►
From YouTube: February 5, 2020 Housing Policy & Development Committee
Description
Minneapolis Housing Policy & Development Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Good
afternoon,
I'll
call
to
order
our
meeting,
and
this
is
a
meeting
of
the
housing
policy
and
Development
Committee
on
chair,
the
committee
camp,
Gordon
I'm
joined
by
Vice,
Chair,
Jeremiah,
Ellison
and
also
committee
members,
Goodman,
Schrader
and
Reich
and
I
suspect,
we'll
get
man
council
president
bender
here
soon.
The
committee
has
five
items
for
consideration
today.
Two
public
hearings,
one
discussion,
item
remainder
our
consent
items
I'd
like
to
go
through
the
two
consent
items.
First
and
if
any
committee
member
wants
to
pull
those
for
discussion,
they're
welcome
to
do
so.
A
The
first
is
amendments
to
notes
for
various
outstanding
City
homebuyer
assistance
loans,
and
the
second
is
accepting
the
2019
Metropolitan
Council
live
abilities,
community
demonstration,
pre
development
and
development
and
the
LCD
a
transit
oriented
development
grant
awards.
Would
anyone
like
to
pull
either
of
those
for
discussion?
A
B
Good
afternoon,
chair
Gordon
members
of
the
committee,
we
do
have
one
land
sale,
37:23,
Aldrich,
Avenue
north.
As
we
know,
the
sale
is
through
Minneapolis
homes.
The
policies
for
the
program
were
established
by
the
City
Council
on
December
11th,
2015
and
February
10th
2017
staff
recommends
the
sale
of
37:23
Aldrich
Avenue
north
to
tahan
LLC
for
its
appraised
value
of
$35,000,
subject
to
conditions.
B
If
tae-hun
LLC
fails
to
close,
improving
the
sale
of
the
property
to
CTW
Group
Incorporated
for
$35,000
sub
conditions,
this
property
was
acquired
from
Hennepin
County
tax
forfeited
land
on
February
6
2013
for
$1.
The
staff
market
of
this
property
held
an
open
house
on
July
1st
2019.
When
notifications
sent
a
listserv
of
now
approaching
3000
recipients,
there
were
three
applications
beside
the
to
recommend
that
Wilson
Molina
also
submitted
an
offer.
However,
staff
was
concerned
regarding
his
capacity
because
he
is
behind
on
another
project.
B
Ty
han
was
the
highest
ranked
because
of
their
experience
and
quality
of
completed
projects.
The
purchaser
that
is
ty
Han
proposes
to
invest.
Ninety
two
thousand
eight
hundred
seventy
two
rehab
the
property
as
a
one-bedroom
one-bath
single-family
home
to
market
exclusively
to
owner
occupants.
The
alternative
purchaser
proposes
to
invest
about
one
hundred
twenty
one
thousand
to
rehab
the
home
again
as
a
1-bedroom,
1-bath
single-family
home
to
be
marketed
exclusively
to
owner
occupants.
B
A
C
It's
a
one-bedroom
house,
it
will
I
would
like
to
get
it
completed
and
have
it
on
the
market
for
sale.
This
fall
I
believe
at
the
time
of
the
evaluation.
C
It
was
estimated
that
a
sales
price
of
a
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
dollars
it's
a
structure
without
a
garage
and
thus
determines
the
price
of
one
hundred
thirty
thousand
dollars
for
a
one-bedroom
home.
In
that
zip
code,
the
project
would
take
maybe
a
maximum
of
three
to
four
months
to
complete.
Okay.
A
A
A
D
Thank
You,
chair
Gordon
and
the
rest
of
the
committee
I'm
Jamie
Radel,
a
senior
project
coordinator
with
the
cpad
residential
finance
team,
I'll
be
providing
you
with
a
brief
overview
of
the
trinity
apartments
application.
The
developer
Dan
Walsh
is
here
with
Central
Community
Housing
Development
Corporation.
To
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
from
of
the
developer.
