►
From YouTube: March 20, 2019 Housing Policy & Development Committee
Description
Minneapolis Housing Policy & Development Committee Meeting
A
We
can
do
the
committee's
business,
both
councilmember,
Reich
and
Ellison
are
out
on
City
business,
so
none
of
us
can
leave
or
we'll
lose
quorum.
Just
so
we're
clear
on
that.
We
have
five
items
on
the
agenda.
We
have
two
consent
items
and
we
have
three
discussion
items
I
understand
that
one
of
the
consent
items
when
the
council
member
wants
to
pull
for
discussion,
councilmember,
Goodman,
Thank.
B
A
Always
willing
to
pull
something
off
of
the
consent,
which
means
then
we
only
have
one
item
on
our
consent
agenda
and
that's
item
two
on
the
printed
agenda.
So
that's
the
project,
analysis,
authorization
for
14th
and
central
mixed-use
development
at
8:45,
14th,
Avenue
Northeast.
Does
anybody
want
to
pull
that
for
any
discussion?
Seeing
none,
then
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say
no
and
then
we'll
move.
That
motion
carries
then
we'll
move
on
to
our
discussion
items
and
I
guess
we
can
bring.
A
B
A
B
C
So
over
the
last
10
years,
the
city
has
been
really
instrumental
in
the
acquisition
and
development
of
this
site,
which
is
really
a
difficult
development
area.
To
date,
a
hundred
units
of
affordable
housing
have
been
built,
deeply
affordable
housing,
affordable
at
30
percent,
a
mile
or
less
green
areas
on
the
screen
and
Schaffer
excuse
me.
C
So
staff
felt
that
this
approach
just
phased
approach
to
phase
3
of
a
moderately
priced
market
rate
project,
combined
with
a
second
phase
of
portable
project,
met
our
interpretation
of
the
unified
policy
and
that
the
adjacent
wadda
excites
of
the
2030
two
units
would
meet
the
unified
housing
policy
tests
of
20%,
affordable
at
60%
and
then
hears
in
the
redevelopment
agreements.
I
think
the
relevant.
C
My
interpretation
would
be
called
for
187
units
of
housing,
of
which
20%
would
be
affordable
at
50%
AMI,
so
they've
completed
the
24
de
Bowl
requirements
and
then
there's
also
a
statement
in
the
redevelopment
agreement.
That
says
the
parties
will
agree
to
determine
on
a
phase
by
phase
basis,
the
applicability
and
best
approach
for
assuring
long-term
affordability
in
the
phase.
At
the
time
of
phase
approval,
okay,
so.
B
It's
really
the
light
of
information
for
the
question
where
the
policy
does
it
state
that
the
city
will
use
public
funds,
in
this
case
tax
increment
to
pay
for
the
market
rate
housing.
The
first
two
phases
of
the
project,
which
are
excellent
and
they've
done
a
great
job.
Well,
basically,
100%
publicly
funded,
so
they
have
done
affordable,
that's
great.
They
followed
our
policy,
they
made
them
affordable
and
they
got
all
sorts
of
public
money
for
it.
In
fact,
I
can
read
off
the
list
of
affordable.
B
Just
in
one
project
alone
they
had
low-income
housing,
tax
credits,
a
deed
grant
tax
base;
revitalization
account
money,
they
had
a
two
of
two
loans.
You
know:
kind
of
accounting,
Environmental,
Response,
Fund,
meth,
council
TBR,
a
the
family,
Federal
Home,
Loan
Bank,
which
is
probably
private,
the
syndication
proceeds
on
the
mortgage
and
the
hub
pre
development
grants.
So
they
got
a
lot
of
public
subsidy
and
they
built
affordable,
and
that
is
great
and
in
the
second
project,
same
kind
of
thing.
B
The
city
has
over
1.4
million
from
our
affordable
housing,
trust
fund
and
tax
credits,
and
they
even
got
a
non
promise.
Assistance
on
that
Green,
Communities,
Hennepin,
County,
Federal,
Home,
Loan
Bank,
so
that
project
to
100%,
affordable,
pretty
much
one
hundred
to
one
hundred
percent
paid
for
by
the
public.
So
they
dipped
they've
got
the
money
to
build
the
affordable.
Now
they
want
to
build
market
rate,
and
now
they
want
to
use
public
assistance
for
that.
B
A
project
that
was
mixed
your
argument
as
it's
mixed
they
did
affordable,
they
did
market
rate.
Where
does
the
policy
say
we'll
pay
for
the
affordable
and
we'll
also
pay
for
the
market
rate,
because
that
opens
a
big
door
to
a
lot
of
other
developers
who
come
in
and
say
we
want
a
public
assistance,
you
let
them
do
it
not
with
TIF.
They
couldn't
get
trust
fund
money
because
they
don't
have
any
affordable.
So
instead
we're
going
to
use
tax
increment,
so
explain
to
me:
how
did
that
meets
our
policy.
E
Goodman,
council,
member
garden
opposite
chair,
Gordon,
councilmember,
Goodman,
sorry,
staffs
interpretation
of
the
unified
housing
policy
is
that
at
least
20%
of
the
units
need
to
be
affordable
at
60%
of
the
area
median
income.
How
staff
is
looking
at
this
phase
phase
3
is
that
it
is
two
component
parts
of
the
same
project.
So
our
interpretation
is
that
it
is
meeting
city
policy
by
providing
32,
affordable
units
in
the
phase
3b
site-wide
AG
and
we're
paying.
A
B
B
The
only
thing
that's
changed
between
before
and
now
is
that
the
chair
apparently
does
think
that
you
should
use
public
funds
to
fund
market
rate
housing.
That's
the
only
difference
between
when
this
is
brought
to
us
a
six
years
ago,
five
years
ago,
four
years
ago,
three
years
ago,
two
years
ago
and
last
year,
the
only
difference
is
who
the
chair
is,
and
apparently
you
think
that
we
should
use
tax
increment
to
fund
market
rate
housing,
because
we're
paying
I
got
the
project
out
of
worksheet
this
morning.
B
For
this
fourth
phase,
which
I
also
think
I
could
likely
support
because
it's
affordable
100%.
But
when
you
look
at
the
sources
and
uses
on
that,
we're
also
paying
there
too.
So
what
so,
we
are
getting
the
affordable
and
we
are
paying
for
it.
Why
are
we
acting
asked
to
put
four
million
dollars
of
tax
increment
into
a
market
rate
project
so.
B
A
Is
a
larger
project,
I
think
one
of
the
differences.
What
we
have
we
define
a
project
and
how
we
don't
define
a
project.
If
you
read
anything
on
this,
it
talks
about
phases
of
a
project.
I've
watched
this
from
the
beginning,
I've
watched
this
when
I
was
just
a
young
whippersnapper
before
I
was
ever
even
on
the
council
coming
forward,
and
it
was
always
designed
to
be
a
comprehensive
project.
