, did you have another question? >> Um I mean looking in your attachment seven, your staff recommendations. Um what you know I think a lot of these seem like they make sense but I agree it is there's a lot of moving parts and so um what is it that you need from us in moving to the next phase of your decisions and your plans? So, uh, members of the board, I think the the two sort of big things we're looking for is do you want to continue the revolving loan and the senior deferred loan? Do you want to continue those programs? They are running out of money. If you want to continue those programs, how they're currently in place, so no income restrictions, can't use LAHA. In order to continue to fund those for the next two years, we would like you to allow us to move $600,000 from fund 724 so that we can continue to do revolving loans with CE. And then with the senior deferred, we would like you to allow us to move 350,000 from 724 to continue to do senior deferred loans. So th that's you know nearly a million dollar right there. $950,000 for those two programs. >> And what's the timing that that decision needs to be made? >> Um well I mean there's really no urgency if as long as you're okay with people coming to us and us saying we don't have any money. You'll have to wait until a decision is made about refunding. There's no urgency. um CE. >> So when is when are the funds like exhausted that are there now? So currently currently um based upon where our budget is with them >> um they only had and I think you had that in one of the slides there's only a few fun um few amount left in order to do a few more loans like maybe three more loans up to the maximum 40,000 and then and that is if somebody didn't come in in this last month that I haven't been informed about because what they do is we give them the budget They earmark it. The people go out, get their bids, they close, then that money is drawn down out of the budget, and then I have what what is the real number of it. So, I would say right now, currently, we're we have expended those funds based upon what they have in the pipeline >> for revolving loan. We still have a little bit of budget on senior deferred, but that could be gone, >> that could be gone with one or two additional requests depending on if they're using the maximum amount. Okay, that helps. >> And and then I would also know to address that question, the third item that isn't necessarily urgent, but the community land trust partnership. If you want to continue to allow Habitat to work with people who want to sell them their homes, we're out of money based on the homes that are in the pipeline. So, if you want to continue to do two a year for the next two years, we're going to need some money. And we have recommended about 95,000 from 724, the the rest of that money, and then um 225,000 from 725 fund balance. I know Habitat would like to know um sooner than later because they have a home right now that somebody is asking for them to buy from them from their estate. >> All right. So, uh if that kind of concludes the questions from the council, I do want to provide an opportunity again for public comment on more this broader topic. We've had folks patiently waiting to be able to do that. >> Interesting. I'm having fun. Don't worry. >> We also have our 10 o'clock curfew coming up. >> Oh, you've got a curfew. Oh my gosh. I don't want to get on the city council then. I don't want to have to go home. Hello, Andy again. Still here. >> Um, so you you Sorry, you're you're not you you are the president in the moment. Sorry. You've taken off one hat and put on other hats and you're you're all >> board members now, right? Correct. Okay, we'll get there. Uh, so >> we can't even get it right. We can't expect you to I just got the one ad. Some guy. >> Uh anyway, so uh President Row, uh you know, you you said like as a city we don't provide that many social services and that's like why we're putting stuff in the police department. I guess I just would say I think that's like kind of tragic. And then on that front, I think the community action team like they were out picking up nails on my street, which is delightful. I appreciated it. Um uh but them being in cough cars and in cop uniforms, I think they would have more success as like a city employee with a clipboard and like a like a high viz vest. It's kind of an aside. Um so like I I the thing that's sticking with me here is like I see all these different accounts and then board member Bower, you also are struggling with this and you know way more than me and you want like the Seni chart or whatever. So like forgive me. I'm probably messing up and I'm probably wrong and I'll I'll go read more. It's interesting. It seems as though like we have money sitting in accounts collecting interest, right? The comment was like it's in there getting interest, but like are you guys investing and like beating beating the inflation, right? Like surely not, right? Like I guess like just in general, I would think we would want to like maintain the minimums you have to maintain, but like get the money out of these accounts into doing like anything. Um, and I, you know, the sort of discussion about like the deeply affordable housing and like all of the hoops and whether we're appealing or whatever, like if there's anything we could do to be more appealing to get deeply affordable housing, that seems really really good and like that would be an awesome priority. Um, and then like there's a lot of discussion about how we're like cutting levies and not funding stuff and like there's probably other programs I don't appreciate and I would if someone could give me a 30 secondond blurb about like are we doing affordable housing in other places and like this is just like an aside and like that's why we're cutting all the levies and like not putting money there, you know? And then at the same time we're talking about how we're going to go from doing four houses to two houses in this you habitat for humanity thing. I was just listening to