As
I
said,
Community
Housing,
Development
Corporation
on
behalf
of
Trinity
limited
partners,
has
requested
1.5
million
dollars
in
tax
exempt.
I
was
in
revenue
bonds
to
support
the
rehabilitation
of
trinity
apartments.
D
If
approved,
these
bonds
will
help
to
preserve
120
units
of
affordable
senior
housing
in
the
Longfellow
neighborhood
built
in
1978.
The
trinity
apartments
has
120
units
of
senior
housing,
of
which
105
are
one
bedroom.
Units
and
15
are
two-bedroom
units.
All
of
the
rental
units
in
the
project
received
project-based
section
8
support
from
HUD
through
an
existing
HAP
contract.
The
developer
is
working
with
both
HUD
and
Minnesota
housing.
D
On
a
renewal
of
that
contract
proposed
improvements
to
this
project
include
replacing
the
original
cast-iron
plumbing
building
systems
and
a
new
roof
replacing
unit
and
common
area
finishes
and
fixtures.
Improving
common
areas.
Adding
senior
living
design
elements
and
improving
some
of
the
external
features,
including
the
parking
area
and
site
landscaping.
D
Total
development
costs
for
this
project
are
approximately
twenty
six
point:
seven
million
dollars
the
project
has
secured
all
the
financing
necessary
to
complete
this
project.
With
the
exception
of
this
bond
request,
the
developer
fee
for
this
project
is
approximately
1.4
million
dollars
which
complies
with
the
city's
policy
staff
is
recommending
issuance
of
up
to
12.5
million
dollars
in
multifamily
and
tax
exempt
multifamily
entitlement
revenue
bonds.
A
Don't
see
any
questions,
thank
thank
you.
This
is
a
public
hearing,
so
we
can
open
public
hearing
and
I
think
it
might
be
nice
to
hear
a
little
something
about
the
project
in
your
plans,
for
this
happens
to
be
located
in
Ward,
2
and
I.
Think
this
is
some
really
valuable,
affordable,
senior
housing
so
I'm
glad
that
you're
taking
the
project
on
Thank.
E
You,
chair
Gordon
other
council
members,
my
name
is
Dan
Walsh
and
I
work
for
the
sponsor
Community
Housing
Development
Corporation.
Thank
you
very
much
for
considering
our
request.
We're
excited
to
preserve
this
asset,
like,
like
Jamie,
said
the
tax
credit
equity
proceeds
that
come
with
the
tax-exempt
bonds
are
going
to
go
to
the
comprehensive
renovation
activities
that
will
really
reposition
this
property
for
the
long
term.
A
couple
things
that
I'm
particularly
excited
about
our
a
lot
of
the
building
systems
are
original,
the
original
furnace,
original
AC
original
mechanical
systems
and
the
plumbing
as
Jamie
mentioned.
E
These
are
all
going
to
be
changed,
along
with
the
lighting
to
just
dramatically
improve
energy
efficiency
and
really
improve
the
building
performance.
I
think
we're
going
to
add
a
lot
of
good
senior
design
elements
and
improve
the
common
areas,
and
we
will
sign
a
new
20-year
section
8
contract.
Before
closing,
and
thank
you
very
much.
F
D
E
A
A
E
We
we
are
planning
to
do
occupied
occupied
renovations.
We
have
hired
the
contractor
ferrets
in
part
because
of
their
strong
track
record
with
occupied
renovations
and
also
hired
a
relocation
consultant
to
deal
with
any
special
accommodations
that
need
to
be
made.
We
did
a
resident
survey
and
have
had
a
number
of
resident
meetings,
and
if
anyone
has
a
special
accommodation
or
needs
something
to
be
temporarily
relocated,
we
have
funds
and
the
capacity
to
move
them
into
a
hotel
temporarily.
E
A
A
Is
here
to
speak
on
this
matter
and
well
close?