A
That's
coming
and
delivering
an
abundance
of
affordable
housing,
so
I
think
that's,
maybe
where
some
of
the
difference
is
I'm
supportive
of
this
and
partly
I'm,
also
supportive
of
it
because
of
the
clawback
that
we
have.
That
goes
on
to
the
land
and
now
to
the
future
development
and
such
a
big
need.
We
have
for
those
kind
of
affordable
units
and
what
this
is
going
to
deliver
and
I
believe
that
the
affordable
units
that
are
already
built
are
pretty
much
permanently
affordable
units
that
are
going
to
be
there
till
the
end
of
time.
A
So
it's
not
even
like
most
of
the
projects
where
we
invest
in
it
in
its
a
short
term
of
affordable.
We
have
and
then
it
goes
away
and
they
flipped
a
market
rate
and
I
think
that
the
future,
affordable
ones
are
also
going
to
be
permanent,
deeply
affordable
housing
to
go
on.
So,
yes,
I
do
support
this.
Yes,
I
happen
to
be
chair
of
the
committee,
but
of
course
it's
the
committee
that
makes
these
decisions
and
inspect
staff.
That's
coming
forward
with
the
recommendation.
B
Behind
that
it
said,
if
you
did
a
PUD,
then
we
would
consider
that
the
affordable
could
be
in
two
different
buildings.
This
is
not
in
a
PUD.
Not
only
is
it
not
in
a
PUD
I
think,
there's
so
much
concern
about
this
that
we
put
into
the
staff
report
I,
didn't
that
the
city
will
file
a
declaration
against
the
title
on
the
wad
ad
common
sight
of
which
will
have
a
first
mortgage.
B
That
requires
the
this
to
be
built
later,
so
we
have
so
little
trust
that
this
is
going
to
happen,
that
we're
having
the
right
of
declaration
in
and
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
which
clearly
states
you
must
have
a
Planned
Unit
development.
This
is
not
a
Planned
Unit
development,
but
I
have
other
questions
for
staff.
So
can
I
continue
with
those.
B
I'm
wondering
about
the
parking
so
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about.
They
can't
do
anything
here
because
they
can't
make
it
work,
but
they
have
77
units
of
parking
on
this
site,
but
yet
all
of
the
money
that
we've
accumulated
for
this
project
calls
it
a
Tod
project.
I
think
the
picture
shows
that
it's
almost
immediately
adjacent
to
a
light
rail
station.
So
just
a
rough
calculation
of
seventy
seven
parking
spaces
at
25,000.
B
Each
is
about
two
million,
so
if
they
didn't
build
parking
and
is
in
a
transit
oriented
area
and
it's
adjacent
to
a
transit
line
that
would
drop
the
project
cost
by
about
two
million
dollars
closing
the
gap.
Why
hasn't
that
been
discussed?
Why
are
we
taking
money
for
Tod
and
putting
it
into
a
project
and
then
building
77
parking
spaces.
C
B
Essentially,
mr.
chair
we're
paying
more
because
they
want
to
have
parking,
and
if
there
wasn't
parking
we
potentially
could
close
the
gap.
All
of
the
money
they
got
from
the
previous
projects
highlight
the
importance
of
transit,
oriented
development.
In
this
area
we
never
fund
market-rate
with
public
assistance,
but
we
are
now
so
I
guess
I
would
ask:
why?
Is
it
political
or
is
it
policy
related?
Why
are
we
going
so
far
beyond
our
policy
to
push
this
square
peg
into
a
round
hole.
B
And
to
be
fair,
I've
talked
to
staff
about
this
endlessly.
They
knew
all
of
these
questions.
This
isn't
like
trying
to
get
them.
There
isn't
an
answer.
They
were
told
to
bring
this
forward
despite
it
being
inconsistent
with
our
policy
and
they
said,
go
ahead
and
raise
that
in
committee,
and
that
is
what
I'm
doing
today.
E
Chair
Gordon,
councilmember,
Goodman
I
would
just
say
the
part
one
of
the
contributing
two
factors
to
I
staff
who,
as
has
been
pointed
out,
has
been
working
on
this
for
years
and
years
and
years
and
trying
to
find
a
path
forward
on.
This
is
just
due
to
the
fact
that
the
city
has
entered
into
a
redevelopment
agreement
around
this
site
and
that
this
redevelopment
agreement
did
development
in
the
way
that
it
is
incurred
incurred
occurring,
including
the
market
rate
and
the
affordable
units.
E
So
I
think
that
part
part
of
the
answer
to
the
reason
why
are
we
doing?
This
is
in
order
to
fulfill
the
terms
of
the
redevelopment
contract
fulfill
the
terms
of
our
agreements
with
the
Metropolitan
Council
around
the
money
that
they
have
provided
to
this
site
overall,
to
work
with
our
partners
to
complete
the
coop,
also
have
money
tied
up
in
this
land
and
move
this
project
forward
in
a
way
that
we
can
get
20%
of
the
total
units
in
the
phase
built
as
affordable.
We
are
committed
to
that
project.
E
B
The
council
has
300,000
in
this:
it's
not
exactly
millions.
The
fee,
let's
see
the
county
at
110,000
indeed
has
300,000
and
we're
being
asked
for
3.7
million
in
public
subsidy
for
a
market
rate
project.
So
if
the
other
entities
believe
so
strongly
in
this,
why
aren't
they
putting
more
money
in?
Why
are
we
and
again
point
to
me
in
the
redevelopment
agreement
where
it
says
we
will
subsidize
with
public
assistance
market
rate
development
in
order
to
get
this
done?
Councilmember.
E
Goodman
the
redevelopment
agreement
does
not
say
that
the
redevelopment
agreement
says
that
we
will
negotiate
on
a
phase
by
phase
basis
as
how
best
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
overall
redevelopment
plan.
So
that
is
what
staff
has
recommended
to
the
council
and
to
the
committee.
You
are
free
to
interpret
that
language
differently.
If
you
so
choose.
G
E
G
G
G
This
is
basically
the
argument
I
hear,
which
is
that
we
entered
into
an
agreement
and
this
neighborhood
needs
market
rate,
housing
and
so
I.
Don't
dispute
those
two
concepts.
However,
it
is
quite
a
departure
from
our
typical
practice
to
subsidize
or
use
TIF
funding
for
market
rate
projects
and
one
at
a
time
I
mean
we
just
got
1.5
million
dollars,
operating
a
homeless,
you're,
putting
capital
money
into
a
homeless
shelter
for
six
months,
and
we
are
trying
to
use
tip
to
fund,
affordable
housing
and
market
rate
projects
all
over
the
city
and
those
will.
G
Those
will
be
20%
of
the
units
at
50%
ami
in
mercury
project,
so
I
think
it's
hard
for
policymakers
to
imagine.