a piece on uh like Bernie Sanders Burlington or whatever and like land trusts are like this massive tool that they're using and it's like I'm so excited to see you guys doing it. I was asking about them in my group chat and people like yeah they do it through Habitat for Humanity and like people are like trying to do like a charitable thing by like hooking people up with a house in their estate because they like want to do a good thing and they don't want it to go to private equity or whatever. They're not trying to maximize their returns. Get the money there to pick that up. But there's just no reason to leave that on the table. The land trust habitat like 4:2, why not 4 to 6? Why not 4 to 10? I I don't know. Like at the end of the day, that truly in the way things seem to work out, this is the answer, right? You know, the city owns the land and does the 99-year lease and I you cap the profit when you sell. I I don't know the actual logistics. There's a million different ways to skin the cat, but like surely this is the tool, right? Like it just it just seems like, you know, that part in particular. Um gosh, what a great program. I I it's a real shame if it's going from four to two. Let's shuffle money in there. I tax me harder and make it go up to six or something. That seems really good. Um so I think that was the main one that jumped out at me is like well the land trust habitat humanity thing should be should be going up. It just seems like a really great program. Uh and that's it. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you for your comments. We'll check if there's anybody else from the public who wishes to speak to the this item this evening. Nope. All right. Uh we'll close the public comment. Um and once again, I don't know if council members had additional uh comments or questions, but certainly the idea here is that uh we probably do need to provide some guidance on those uh those three areas, the uh revolving loan fund, the senior deferred loan uh and the community land trust uh to keep those going uh at least you know uh for the foreseeable future. And then some of the other discussions would would be coming back. So, uh, thoughts from the council, um, or the board, member Bower, >> um, regarding keeping the I'm in favor of keeping the revolving loan and senior deferred loan programs going, especially with the movement of funds from 724 into those. I like that they're, you know, the the qualifications that they have, the their loans that are going towards houses on the open market, uh, or can be used for that along with, um, other homes. So, I'm definitely in favor of doing that. I would like to see more of the LAAHA dollars being allocated towards um you know having seniors age in place you know significantly more than what is listed here. I don't know what other council members feel there but I feel like maintaining such a large population for us. Um I think that'd be a good use. These are people that have already paid into or they paid their taxes and a way for them to get their money back um and improve their housing stock and be able to age in place and continuing to uh stay in their homes that they care so deeply about. And then there was there was a third one then. >> So it's land trust revolving loan and deferred loan. >> Uh yes in the land trust I think the land keeping the land trust going I'm in favor of moving it from four to two as well. Uh it's important to note we're not just talking about there's just all this money out there. This money comes from people that live here in Roseville. Uh we tax them there. Some of the people have jobs. Some people here are on fixed incomes. Some people can be taxed out of their homes. So it's much more of a complicated question than just doing that. Additionally, Roseville has uh compared to the rest of Met, you know, the Met Council area has already done uh significantly more affordable housing over the past number of years than um pretty much almost any place I can think of. Um and so we're heavy on that side. And so we are in a definite need for more market rate housing. There's some filtering problems that we have in Roseville. People turn over houses. So going from 4 to two, I think makes sense there as well. We can always increase it again later. So, I'm in favor of staff's recommendation in that regard. >> Just in that one, I think I need to hear back from staff again on the the reasoning behind the change from four to two because I >> six to two, correct? It's >> No, it's four to two, but there are six homes currently in the pipeline. That's where the six came from. >> Okay. Yep. There's six homes currently in the pipeline. Based on the homes that we've done so far, we've maxed out at four per year. Because the initial investment is $80,000, that is expensive. When you talk about the EDA levy is 367,000. Last year was only 200. This this year was only 267,000. Um we are recommending to go from 4 to two just because if we're going we're proposing that we spend all of the money in 724 on revolving loan and senior deferred and then the habitat acquisition which is a little different going from 4 to two is um a little bit more sustainable financially. um Habitat is very busy and being able to keep up with all the requests issue. >> It's a bandwidth issue. We have concerns there too. The other thing is I think we need to move towards funding our community land trust partnership with Laha and I have concerns about being in a position of supplanting versus supplementing. We cannot replace our funding with LAA funding and then cut the program. So, I want to get to something that's more sustainable long-term to fund with LAA. And two a year at 160,000 is a more is a better number. If if we comp if we move entirely to LAA and get off of all of our other money and then find that we have a capacity to do more than two a year based on how we've programmed all of our other LAA money and how Habitat H is dealing with their bandwidth and ability to do it. We can certainly come back and ask you