The
public
hearing
and
I
appreciate
I'm
trying
to
preserve
this
affordability
for
as
long
as
possible,
so
I
appreciate
the
questions.
Counsel
and
I
will
move
approval
of
this
item.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye,
any
opposed,
say
no.
That
motion
carries
then.
That
brings
us
up
to
our
discussion
item
and
this
is
an
item
that
was
presented
at
last
meeting
and
there's
actually
two
items.
A
G
H
If
it
indulges,
the
committee
I
would
like
to
pass
around
a
letter
that
was
issued
yesterday
by
the
Senate
delegation
good
afternoon,
council
members,
I'm
Tracy,
Scott
I'm,
the
interim
executive
director
of
the
minneapolis
public
housing
authority,
and
my
comments
are
brief
and
I'll
answer
any
questions
afterwards.
But
they're
very
simple
mPHA
asks
you
not
to
approve
this
resolution.
H
We
communicated
our
reasons
prior
to
the
last
meeting
in
somewhat
detail
to
the
committee,
but
I'll
give
you
a
quick
summary.
This
resolution
is
inspired
by
and
gives
credence
to
a
deliberate
campaign
of
fear
and
misinformation
rather
than
facts
in
consideration
of
good
public
policy
at
a
time
when
the
city
and
mPHA
are
otherwise
working
together
in
very
good
faith
to
take
on
the
challenges
and
opportunities
that
face
public
housing
and
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
This
resolution
generates
needless
tension
between
us.
H
The
resolution
also
asks
us
to
disregard
federal
program
requirements
and
to
violate
federal
law.
The
resolution
provokes
and
prolongs
uncertainty
for
the
families
that
mPHA
serves.
These
families
have
already
been
visited
in
their
homes
by
door,
knockers
violating
their
privacy
distributing
false
paperwork,
telling
them
that
they
are
being
evicted
and
they
are
not
being
displaced
or
evicted
by
these
actions.
The
message
and
the
spirit
carried
by
this
resolution
undercuts
almost
two
years
of
engagement
by
mPHA
staff
to
counter
the
fear
to
which
these
low-income
families
have
been
subjected
and,
finally,
far
from
protecting
residents.
H
This
action
works
against
the
interests
of
the
very
residents
that
it
proposes
to
serve.
It
threatens
more
than
three
million
dollars
a
year
in
new
federal
subsidy
that
mPHA
will
use
to
repair
these
families
homes
and
even
create
more
affordable
housing
in
this
city.
This
federal
funding
increase
continues
in
perpetuity.
So
let's
think
about
that
three
million
dollars
a
year
in
ten
years-
that's
30
million
dollars
more.
That
has
come
into
this
community
in
20
years.
That's
60
million
dollars
more
that
has
come
into
this
community
and
so
on.
H
Securing
this
fund
funding
for
Minneapolis
is
a
huge
win
for
the
city's,
affordable
housing
goals
and
mph
a
strategic
vision
to
preserve
our
public
housing
in
Minneapolis.
It
is
really
a
cause
for
celebration
and
hope
and
to
risk
losing
it
would
be
thoughtless
of
us
as
policymakers
and
will
have
long-term
consequences.
H
I've
heard
suggestions
that
this
resolution
is
largely
harmless
and
I
came
to
here
to
tell
you
that
it
is
not
harmless
both
as
a
practical
matter
and
a
symbolic
one.
Mpha
is
deep
in
the
midst
of
a
plan
to
reinvest
in
our
scattered
sight
homes,
and
we
first
shared
this
with
the
committee.
As
far
back
as
May
2018,
it's
been
followed
by
regular
updates
to
chairman
Gordon,
the
mayor
members
of
this
council
and
and
members
of
the
community
we've
communicated
directly
on
multiple
occasions
through
multiple
methods
and
with
more
than
700
scattered
sight.
H
Family
residents,
the
Star
Tribune,
is
even
covered
in
detail,
our
application
and
its
approval
and
our
own
guiding
principles
and
our
MoU
with
the
city
of
Minneapolis
reinforce
the
protections
to
which
all
of
us
are
committed:
non
displacement,
information
for
residents
and
preserving
all
of
our
units
and
their
affordability.