So
if
there
is
a
market
rate
project
in
North
Minneapolis,
that's
a
like
that
that
is
proposed
in
our
normal
process.
We
would
say
you
have
to
put
10%
in
at
60
or
you
can
use
TIF
for
20%
at
50%
ami,
but
so
how
is
this?
So?
H
Just
to
add
on
to
that,
that's
pretty
much
my
sediments
as
well
with
the
looking
at
definitely
understand
the
need
to
get
market
right
in
an
area
that
hasn't
seen
that
in
30
years,
but
I
mean.
That
also
is
a
question
of
you
know.
What's
how
is
that
going
to
change
the
neighborhood
so
I'm
glad
to
hear
like
a
good
answer
for
me,
is.
A
And
I
appreciate
I
think
that
this
is
an
incredibly
unique
I.
Don't
think
we're
at
that
big
of
a
risk
of
setting
the
precedent
here
because
of
how
unique
this
situation
is.
I'll
also
note
that
I
would
be
would
have
been
happy
to
see
this
as
a
planned
development
altogether,
and
we
also
looked
at
options
or
even
amending
the
development
agreement,
but
it
didn't
necessarily
seem
wise
or
necessary,
given
what
was
there
so
I
appreciate
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised,
but
I
will
move
this
project
analysis
authorization
forward.
G
Thank
you
mr.
chair
I
do
just
want
to
say
that
I
know
this
has
been
extremely
frustrating
for
the
organizations
who
are
involved
in
the
project
and
that
do
really
great
work
in
the
community.
But
I
still
think
that
this
is
a
policy
decision
that
I'm
not
sure
you've
really
been
given
adequate
answers
to
understanding
when
we
would
use
TIF
to
fund
market
rate
housing
and
night.
We
can
keep
going
around
in
circles
about
about
it,
but
that's
kind
of
the
reality
that
we're
facing
so
I'm
gonna
vote.
G
A
A
A
Right
so
I
move
to
move
that
forward
without
recommendation,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed.
That
motion
carries
then
so
that
will
go
to
the
full
council.
The
consideration
now
we'll
move
on
with
our
agenda
item
number
3
is
a
discussion
on
housing
policy
and
development
work
plan,
and
there
you
should
have
a
work
plan
in
front
of
you
as
well.
That
I
think
is
slightly
different
from
the
one
that
was
provided
in
the
packet
and
we'll
have
a
brief
report
on
this.
I
I
But
the
work
reflected
here
involves
divisions
within
C
ped,
outside
of
the
housing
policy,
development
division
and
several
other
departments,
including
regulatory
services,
the
City
Attorney's,
Office,
finance,
civil
rights
coordinators
office
and
others.
The
2019
proposed
work
plan
represents
ordinances,
reports,
policies
and
programs
that
will
be
considered
or
reviewed
by
the
HP
Indy
Committee
in
2019
it
is
color-coded
white,
the
white
rows
represent
ordinances,
the
blue
rows
represent
staff
directions
or
staff
reports
to
the
committee
and
the
green
rows
represent
revised
policies
or
programs
for
consideration.
I
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them,
but
just
wanted
to
highlight
a
one
example
in
each
quarter,
so
the
first
quarter,
one
of
the
items
is
recommended
financial
policy
to
support
the
interim
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance,
which
is
next
on
the
agenda
today.
The
second
quarter,
tenant
protections
ordinance
will
be
brought
forward
either
one
or
two
ordinances.
What
we've
brought
forward
for
consideration?
I
We
staff
that
have
worked
on
putting
this
together.
We
across
the
across
the
city.
We
will
make
our
best
effort
to
bring
these
these
items
forward
and
the
timeline
indicated
in
the
work
plan.
We
we
have
to
note
that
we
do
think
that
this
is
a
very
ambitious
work
plan,
but,
as
stated,
we
will
do
our
best
to
bring
items
forward.
I
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
there
is
a
lot
of
work
in
housing
that
is
not
reflected
in
this
work
plan
and
it
involves
staff,
not
just
an
in
my
group
but
staff
and
cpad
and
staff
throughout
this
throughout
the
city.
Again,
city
attorney's
office,
finance,
civil
rights.
The
good
news
is
that
this
work
is
resulting
in
the
production
of
a
lot
more
affordable
housing.
We
think
that's
positive.
I
I
could
not
personally
I
could
not
be
prouder
of
my
team
and
the
colleagues
that
I
work
with
in
other
departments
throughout
the
city
and
for
both
the
volume
of
the
work
that
we're
bringing
forward
as
well
as
the
quality
of
it.
So
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
related
to
what's
in
the
proposed
work
plan
that
was
included
in
your
original
packet,
I
understand,
there's
a
new
one
before
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I,
don't
see
any
questions,
so
maybe
I'll
just
talk
briefly
about
the
the
new
one
and
I
know
that
miss
Brennan
has
seen
a
version
of
this
and
given
some
feedback
there
are
some
basic
changes
involved.
I
thought
it
would
be
helpful
if
we
identified
in
quarter
one
what
we've
already
accomplished
so
that
we
could
see
that
three
of
those
things
are
done.
So
that's.
Why
there's
a
little?
A
There
was
also
some
things
that
I
know
we're
in
progress
that
we
weren't
listed.
One
of
them
is
we're
hoping
to
get
some
information
back
from
our
new
housing
committee,
which
is
on
the
first
page.
There
also,
it
seemed
in
some
instances,
especially
when
we
were
talking
about
ordinances.
Just
changing
to
consider
for
adoption
would
be
clearer
than
words
like
to
develop
or
evaluate
so
that
we
know
would
be
coming
back
to
the
committee
where
we
be
considered
adoption
for
it.
A
There
were
some
ordinances
were
in
progress
that
weren't
on
the
plan
as
drafted,
and
one
of
those
was
the
intentional
community
cluster
housing
ordinance
which
had
introduced
and
we're
also
looking
at
the
sustainable
building
policy
which
could
be
in
ordinance.
So
that's
the
color
coding
I
also
know
that
there
are
some
colleagues
on
the
second
page.
Thank
you
very
much
where
we're.
Actually,
we
have
actually
opened
up
our
public
housing
ordinance,
but
we're
also
I
know
people
are
discussing
about
find
funding
options,
so
that's
down
for
1/4
3.
A
A
Considering
items
for
adoption
and
identifying
what
committees
that
some
of
these
this
work
might
actually
go
to,
and
we
also
have
approving
the
office
to
End
Homelessness
agreement
between
the
city
and
Hennepin
County,
which
should
be
coming
forward
in
a
fourth
quarter.
So
anybody
have
any
suggestions
or
concerns
about
that
and
councilmember
Schrader
Thank.
H
H
It's
something
that
this
this
work
is
supposed
to
be
in
collaboration
and
helpful
to
plan
with
staff,
but
the
staffs,
not
the
only
one
doing,
work
and
I
think
it's
very
informative
to
say
that
the
council
offices
of
all
four
offices
always
starting
work
on
this.