if you'd like to do more than two a year, but we think two a year is more sustainable based on the financial position that we're in with the money that we have available and our partnership with Habitat. >> I also want to note that that means that they can still budget to acquire two a year. If they're doing that, a lot of times they're stacking up. By the time they acquire a home, it's three years before it turns around and sells usually to an individual because of their rehab and where it is in their timeline for any rehab that might need to be done. So, it's anywhere from a two to threeyear process by the time we get a permanent owner in that house. >> Thank you for helping to clarify that. Member Strong. >> So, I'm curious on the senior deferred loan. Um, do we know how many of the folks who have been utilizing that um would have been income qualified? >> Uh, no, we don't at this point. However, um, they are in very modest homes and that's why we made the program targeted to the modest homes in our community. Many of the pro um, many of them I can tell you have done it. Um first of all they ha they have to have an inspection done of the home. They cannot do remodeling of the home. It has to primary purpose is to sustain the home. So like a roof needs to be done or there's what other issues going on before they can use it for remodeling. So it's all about sustaining the home and maintaining the home at a proper level. So would it be possible to alter that or cease what we have and start something that was income qualified so that it fit the LAA requirements? >> Yes. >> But then we would say that it would no longer be a deferred loan. It'd be a forgiven loan over a period of time. >> Okay. Um the recommendation would be any changes that we make to our existing program CE would like to make it a forgiving over a period of time especially of use using LAA because if we reinccorporate it in now we have this problem of do we have to spend it in the three years of getting it because there's no clarity on that yet. >> Okay. >> Right. So the the the ask is pretty much what's been proposed here for those three programs um to keep them going uh for the next two years as outlined. >> Member Grath, I would support the ask that you've done. I think you've done a lot of research here. I think as uh as you've said, Miss Gunlock, the these can be changed over time. So, I think we should proceed with it as requested and then uh re-evaluate in six months. >> Is that your motion? >> Second. >> All right. That's where I was headed. All right. >> We're not going to re-evaluate in six month, right? I mean, it's coming back at >> Well, we could reevaluate any at any time. >> So, you want to have some history on some of them before you do it. >> There are seven recommendations. Are you recom are you >> no the revolving loan senior deferred loan and the land trust >> community land trust >> as outlined in the uh recommendations. So that's 600,000 from fund 724 to revolving loan, 350,000 from 724 to senior deferred and then there were two different pots of money that we would go to the community land trust about 90 the balance what's left in 724. So about 94,000 from 724 to CLT and then 225,700 from 725 cash balance to community land trust. operating fund. >> Yep, that's what I think I understood. >> And that would bring you to the the land the balance >> that would extinguish everything in fund 724 and it would get our EVA operating fund down significantly. We to Council Member Bower's comment, we'd still be 120,000 about over our target, but >> at minimum. >> Yep. >> About minimum. Yeah. Okay. >> And then we still have the conversation still what to do with the LAA funds as >> Yes. Our intention was never to get a formal recommendation from you tonight on LAA programming. We're going to bring that back after the strategic planning team has done their work with the exception of eviction prevention which you've already provided guidance to us on earlier >> in the motion that passed previous to this. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. >> I think it's been discussed enough. >> All right. Uh as the secondary member Strong. >> No, I appreci I really appreciate all these things. I'm just wondering did you get what you needed on the firstG manufactured loan and energy squad information? >> Um you know, I'm not worried about the home energy squad. There was still some money in there last year and then we've reuped on a new budget cycle. Um with FirstGen, we're out of money for that. Um but there's no urgency. We can come back. We were making recommendations to use Laha to fund it. So we'll bring that to the strategic planning team and come back to you with that. >> And then the manufactured home loan. Do you need a >> Well, there's >> our recommendation was to discontin it. Nobody's asking for any of those. So if you don't want to formally discontinue it at this time, we can bring that back. >> And where is that funded out of >> 723? >> Right. So and it's currently sitting there not being able to utilize and it's being budgeted by DE. So they they keep a line item that money is in that reserve. >> So sort of to be clear, maybe we should add that direction of the motion to agree to stop that program. >> Okay. Is there any objection? >> No. >> Second. >> No objection. So that is the amended motion uh that's still before us with that change. Uh we've been in discussion. Is there further discussion on the motion? >> All right. Given that there isn't any further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero and those directions are provided. I believe that brings us to the end of our discussion this evening for the economic development authority. There being no further business, the only thing uh left on our agenda is a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Member Straw, second by Council Member Grath to adjourn. No discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We're adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Thank you everyone.