We
have
made
available
to
the
clerk
the
letter
that
you
have
now
it's
dated
as
Monday
of
as
of
this
week.
H
I'm
sorry,
the
letter
affirms
that
the
Senators
understand
that
many
of
the
short
and
long
term
protections
in
place
for
public
housing
residents
through
this
and
other
other
processes
that
mPHA
undertakes
to
preserve
our
housing
and
it
states
that
their
understanding
of
mPHA
is
one
and
only
mission
is
to
preserve
and
protect
public
housing
for
families.
So
we
thank
the
Senators
for
their
good-faith
efforts
in
recent
weeks
to
learn
more
in
in
light
of
their
prior
letter.
H
This
letter
raised
important
questions,
all
of
which
have
strong
and
reassuring
answers
for
the
community.
So
through
this
process,
mPHA
is
followed
principles
of
transparency,
consistency
and
no
surprises.
We
would
be
grateful
for
your
assistance
today
with
that
final
promise
in
the
anticipation
of
more
federal
dollars
for
Minneapolis
residents,
so
I.
Thank
you
for
your
support
that
each
of
you
have
shown
to
mPHA
in
various
ways
and
in
recent
years
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
other
questions.
H
G
A
H
To
route
their
relevant
okay,
so
HUD
agreed
under
the
rental
essential
assistance
demonstration
program
that
is
pretty
well
subscribed
in
about
a
200
page
description
of
every
step
that
you
have
to
take
as
part
of
that
and
with
that
they
allow,
what's
called
a
blended
approach
to
that.
That
allows
you
to
get
more
access
to
more
about
your
funding,
tenant
protection
vouchers
so
similar
to
what
we're
doing
on
the
on
the
section
8
on
the
section
18
for
the
scattered
sites.
H
A
Appreciate
that
so
that
can
be
done
under
Section
18
I
also
noticed
in
your
application
here
with
mPHA
its
application
about
the
scattered
site.
You
set
a
timeline
there,
and
you
said
your
milestones
for
the
relocation
of
residents
would
occur
in
180
days
after
approval
of
the
application
you.
It
would
also
be
completed
180
days
after
the
application.
Also,
the
execution
of
the
contract
for
removal
sales,
contract
or
demolition
contracts
would
all
be
completed
after
180
days
and
the
actual
removal
action
or
the
demolition
or
sale
closing
would
occur.
A
H
H
Hud
application,
the
process
the
normal
process
is
180
days.
We
often
have
those
kinds
of
timelines
that
are
given
to
the
housing
authority
as
part
of
an
applicable
process,
and
sometimes
those
are
subject
to
negotiation
if
in
fact,
the
if
there
are
other
circumstances,
so
we
we've
had
things
even
with
the
rad
project.
We've
we've
had
many
discussions
with
HUD
as
we
move
along
in
the
process.
Well,.
H
Chairman
Gordon,
if
I,
can
add
some
clarity
there,
there
is
no
relocation
as
part
of
this
action.
The
there
it's
more
of
an
administrative
paperwork
thing
in
terms
of
making
this
happen,
and
so
there
is
no
displacement
of
these
families
as
part
of
this
conversion
process,
but
and
I
would
say
that
when
talking
with
HUD
and
having
worked
with
HUD
for
many
years,
there
is
never
an
indefinite
timeline.
So
while
you
can
be
reasonable
about
these,
these
timelines
there's
not
an
indefinite.
H
C
A
Do
that
yep
and
that's
clear
in
the
letter
that
we've
all
had
had
before
us,
so
that
they're
like
like
that,
but
they
also
understand
that
revisions
in
the
deadlines
will
happen
and
it
seems
like
they
acknowledge
that
there
are
likely
delays.