It
is
more
meant
to
say
in
quarter
to
will
we'll
be
starting
that
work,
as
well
as
with
our
community
partners.
That's
just
to
inform
staff
of
where
things
are
at.
G
You
mr.
chair,
it's
may
be
partly
a
question,
maybe
a
comment
which
is
that
some
of
the
things
that
are
more
like
ordinance,
work
or
policy
change
seem
to
have
quite
a
lot
of
overlap
with
other
parts
of
see
ped.
Since
we
have
the
chair
of
Z
and
P
here,
it
seems
like
some
of
these
things
are
items
that
would
be
implementation
of
Minneapolis
2040
and
therefore
a
lot
of
the
staff
time
might
come
out
of
that
team
or
things
that
are
zoning
code
updates.
G
I
know
the
occupancy
ordinance
changes
ready
to
go
based
on
work
that
regulatory
Services
has
done
so
I
know.
We
have
I,
know
we're
hearing,
there's
concern
from
staff
about
the
workload
and
I
just
I
know
that
stat
that
Miss
Brennan
said
this
piece
about
this:
isn't
just
housing
staff
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
uplift.
Some
of
the
things
I
think
that
our
ordinance
changes,
or
maybe
coming
in
different
parts
of
c-pen
that
sound
right
all
right.
That.
A
A
If
any.
If
we
fail
to
accomplish
all
the
goals
of
our
committee
work
plan,
I
would
prefer
if
the
committee
chair
was
held
accountable
and
it's
not
that
we're
gonna
be
holding
anybody.
City
staff
accountable,
there's,
work
plans
and
there's
other
things
that
are
being
developed
out
there
as
well
so
and
there
may
it
may
be
that
we're
too
ambitious
I
get
that
a
lot,
but
we're
visionaries
and
dreamers
and
we
can
always
modify
it.
A
I'll
also
just
note
that
case
in
point
all
those
things
we
hope
to
have
accomplished
by
quarter,
one
which
I
think
is
ending
today,
all
right
and
with
depends.
Maybe
it
ends
at
the
end
of
the
month
technically
in
our
world,
but
the
season
is
changing.
Nevertheless,
we
won't
necessarily
get
done
with
them
all
in
quarter
one,
and
that
does
happen
sometimes
maybe
we'll
catch
up
and
I
think
that
mr.
Frank
wants
to
make
some
comments
and
have
some
words
of
caution
for
us.
Thank.
D
You
mr.
chair
and
committee
members,
we've
recommended
to
you
what
we
think
is
a
very
aggressive
work
plan
of
work
to
complete
in
this
year,
including
work
by
you
and
your
office's,
but
also
the
other
departments
and
SEPA
divisions.
That
andrea
has
mentioned
our
concern
about
adding
things
to
that
work
plan.
Notwithstanding
that
it's
worked
by
others
or
work
that
is
complete.
Is
that
that,
given
we've
said
here's
what
we
think
occupies
100%
of
our
time
and
now
there's
10%
more
or
whatever
the
number
is
right.
D
That
means
someone
is
prioritizing
what
work
happens
in
what
order,
and
it
isn't
you
because
you've
we've
all
agreed.
If
you
pass
this
as
amended,
that
more
work
than
we
think
can
fit
is
happening
this
year.
That
means
some
things
will
go
into
next
year
and
mr.
chair,
as
you've
said,
maybe
that's
okay,
but
that
means
that
there's
not
a
prioritization,
that's
happening
which
to
me
is
part
of
the
spirit
of
the
work
plan.
D
So
I
would
respectfully
request
that,
since
you
wish
to
add
these
things,
that
we
should
postpone
this
item
for
one
cycle
so
that
we
can
work
with
you
to
say
here
are
the
things
which
are
either
lower
priority
and
it's
fine
if
they
go
into
next
year
or
which
shouldn't
be
on
the
work
plan.
So
again,
the
spirit
of
the
thing
respectfully
is
here's.
What
we
think
we
can
accomplish
and
to
add,
even
though
it's
work
by
others
is
something
more
than
100
percent.
Thank
you.
H
A
And
I
would
I
would
prefer
passing
it
and
a
work
plan
as
a
plan
and
it's
in
progress
and
it
can
get
changed
and
then
we
can
having
those
discussions
on
what
we
need
to
talk
about.
I
see
it
kind
of
as
a
priority,
at
least
in
sequence
here,
so
it
kind
of
identifies
what
we
expect
to
get
done
when
and
that
forms
a
priority
here.
Of
course,
us
up
here
may
have
priorities
about
what
we
want
to
work
on
and
push
harder
on
to
get
moving
forward,
and
that
will
happen
as
well.
A
G
You
mr.
chair,
that
seems
reasonable
to
me.
I
do
I
did
want
to
just
highlight
again.
We
seem
to
be
having
trouble,
particularly
with
the
policy
work
and
the
ordinances
just
just
some
just
a
lot
of
back-and-forth
about
timelines
and
expectations
around
those
and
I
have
tried
to
address
that
a
couple
of
years
ago
by
adding
a
housing.
G
What
I
thought
was
a
housing
stability
policy
person,
a
staff
person,
an
FTE,
and
maybe
that
wasn't
enough
resource
to
help
us
write
more
housing
policy
related
to
housing
stability,
just
with
all
of
the
attention
and
work
that's
coming
into
housing,
so
I
take
the
heart.
The
idea
that
we
need
to,
especially
if
we're
doing
a
lot
of
ordinance,
work
and
policy
change
staff
appropriately,
so
I
think
it's
something
to
think
about.
As
we
come
up
to
our
budget
season,
because
I
don't
expect
the
interest
to
change
and
I.
G
Think
often,
honestly,
we
spend
a
lot
of
money
on
things.
I
mean
this
is
not
just
specific
to
the
city
of
Minneapolis
I
find
myself
thinking
this
when
I'm
at
heading
home,
Hennepin
or
the
state
effort
to
end
homelessness.
We
spend
a
lot
of
hours
in
meetings
about
how
to
house
people
who
are
experiencing
homelessness
and
there's
like
a
list
of
policy
changes
that
I
think
if
we
could
finish,
would
help
stop
that
giant.
You
know
trickle
of
people
or
whatever
you
would
call
trickle
is
a
three
word
now
anymore.
G
I
mean
this
is
like
constant
stream
of
people
who
are
losing
their
homes
and
they're,
not
all
City
policy.
Some
are
state
policy.
Some
are
county
court
policy,
but
I
find
myself
frustrated
a
lot
because
I
feel
like
we're
a
pretty
downstream
and
not
upstream
enough.
So
I
take
the
heart.
The
idea
that
we
need
a
staff
appropriately
for
that
and
and
I'm
open
to
continuing
this
conversation.
