►
Description
March 22, 2022 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting
A
A
A
C
A
E
C
A
Opposed
same
sign,
hearing
no
of
opposition,
the
minutes
are
approved
next
item
of
business
organizational
business.
I
see
we
have
no
organizational
business
this
evening.
All
right.
We
are
moving
on
to
new
business
item
5.1,
the
2020
do
2022
cdbg
action
plan,
summary
and
document.
May
we
have
the
staff
report.
Please.
F
This
year,
I'm
actually
proposing
a
substantial
amendment
to
that,
and
so
the
2020
through
2024
consolidated
plan,
which
is
our
five-year
plan
that
was
approved
in
2019
by
hennepin
county
as
a
part
of
our
consortium
that
we're
part
of
and
the
hud.
We
are
proposing
amending
the
strategies
and
goals,
as
well
as
amending
section
108
loan
guarantee
uses
for
strategies
and
goals.
F
A
few
of
these
strategies
were
actually
used
and
approved
in
an
amended
consolidated
plan
that
ended
in
2019,
using
our
cdbg
coronavirus
dollars.
We
at
the
time
did
not
amend
the
next
five-year
plan
using
our
regular
cdbg
dollars.
So
that
is
why
the
substantial
amendment
is
coming
back
before
you
right
now
and
then.
The
second
item
is
the
section
108
loan
guarantee.
F
In
addition
to
that,
we
are
at
the
time
frame
for
our
2022-2023
annual
action
plan,
so
I
am
proposing
that
as
guided
by
hud
and
hennepin
county,
we
are
proposing
that
we
do
the
consolid
the
substantial
amendment
to
the
consolidated
plan
at
the
same
time,
of
moving
the
annual
action
plan
through
on
the
proper
time
frame.
But
the
annual
action
plan
would
include
the
substantial
amendment
items
so
that
they
would
all
match
up
and
so
for
our
2022-2023
annual
action
plan.
The
estimated
grant
amount
is
the
same
as
2021
465
132
at
this
time.
F
We
do
not
expect
that
amount
to
increase
and
we
do
not
expect
any
additional
funding
and
then
using
the
proposed
strategies
and
goals,
and
the
substantial
amendment
would
like
to
change
the
categories
to
be
a
little
bit
more
broader
homeowner
rehabilitation
assistance,
which
also
includes
a
lead-based
paint
activity,
so
no
longer
breaking
out
the
lead-based
paint
activity
from
the
rehabilitation
assistance
which
does
include
the
loans,
the
home
improvement
loans,
developed
homes
for
home
ownership.
This
was
previously
titled
walt
west
hennepin,
affordable,
housing,
land
trust.
F
They
are
still
an
eligible
project
underneath
this
activity,
but
just
taking
the
activity
a
little
bit
higher
and
saying
develop
homes
for
home
ownership,
which
allows
for
other
opportunities
and
then
public
service
we're
doing
senior
services.
This
previously
was
titled
home
scs
and
so
taking
it
from
being
tied
to
the
organization,
even
though
they
will
still
be
eligible
to
get
the
funding
and
have
the
contracts,
as
we
have
previously
done
just
senior
services,
because
there
could
be
other
senior
services
that
we
would
like
to
support
and
be
possible
to
support,
and
then
the
general.
F
F
So,
as
you
recall,
the
homeowner
rehabilitation
assistance
line
item,
the
home
improvement
program
was
paused
for
for
a
time
in
2021.
So
in
looking
at
that
and
seeing
the
carryover
estimate
for
2021.
That
is
why
and
then
adding
to
it
the
allocation
from
our
grant
of
465
1332
and
then
the
estimated
program
income
that
we
would
receive
in
2022
brings
us
to
that
total
estimate
of
1
million
one
hundred
ninety
three
thousand
three
hundred
and
seventy
eight
dollars
for
this
activity
and
then
just
breaking
that
down.
F
F
Walt
has
not
actually
finished
two
homes
this
year,
so
we
have
a
carryover
of
75
000
from
2021
and
then
adding
another
150
thousand
dollars.
It
brings
us
to
that
225
thousand
dollar
total
senior
services
that
twenty
thousand
dollars
has
been
the
amount
that
we
have
set
aside.