Do
you
think
if
you
didn't
actually
close
on
the
sale
of
all
the
properties
on
February
16th
and
you
waited
until
March
16th
that
that
would
they
would
then
pull
the
application
and
say
that
you
can't
do
the
program
and
that
would
harm
anything.
There's.
H
I
think
I
think
the
Senators
letters
have
really
articulate
the
concerns
of
the
community.
We
are
willing
and
have
talked
with
them
about
how
we
work
together
more
to
make
sure
that
that
people's
fears
are
allayed.
The
families
we've
been
very
clear,
with
there's
no
displacement
and
so
I
think
that
the
I
think
that
it's
incumbent
upon
to
figure
out
why
we
would
delay
anything
and.
A
H
Are
two
different
programs,
so
the
rad
program
has
certain
requirements
and,
as
I
said,
it's
about
a
200
page
document.
If
you'd
like
to
to
read
that
and
the
program
that
the
section
18
application
that
we're
moving
forward,
that
action
with
for
the
700
scattered
sites
is
a
different
program
right
under
HUD
and
so
the
requirements
of
that
program
in
order
to
really
leverage
that
three
million
dollars
additional
dollars
requires
that
we
take
the
actions
that
we
proposed.
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
they
in
the
application
the
the
approval
letter
from
HUD.
H
There
was
a
paragraph
here
that
I
think
is
very
relevant
to
this.
It
said
that
this
disposition
will
result
in
the
preservation
of
this
valuable,
low-income
housing
resource
that
would
not
continue
to
be
viable
as
public
housing.
The
units
will
continue
to
be
operated
as
low-income
housing
units
utilizing.
A
project-based
voucher
funding
platform
about
half
of
the
units
are
in
relatively
low
poverty
areas
and
will
serve
as
particularly
positive
resource
to
advance
residents
economic
opportunities.
All
residents
will
be
able
to
remain
in
their
units
using
project-based
voucher
assistance
and
no
residents
will
be
displaced.
H
A
There's
a
section
of
the
resolution
where
we're
just
trying
to-
and
both
of
this
is
just
the
council
supporting
little
bit
of
a
delay
just
to
be
clear.
This
isn't
about
D
railing
the
project
or
anything.
The
resolution
says
to
postpone
any
decisions
related
to
financial
encumbrance
transfer
of
ownership
or
other
redevelopment
activity
related
to
the
section
18
application.
A
You
could
probably
move
forward
with
relocation
and
other
things
and
assessments
and
all
a
lot
of
work,
but
what
we're
looking
for
or
would
be
looking
for
what
I'm
looking
for
is
to
wait
till
after
the
approval
of
a
new
executive
director
and
for
the
demonstration
by
the
housing
authority.
There
are
short
and
long
term
protection
plans
in
place
for
residents.
They
currently
live
in
the
buildings
in
accordance
with
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding,
between
the
city
and
mPHA.
A
H
Think
the
council
is
aware
that
our
board
of
directors
in
the
January
29th,
specially
called
meeting
appointed
councilmember
Abdi,
wash
saw
me
as
the
executive
director
and
that
the
council
will
come
before
council
for
approval
of
that
application.
But
the
board
of
commissioners
for
the
Minneapolis
Public
Housing
Authority,
has
indeed
appointed
an
executive
director.
So
I
don't
have
the
timeline
on
council
I.
Think
that
sets
for
counsel
to
determine.
H
I
Some
garden
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
we
have
the
director
of
mPHA
standing
in
front
of
us
right
now.
She
is
an
interim
person
in
that
role,
but
in
the
same
way
that
we
have
an
interim
City
coordinator
and
an
interim
city
attorney
and
afford
them
the
respect
of
that
directorship
for
the
time
that
they
are
in
that
position.
I
I
just
want
to
say.
From
my
perspective,
we
have
the
director
of
the
agency
standing
and
of
us
I
appreciate
you
taking
your
time
to
be
here
and
answer
the
questions.
Thank
you.
A
I
certainly
appreciate
that
too
and
I'm
glad
you're
able
to
be
here.