G
G
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
last
year
on
the
city's
response
to
the
end
campement
and
designing
a
homeless
shelter
which
the
city
doesn't
normally
do,
and
it's
not
appropriately
staff
to
do,
and
I
hope
we
can
avoid
that
again
this
year,
I
know
that
there
are
going
to
you
know
there
are
people,
hundreds
of
people
now
today
in
our
city,
experiencing
homelessness.
They
are
on
the
trains
and
buses,
it's
not
a
seasonal
issue.
It
is
something
that
I
know.
G
Many
council
members
are
like
I
said
in
in
many
meetings
about
weekend
and
week
out,
and
so
when
we
kind
of
drop
everything
and
have
an
emergency
response
to
a
long-standing
problem,
I
think
it
takes
important
staff,
time
and
resources
away
from
some
of
the
upstream
solutions.
So
I'm
just
going
to
keep
saying
that
and
hope
it
comes
true.
G
A
I
appreciate
that
I
also
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
look
at
these
in
three
different
sections
and
three
different
sheets
of
paper
in
terms
of
all
the
staff
directions
so
I
see,
a
lot
of
this
work
is
actually
staff
directions.
Probably
many
of
them
came
from
me
in
this
committee
and
their
important
work,
I'm
sure,
but
then
also
look
at
what
are
the
ordinances?
There
aren't
all
that
many
of
them,
and
there
also
aren't
all
that
many
of
the
revised
policy
or
programs
either
and
there
may
be
a
way
to.
A
Have
staff
directions
be
met
without
overdoing
it
information
I,
don't
know
so
we'll
look
at
those
kinds
of
things
too.
So
with
the
work
plan
has
moved
as
a
man
did
before
you
I'll
call
for
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed,
say.
No.
That
motion
carries
and
now
we'll
move
on
to
our
final
discussion
item,
and
hopefully
we
still
have
some
bandwidth
left
in
our
brains,
because
this
could
be
a
little
more
complicated
than
some
of
the
things
we
take
up.
I
This
item
is
consider
is
requesting
can
consideration
of
adoption
of
an
interim
inclusionary
zoning
tax,
increment
financing
policy
for
revenue
law,
offset
assistance
for
project,
subject
to
the
interim,
IC
or
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance,
and
from
here
on
out
I'm
just
gonna
simplify
this
by
calling
it
the
eysie
ordinance.
The
city
adopted
the
size,
the
ordinance
in
December.
I
It
was
effective,
January
1
2019
and
applies
to
projects
that
seek
either
number
1
a
rezoning
from
non-residential
multifamily
used
to
one
that
is
or
to
a
substantial
increase
in
the
allowed
development
capacity
of
more
than
60%,
as
measured
by
floor
area
than
would
otherwise
be
allowed
under
the
current
zoning
development
and
developers.
Subject
to
this
ordinance
must
comply
with
affordability
requirements
defined
in
the
unified
housing
policy.
These
affordable
housing
requirements
identify
two
options
to
comply.
I
The
first
option:
option
1
is
that
at
least
10%
of
the
units
are
affordable
to
and
occupied
by
households
with
incomes
at
or
below
60
percent
of
the
area.
Median
income:
that's
about
thirty;
nine
thousand
fifty-six
thousand
dollars
a
year
depending
on
family
size
developments,
meeting
option,
one
that
requirements
are
not
eligible
for
city,
financial
assistance
and
the
period
of
affordability
is
twenty
years
option.
I
Two
at
least
20%
of
the
units
are
affordable
to
and
occupied
by,
households
with
incomes
at
or
below
50%
of
area
median
income
around
thirty
three
thousand
two,
forty
seven
thousand,
depending
on
family
size
developments,
meeting
option.
Two
requirements
are
eligible
for
city
financial
assistance.
The
period
of
affordability
of
these
projects
is
thirty
years.
When
the
council
adopted
the
interim
isay
ordinance
in
December,
the
council
directed
staff
to
return
to
this
committee
on
this
date,
with
a
recommended
financial
assistance
policy
to
support
option
two
deeper
and
longer
term
affordability
with
city
subsidy.
I
We
engaged
a
consultant
Mike
LaFave
with
community
capital,
consulting
and
convene
staff,
city
departments
and
divisions.
Thank
you
to
the
staff
that
participated,
many
of
which
are
here.
Staff
in
see
pet
housing,
see
pet
planning,
city,
attorney's
office,
development,
finance
and
civil
rights
for
spending
significant
time
on
developing
recommended
policy.
I
Over
the
last
four
months,
we
set
out
to
do
two
things:
one
to
develop
the
policy
we
were
directed
to
develop
and
two
to
improve
the
general
process
for
considering
TIF
requests
to
improve
citywide
coordination
and
streamline
the
process,
and
this
is
the
subject
of
the
next
agenda
item.
The
proposed
policy
referred
to
as
the
revenue
loss
offset,
establishes
the
methodology
staff
will
use
to
determine
the
amount
of
recommended
financial
assistance.
The
amount
will
be
the
lesser
of
three
things.
I
One
is
the
amount
of
available
tax
increment
and
that's
defined
as
the
month
that
we
actually
receive
from
the
county,
less
10%
for
city,
administrative
costs
to
the
costs
of
providing
the
affordability,
so
the
reduced
rents
from
the
affordable
units
will
result
in
less
revenue
to
the
project
which
will
support
less
debt
and
less
equity
investment,
so
that
cost
can
be
quantified,
and
that
would
be
another
threshold
of
the
maximum
amount
of
subsidy
that
could
be
offered
3.
The
amount
needed
for
feasibility.
I
The
amount
needed
for
feasibility
is
not
necessarily
intended
to
offset
all
of
the
revenue
loss,
since
the
affordability
requirement
is
in
part,
in
exchange
for
the
city's
approval
of
additional
development
capacity
revenue
loss
offset
assistance
is
intended
to
ensure
that
a
project
subject
to
the
eysie
ordinance
remains
financially
feasible.
To
develop.
Staff
will
use
generally
accepted
industry
standards,
methodologies
and
levels
such
as
yield
on
cost
and
return
on
equity,
recognizing
that
there
is
no
one-size-fits-all
approach.
I
So,
in
a
nutshell,
the
the
proposed
policy
says
that
the
amount
of
tax
increment
available
would
be
the
lesser
of
these
three
things
that
I
just
mentioned
the
eysie
ordinance
and
the
revenue
loss
offset
policy
will
impact
projects
that
are
structured
and
would
otherwise
be
100%.
Market
rate
projects
and
I.
Think
that's
really
important
to
note
here.
Is
that
that's
what
that's
the
body?
I
That's
the
the
universe
of
projects
that
we're
talking
about
we're
not
talking
about
any
of
the
projects
that
which
we're
seeing
a
lot
more
of
that
are
coming
in
that
are
proposing
100
percent
of
the
units
being
affordable
that
are
coming
and
asking
for
other
city
resources.