They
have
spent
that,
and
so
there
is
no
carryover
and
then
5
000
for
fair
housing
and
then
the
not
to
exceed
20
cap
for
administration,
which
is
the
96
754
dollars.
F
A
So
moved
it
had
been
moved
by
commissioner
hukim.
Is
there
a
second
second?
Thank
you.
It's
been
moved
by
commissioner
hukim
with
a
second
by
commissioner
coulter
to
approve
the
2022
cdbg
action
plan
and
the
2024
20
2020
2024
cdbg
consolidated
plans,
substantial
amendment
forward
to
the
city
council
for
their
consideration,
all
those
in
favor
signify.
By
saying
I,
I
opposed
the
amendment
or
the
motion
passes
six
to
zero
five.
B
A
F
Absolutely
thank
you
so
this
evening
I
am
bringing
to
you
700
american
boulevard
west,
to
provide
an
update.
I
did
add
a
little
bit
of
an
agenda
screen
to
the
powerpoint
just
so
we
can
stay
on
track
so
first
off
I'll,
do
a
brief
overview
of
700
american
parcel.
History
then
review
the
proposed
development
objectives
for
an
rfp
review,
the
evaluation
criteria
for
an
rfp
and
then
review
the
timeline.
F
And
then
I
have
two
questions
that
I'm
really
looking
for
feedback
and
input
on,
in
addition
to
any
other
feedback
or
input
that
you
have,
should
any
objectives
be
added
or
removed
to
the
rfp
and
should
any
evaluation
criteria
be
added
or
removed,
and
so
we
have
here
700
american
boulevard.
As
you
can
see
it's
at
the
intersection
of
lindale
and
american
boulevard.
F
F
So
this
property
was
created.
American
boulevard
corridor
project
created
700
and
900
american
boulevard
in
2005.
in
2007,
the
city
owns
the
property,
and
the
port
authority
managed
an
rfp
process.
At
the
time
900
american
was
sold
directly
to
top
line
federal
credit
union
and
700
was
sold
to
a
development
company
in
2012.
The
city
repurchased
700
american,
as
the
developer
was
unable
to
meet
the
proposal
and
the
time
frame
of
the
development.
F
F
So
in
2020,
right
before
everything
shut
down,
the
hra
staff
did
engage
a
consultant
to
conduct
developer
roundtables
and
some
of
the
themes
that
were
used
and
that
emerged
were
using
the
highest
and
best
use
for
the
area
that
this.
This
is
a
50
to
100
year
decision
for
an
asset
to
the
city
and
that
there
are
challenges
identified
to
achieve
a
larger,
more
signature
development
out
of
those
challenges.
F
With
that
parking
lot,
so
we
moved
forward
with
special
tiff
legislative
legislation
request
and
it
was
approved
and
the
goals
were
to
maximize
development
on
the
vacant
parcels,
to
remove
barriers
by
providing
funding
for
buying
for
burying
of
overhead
power
lines
and
transformers
to
develop
a
vertically
mixed
use,
building
or
buildings
using
the
city's,
affordable
housing
policy
and
to
provide
public
assistance
for
the
shortest
length
of
time.
So
those
were
the
goals
identified
as
to
why
we
were
seeking
special
tif
legislation.
F
So
with
that
approval,
I
would
like
to
touch
on
briefly
a
timeline
where
today
march
quarter,
one
we're
asking
for
hra
board
input
around
how
to
release
an
rfp
and
some
of
the
components
of
the
rfp
also
be
asking
the
city
council
for
the
same
input
as
the
city
would
be
releasing
the
rfp.
The
hra
does
not
release
the
rfp
and
then
after
that
would
be
looking
to
finalize
the
rfp,
which
would
be
staff
incorporating
any
input
or
feedback,
as
well
as
legal
review
and
the
process
for
purchasing
to
launch
that
rfp.
F
With
an
expected
release
between
in
quarter
two
between
may
and
june,
and
then
proposal,
review
and
selection
would
be
in
quarter.
Three
and
the
reason
it
says
july
to
august
is,
would
like
to
have
that
rfp
open
for
seven
weeks
to
allow
ample
time
for
responses,
and
the
proposal,
review
and
selection
would
include
staff
review
and
recommendation,
hra
board,
review
and
support,
and
then
on
to
city
council
for
approval
of
recommendations
and
so
to
get
to
some
of
the
meat
of
the
rfp
the
development
objectives
and
proposing
that
we
set
a
minimum
purchase
price.