These
are
strictly
projects
that
intend
to
be
want
to
be
100
percent
market
rate
projects
and
because
of
this
regulatory
structure
of
inclusionary
zoning,
they
have
to
meet
our
affordability
requirements.
I
think.
B
You
Miss
Brennan,
but
we're
only
using
the
tax
increment
to
help
with
the
assistance
of
the
affordable
projects.
We
are
not
just
letting
them
spend
the
money
on
any
market
rate
project
within
their
project
right,
correct,
so
again
we're
only
subsidizing
with
tax
increment,
affordable,
which
is
consistent
with
our
plan.
Yes,.
I
And
we've
in
our
research
and
our
consulting
advice,
we've
learned
that
successful
inclusionary
zoning
policies
are
structured
with
as
much
simplicity
as
possible.
The
policy
we're
recommending
is
designed
for
the
financial
assistance
approvals
to
run
concurrent
with
the
land
use
approvals
and
with
emphasis
on
simplicity.
The
policy
will
not
impose
contracting
requirements
prevailing
wage
apprenticeship,
small
and
underutilized
business
enterprise
and
affirmative
action
requirements
will
not
apply
the
revenue
loss.
Offset
policy
establishes
guidelines
for
provision
of
assistance.
I
The
City
Council,
however,
must
still
approve
the
final
tip
plan
and
the
final
amount
of
chip
assistance
provided
to
all
projects
and
then,
finally,
whenever
possible,
new
TIF
districts
created
under
this
policy
be
structured
to
support
the
the
creation
of
additional
affordable
housing
by
taking
whatever
amount
of
tax
increment
that
isn't
necessary
to
support
feasibility
of
the
project
subject
to
the
policy
and
using
that
additional
tax
increment
to
support
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund.
So
that
is
what
I
prepared
for
this
item
and
I'm
happy
to
take
questions.
B
You
mr.
chair
mr.
Brennan
I'm
generally
supportive
of
this
because
I
don't
like
the
idea
that
we
would
just
put
in
a
mandate
and
not
create
some
sort
of
incentive,
but
I
am
concerned
about
the
amount
of
tax
increment
or
debt
within
the
city's
overall
budget.
I
have
been
on
the
council
when
we've
had
16
percent
debt
payment
in
our
overall
budget
and
that's
money
that
we
can't
spend
on
everything
else,
not
to
mention
how
it
affects
property
taxes
and
how
property
taxes
actually
affect.
Affordability.
B
So
I'm
wondering
what
is
the
system
we're
going
to
be
putting
in
place
to
limit
the
amount
of
tax
increment
through
this
process
or
others?
Because
in
previous
years
we
had
a
couple
of
requests
for
taxing
from
a
per
year,
because
we
weren't
saying
we'll
do
two
for
anything
but
now
they're
even
willing
to
do
two
for
market
rate.
So
now,
of
course,
people
are
going
to
be
lining
up,
saying
I
want
to
for
my
project.
No
really
I
can't
get
it
done
without
you
gave
it
to
somebody
else.
B
So,
I'm
wondering
what
amount
within
the
city's
overall
financial
policy
is
too
much
and/or.
How
projects
will
have
to
compete
against
each
other,
which
actually
works
well
with
tax
credits?
It's
a
longer
willingness
to
have
their
affordability
be
longer
ranked
higher
same
with
the
trust
fund.
Those
have
processes.
What
are
the
processes
that
you
are?
The
finance
department
are
thinking
about
as
it
pertains
to
what
is
a
good
amount
of
tax
increment
to
be
used
for
purposes
like
this
and
how
projects
would
compete
against
each
other
great.
I
Mr.
chair
councilmember
Goodman,
so
I'm
going
to
take
a
stab
at
responding
to
that
question.
Matthew
Hendrix's
is
here
with
development
finance
and
can
jump
into
and
elaborate
a
couple
of
responses,
one
that
there
always
is
the
the
analysis
of
what
what
you
know
whether
or
not
the
project
would
occur
without
the
tax
increment
I
mean,
so
that's
a
required
analysis
that
we
always
do
for
every
project.
I
So
there
isn't
going
to
be
ever
a
scenario
where
we're
not
doing
that
analysis
and
we're
recommending
the
use
of
tax
increment
for
a
project
that
could
happen
otherwise
and
what
is
included
in
that
is
that
the
the
eysie
Ordinance
projects
wouldn't
otherwise
be
feasible
with
the
affordability
requirement.
So
that's
the
sort
of
addition
to
that.
I
It's
our
best
guess
that
under
the
interim
isay
policy
there
could
be
1,500
units
that
would
be
subject
to
it.
That
includes
the
market
rate
and
the
affordable.
We
don't
know
I
mean
as
of
right
now
we
don't
have
any
applications
as
of
since
January
1.
That
would
be
subject
to
the
interim
ize
ordinance.
I
So
if,
if
50%
of
the
projects,
let's
say
there's
1500
projects,
if
50%
of
them
choose
the
TIF
option,
then
this
would
mean
that
point.
2
percent
of
the
city's
tax
base
would
be
in
a
TIF
district
each
year.
So
that's
point
2
percent,
each
year
over
ten
years,
if
value
stay
constant,
this
means
two
percent
of
the
city's
tax
base
would
be
captured
with
Isay
TIFF
alternatives.
A
B
It
really
probably
needs
to
be
something
from
finance
that
kind
of
can
set
an
overall
policy,
but
my
second
question
is,
with
regard
to
the
else's
I'm,
just
wondering
what
kind
of
screw
B
is
on
the
analysis.
Let's
just
use
the
project
we
just
looked
at.
They
could
take
out
the
parking
and
get
a
little
bit
more
money
from
these
other
sources
that
are
so
committed
and
they
wouldn't
have
a
gap.
So
at
what
point
do
we
say
moles,
you
change
this
or
you
change
that
you
don't
need
public
money.
B
Clearly
that
didn't
happen
in
the
other
application
before
us
today,
because
I
was
able
to
point
out
that
77
parking
spaces
would
cost
two
million
dollars
and
that
the
other
jurisdictions
have
like
a
hundred
to
three
hundred
thousand
in
them.
So
what
kind
of
rigorous
analysis
has
put
in
place
on
the
but-for
test,
where
you
can
make
design
changes
or
changes
like
not
having
as
much
parking
on
a
train
line
that
would
not
make
them
the
new
tax
increment?
How
rigorous
is
the
analysis?
How
often
have
you
ever
said?
No,
so.
I
Mr.
chair
councilmember,
Goodman
I'm
gonna
answer
try
to
answer
the
question
about
the
analysis,
but
then
I
want
Matthew
to
speak
to
the
sort
of
general.
You
know
thinking
around
how
much
tip
is
the
right
amount
of
tip,
etc.
So,
as
currently
proposed,
we
there
there
is
some
ability,
under
the
proposed
policy,
to
work
with
the
developer
to
identify
potential
for
a
reduced
cost.
But
in
our
streamlined
approach
the
intention
isn't
to
necessarily
change
the
development.
So
it's
it's
not
it's!
It's
not.
You
know.
I
The
intention
of
the
eysie
policy
is
not
to
fundamentally
change
what
they're
proposing
to
build.
So,
as
it's
currently
proposed,
there
isn't
much
in
the
in
the
form
of
taking
the
time
that
it
require
and
the
analysis
and
the
staffing
capacity
and
all
of
that
to
sort
of
you
know
identify
what
are
the
appropriate
value
engineering
principles
that
could
be
employed
in
an
Ivy
scenario.
So
we
currently
are
not
accommodating
that
right
now
in
the
proposed
policy.
E
E
B
There
was
a
project
in
my
ward
downtown
and
the
total
unit
cost
was
$500,000,
but
those
ten
were
20%
had
to
be
affordable.
We
would
say
it
was
acceptable
to
subsidize
the
difference
between
a
very
high
rate
that
would
be
needed
to
subsidize
a
very
expensive
apartment,
and
we
would
subsidize
that
so
that
there
would
be
affordability
in
those
high
luxury
projects.
B
I
Chair
councilmember
Goodman
when
I
summarized
the
the
methodology
for
determining
TIF
assistance,
there's
three
components
and
it's
the
lesser
of
one
of
them
is
the
actual
difference,
but
the
other
is
the
feasibility.
What
is
required
for
feasibility?
So
in
a
scenario
where
it's
luxury
and
the
rents
are
very
high
or
the
sale
prices
are
very
high
in
those
scenarios,
it
could
be
that
those
projects
could
absorb
a
lot
more
of
the
affordability
cost
and
not
need
as
much
subsidy.
So
and
again,
this
is
new
I
mean
we.
I
We
expect
to
learn
a
lot
from
this
interim
ordinance
and
we
hope
to
have
applications.
We
hope
to
collect
data,
and-
and
we
don't
expect
this
to
be
the
final
version
of
anything
we've
we're
proposing
this
as
our
recommended
policy,
given
what
we
know
today,
but
we
expect
to
learn
a
lot
as
we
implement.
Thank
you.
That's
a
great
explanation.
Thank
you.
F
So
that's
why
I
say
we're
trending
towards
about
3%,
so
that's
kind
of
the
baseline
and
then
isay
would
be
in
addition
to
that,
there's
a
general
sense
that
somewhere
between
five
and
ten
percent
is
considered
typical
or
healthy.
There
are
some
cities
at
zero,
but
they
tend
not
to
be
investing
in
affordable
housing
aggressively
or
in
redevelopment
yeah
so
and
we
could
supply
a
list
of
cities
with
the
percent
in
the
future.
If
that's
helpful,
so
that's
that's
kind
of
been
to
the
question
about
overall
percent
in
TIF
districts.
Mr.
B
So
we're
taking
money.
Remember
folks
from
schools,
parks,
the
county
social
services
and
saying
this
housing
is
more
important,
more
important
and
for
truly
affordable
housing,
especially
and
integrated.
Learning,
as
it
is
for
market
rate
not
so
much
but
for
actual
affordable
I
do
believe
it
is
important
and
I
think
I'm
comfortable
with
that
I
appreciate
your
explanation.
A
G
You
mr.
chair
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
chance.
Well,
actually,
maybe
I'll
move
the
item
did
you
move?
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
many
of
us
have
been
working
on
this
policy
and
appreciate
all
the
work
from
council
offices,
but
really
wanted
to
thank
staff.
This
is
a
very,
very
complicated
ordinance
and
policy,
and
it
has
taken
in
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
from
finance
and
housing
and
I.
G
G
So
you
know
I've
always
thought
of
this
is
just
one
way
to
harness
our
city's
growth
to
help
those
most
in
need,
in
this
case,
not
even
really
most
in
need,
those
in
need
of
a
slightly
more
affordable
option
than
is
being
built
in
the
market,
and
certainly
not
that
the
answer
to
housing,
folks
in
our
city
and
an
affordable
way
or
to
solve
our
housing
stability
issues
that
we're
facing,
but
I
do
think
that
it.
You
know
kind
of
to
the
point
about
the
broader
question
about
TIF
and
how
we
use
tax
funds.
G
I
mean
we
have.
We
have
been
negotiating
with
with
development
teams
for
a
long
time
about
building
materials
and
the
number
of
parking
spaces
building
height
and
now
we've
added,
affordable
housing
is
one
of
the
public
benefits
that
we
are
asking
for
private
development
in
our
city.
To
help
you
know
to
to
increase
the
amount
of
emphasis
that
we
have
on
that
when
we're
looking
at
private
development.
G
So
I'm
really
excited
about
this
I'm
very
excited
about
the
data
and
the
information
that
we're
going
to
get
and
the
thoughtfulness
that
staff
has
taken
to
make
sure
that
we've
crafted
a
policy
that
that
still
supports
housing
development
in
our
city,
which
we
desperately
need
that
leverages
that
development
to
get
the
most
number
of
units
that
we
can
and
to
be
thoughtful
about
it
and
how
it
impacts
the
overall
tax
base
and
regular
tax
payers
in
our
city.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
so
much
I,
don't
see
any
other
questions
and
I
don't
see
any
other
comments.
I
appreciate
the
thoughtfulness
that
went
into
the
policy
and
I'll
call
for
a
vote
now
on
the
council.
President
benders
motion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say
no.
That
motion
carries
and
seeing
no
further
business
before
us.
Oh
wait!
One
last
one:
sorry,
this
is
a
discussion
item
number
five,
updated
financial
assistance
fee
policy
to
assist
in
recovering
costs
related
to
the
provision
of
public
financial
assistance,
support
development
activity.
I
Mr.
chair
mr.
chair
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
again
when
I
mentioned
before
in
the
last
item
that
we
hired
a
consultant
and
we
convened
a
group
of
staff
across
the
the
city.
One
of
the
we
set
up
to
do
two
things.
One
is
to
recommend
the
policy
that
you
just
voted
on,
and
the
second
is
to
look
at
streamlining
our
overall
process.
I
Expanding
the
supply
of
affordable
housing
has
been
a
very
clear
priority
of
this
council
and
mayor
and
in
response,
the
city
has
received
an
increase
in
the
request
for
general
tax
increment
financing
assistance
for
affordable
housing
development.
The
interdepartmental
staff
team
that
worked
on
this
other
did
work
on
specific
recommendations
on
how
we
could
improve
our
overall
process
related
to
these
requests.
I
Staff
team
has
identified
process
efficiencies
that
will
better
coordinate
internal
review
and
shorten
the
approval
timeline
from
six
to
nine
months,
which
is
what
it
currently
is
to
four
to
six
months.