F
F
Building
placement
near
the
corner,
so
the
orientation
of
the
building,
high
quality
construction,
exterior
material
and
architecture
and
sustainable
development
also
would
look
for
a
developer
to
propose
burying
the
overhead
power
lines
and
transformers
and
encouragement
to
work
with
owners
of
adjacent
property.
The
reason
this
is
in
there
because
we
only
own
700
american.
F
So
how
would
we
evaluate
if
those
are
the
baseline,
how
we
evaluate
it
so
evaluate
the
project,
so
a
quality
of
exterior
design
and
materials
and
other
environmental
and
or
sustainability
standards?
The
extent
to
which
the
proposed
development
incorporates
and
more
efficiently
uses
the
adjacent
vacant
parcel
and
excess
parking
at
the
rei
site.
So
how
are
they
using
that?
That
would
be
a
criteria
to
evaluate
market
and
financial
feasibility
and
if
it
can
be
started
and
completed
in
a
timely
manner,
understanding
that
burying
the
power
lines
could
be
up
to
two
years.
F
However,
in
discussions
with
excel
energy,
the
development
can
start
in
advance
of
or
be
concurrent
with,
the
bearing
of
the
power
lines
and
the
transformers,
and
then
what
public
benefits
are
to
be
provided
by
the
development
in
terms
of
evaluating
the
developer,
is
the
developer
experience
and
capacity,
both
financial
and
organizational
capacity
and
then
objectives
if
it
is
housing?
So
I
want
to
come
back
to
that
because
not
necessarily
saying
we're
requiring
housing
if
it's
housing,
the
degree
to
which
the
proposal
meets
or
exceeds
the
city's
affordable
housing
goals.
F
So
it
have
to
use
opportunity,
housing,
ordinance,
the
purchase
price
of
the
city
owned
parcel
because
again,
I'm
proposing
a
minimum
of
2
million
as
a
price,
a
requirement
of
additional
public
investment
if
they
are
needing
that.
How
much
do
they
need?
What
does
that
look
like
and
then
economic
impact,
the
estimated
taxable
market
value
of
the
completed
project,
employment,
potential,
etc?
F
A
E
E
E
And
and
to
add
to
that,
I
think
that's
a
good
way
of
putting
it.
I
think
that
should
be
a
criteria
for
a
lot
of
things
we
look
at
is
how
I
like
earlier.
What
you
have
is,
how
does
it
add
to
the
community
and
I
think,
a
lot
of
what
we
do,
particularly
as
an
hra,
and
I
know
it's
really
vague
term
but
adding
to
the
you
know
what
we
do
should
add
to
the
sense
of
community.
D
F
I
think
that
would
be
a
consideration
in
a
conversation.
Rei
does
own
their
parcel,
which
is
different
than
previous.
U,
previous
locations
other
locations
that
they
have,
but
it
is
a
very
large
parcel,
and
so
without
underground
the
power
lines.
It
is
a
barrier
to
other
development
and
it
may
not
be
sightly
for
whatever
might
go
there,
because
we
really
don't
want
to
see
just
a
single
level
of
anything.
So
that
may
be
unsightly.
So
it
definitely
be
a
conversation
and
a
consideration
to
take
into.
D
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
I
want
to
pay
you
back
and
agree
with
the
green
space,
I'm
very
much
supportive
of
that
and
bringing
you
know
keeping,
because
it
is
a
busy
area,
and
I
also
just
wanna,
and
I
I'm
not,
I-
I
really
want
housing,
but
I'm
wondering
if
there's
the
option
of
mix
like
some
businesses
underneath
like
I
see
that
just
with
the
development
area
that
it
is
already
like,
maybe
a
coffee
shop
or
something
underneath
and
then
or
does
the
spate
to
the
lot
not
handle
that.
F
F
F
F
C
F
F
A
Right
any
other
questions
for
us
or
questions
for
administrator
coleman.
No,
I
think
that's
an
exciting
project
very
exciting.
Thank
you.
Moving
on
to
item
6.2,
commissioner
questions
and
answers,
this
is
your
opportunity
for
comments
or
questions.
Do
any
of
the
administrators
have
anything
they
would
like
to
add
this
evening?