Key
to
this
process,
improvement
is
to
replace
the
request
for
City
Council
approval
of
project
analysis
authorization,
PA,
a
of
which
there
were
two
of
these
items
on
the
agenda
today
with
a
joint
C
ped
director
finance
officer
report,
that's
approved
by
both
the
city's
CP
director
and
the
city's
finance
officer.
I
This
director
level
approval
will
give
staff
authorization
to
proceed
with
the
TIF
statutory
approval
process,
which
ultimately
does
include
holding
a
public
hearing
and
City
Council
approval
of
the
establishment
of
the
TIF
district
and
the
amount
of
tax
increment
that
that
is
approved
staff
recommends
changes
additionally
to
the
the
fee
structure.
Right
now,
the
fee
structure,
the
fee
policy
states
that
the
city
will
determine
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
I
The
fee
amount
we're
recommending
that
we
charge
a
flat
fee
of
$15,000
as
an
origination
fee,
and
then
we
further
recommend
that
we
treat
the
eysie
projects
a
little
differently
and
that
we
not
apply
a
$3,000
upfront
application
fee,
since
they
will
need
to
probably
apply
for
that
and
so
that
they
have
a
sense
of
really
what
option
under
the
tip,
ordinance
works
best
for
them.
So
happy
to
take
any
questions.
I
B
I
Chair
councilman
I
admit
the
answer
is
yes,
the
answer
is
that
we
would
we
would
review.
We
would
make
a
determination,
but
staff
would
first
and
the
staff
team
of
typically
it's
a
steep
ed
project
coordinator,
someone
from
the
City
Attorney's
office
staff
and
development
finance
staff
would
review
the
application,
make
sure
it
meets
the
requirements
of
our
chief
policy
or
unified
housing
policy
and
then
make
a
recommendation
to
a
CPD
and
CFO
stat
directors
report.
I
B
E
B
Waiting,
it
was
already
something
that
everyone
had
decided
to
do
before
it
would
come
to
us
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
hearing
today.
So
this
is
public
information
and
we
should
have
access
to
it
too.
So
if
you
want
to
change
the
system,
my
suggestion
is
that
every
council,
member
that
expresses
interest
in
any
TIF
allocation
that
comes
in
and
I
would
be.
One
of
them
would
be
notified
if
everyone
else
doesn't
care
and
they
don't
want
to
be
notified.
B
Fine,
but
I
want
to
be
notified
because
I'm
tracking
the
total
amount
of
tax
increment
that
the
city
is
diverting
from
the
other
jurisdictions
and
I'm
concerned
about
it
and
as
it
pertains
to
EB
IRS,
we
haven't
done
a
TIF
district
into
the
IRS
in
quite
a
long
time.
So
I
don't
think
I'd
be
saying
many
of
them,
because
we
just
don't
have
job
related
economic
development
that
rises
to
the
level
of
getting
public
subsidy,
because
we're
not
luring
Amazon
here
and
offering
them
money
in
order
to
come
here
and
I'm.
A
I
I
You
know,
six
to
nine
months
is
a
really
long
time
to
work
on
work
on
these
projects
and
and
in
the
history
of
seeking
the
project
authorization
we've
we
had
one
not
be
approved
in
the
you
know:
11
13
year,
history
that
we've
been
doing
this,
so
it
adds
a
significant
amount
of
time
to
the
review
process
and
and
it
it
does
seem
to
be
a
way
to
condense.
The
timeline.
G
A
Thank
you,
and
and
I'm
generally
supportive
of
this,
partly
because
I've
seen
so
many
times
when
it's
come
forward
once
and
it
actually
looks
like
so
much
work
goes
into
that
pre-authorization,
but
also
because,
knowing
that
it's
going
to
come
by
still
at
the
end,
and
if
there
are
some
problems
and
issues
and
concerns,
the
committee
of
the
council
can
delay
it,
they
can
reject
it.
They
can
send
it
back
for
more
analysis.
So
if
we
thought
things
were
going
awry,
we
could
start
treating
that
set.
A
What
now
is
like
the
secondary
final
approval
as
more
preliminary
or
whatever,
and
we
could
use
that
as
a
way
to
review
it.
I
would
also
say
that
if
it
would
make
committee
members
more
comfortable,
I
could
try
to
give
a
direction
that
when
it
when
I
hear
about
it,
you
could
just
send
it
to
anybody
on
the
housing
policy
development
committee.
I,
don't
know
that
that's
going
to
necessarily
address
your
concerns.
Councilmember
Goodman,
it
sounded
like
you
could
see
the
carve
out
for
the
inclusionary
zoning
ones,
but
not
the
others.
B
I
want
to
be
notified
and
I
want
to
remind
us
that
if
we
can't
say
no
to
a
market
rate
project
with
affordable
housing
without
affordable
housing
for
tax
increment,
what
project
are
we
going
to
say
no
to
other
than
something
like
Amazon
I
mean
I?
Don't
it
gets
so
cliff?
We
can't
say
no
over
the
one
we
had
today,
which
I
can.
Apparently
you
can't.
B
Then
we
need
to
figure
out
what
the
process
is
to
earlier
on
intervene
and
make
sure
that
we're
following
our
actual
policy,
so
I
want
to
be
notified
and
I
can
live
with
the
policy
as
long
as
I'm
notified
and
some
future
7th
Ward
council
member
might
think
that
use
as
much
TIF
as
you
want.
My
constituents
love
it
and
they
might
have
a
different
point
of
view
about
tax
increment
than
I.
Do
okay,.
A
G
Getting
a
little
concerned,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
talk
about
notifying
council
members
and
engaging
folks,
I
think
that's
really
important.
But
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
maintain
transparency
and
that
were
not
by
notifying
the
council
member
of
the
wards
sort
of
suggesting
that
they
would
get
to
pick
and
choose
which
which
projects
get
TIF
or
which
don't
so
I
just
feel
like
I
want
to
say
that
out
loud,
because
I
think
we
all
know,
maybe
that
we
don't
mean
that,
but
just
want
to
be
very
clear.
G
That
I
don't
mean
that
we
don't
mean
that
that
what
we're
really
trying
to
do
is
give
our
professional
staff
the
opportunity
to
analyze
these
projects
and
if
there
are
policy
decisions
to
make
like
this
particular
project
that
we
saw
today,
I
mean
that
one
was
complicated
and
it
raises
policy
questions
and
that's
why
we
had
a
discussion
about
it.
But
to
the
point
that
miss
Brennan
made
most
projects
don't
and
so.
I
think
what
we're
really
trying
to
do
is
give
our
staff
the
destructive
discretion
and
support
them.
G
A
I,
don't
see
any
other
comments,
then
then,
on
the
motion
to
adopt
this
updated
policy
on
public
financial
assistance
fee,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say.
No.
That
motion
carries
now
I,
believe
her
items
are
concluded
and
I
will
adjourn
this
meeting.
Thank
you
very
much.
Everybody.