The
last
issue
has
to
do
with
the
resident
council
and
I
know
there
were
some
concerns
about
that.
You
can't
you
don't
feel
responsibility
or
to
actually
create
an
establish
one.
So
we've
tried
to
change
that
to
just
ask
to
support
the
creation
of
the
scattered,
say,
resident
council
putting
a
timeline
of
getting
something
in
place,
so
it
would
have
more
robust
community
engagement
by
December
31st
2020.
Is
that
something
you
think
that's
realistic.
H
Chairman
Gordon
and
the
rest
of
the
committee
I
with
all
due
respect,
the
City
Council
and
the
mayor,
appoint
the
Board
of
Commissioners
for
the
MTA
mPHA
and
the
Housing
Authority
Board
of
Commissioners
makes
decisions
around
around
the
actions
for
the
housing
authority
the,
but
what
I
will
be
very,
very
clear.
This
isn't
a
matter
of
whether
or
not
we
intend
or
our
support
or
want
to
have
a
resident
council
with
the
scattered
sites.
There
are
federal
laws
and
regulations
that
prohibit
the
housing
authority
from
forming
a
resident
council.
H
It's
intended
to
be
formed
by
residents
to
represent
their
interests
and
therefore
the
Housing
Authority
cannot
interfere
with
that.
While
we
can
make
available
space
for
people
to
meet,
we
can
encourage
them.
We
can
do
everything
we
want
to
suggest
that
there
there's
a
reason
why
they
would
want
a
resident
council.
We
cannot
force
them
to
form
that
and
therefore
to
have
a
resolution
that
essentially
says
that
by
December
31st
2020
there
will
be
a
resident
council
for
the
scattered
sites
that
isn't
completely
unenforceable.
H
A
J
J
I
think
this
letter,
while
while
slightly
vague
and
maybe
stopping
just
short
of
admitting
that
they
made
some
mistakes,
I
feel
like
it's
very
existence,
suggests
that
that
the
Senate
that
the
about
our
Senate
delegation
informed
themselves
by
reaching
out
to
you
and
that
they're
outlining
that
they
are
now
informed
in
this
letter
too
hot.
That's
what
this
letter
says
to
me
and
it's
very
existence,
kind
of
admits
that
they
were
operating
with
misinformation,
not
in
their
first
letter
and
so
and
so
that's
that's
kind
of
step.
J
You
know
it's
known
that
that
the
that
the
potential
strongly
that
there's
a
strong
potential
that
the
next
executive
director
will
be
a
colleague
and
so
we're
sort
of
asking
for
a
delay
until
that
person
is
appointed
and
I.
Think
that
to
the
council
president's
point,
we
have
the
director
in
front
of
us
now.
The
current
director
who's
been
working
on
these
issues
a
long
time,
I
think
that
it's
appropriate.
You
know,
I,
don't
love
the
I,
think
the
very
confusing
nature
of
of
the
conversions,
but
that's
a
problem
that
I'm
having
with
HUD
right.
J
But
I
think
that
the
resolution,
as
we
sort
of
see
some
of
the
reasons
that
it
came
to
be
get
get
chipped
away
at
I.
Don't
know
that
there's
much
of
an
ask
here
and
so
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
voice
that
that
concern
to
my
colleagues
and
then
I
guess
a
question
that
I
would
have
for
director.
Scott
is
in
the
future.
Should
the
federal
government
ask
you
all
to
take
these
properties
from
your
nonprofit
and
put
them
back
into
the
ownership
of
the
institution?
J
H
H
Nonprofit
and
the
board
of
directors
of
that
nonprofit
is
the
Board
of
Commissioners
of
mPHA,
and
so
it
it's
unlikely
that
there
would
be
a
change
in
in
direction
or
mission,
because
it
is
in
fact
the
board
of
commissioners.
The
nonprofit
is
only
a
mechanism
in
order
to
access
these
extra
funds
does
not
change
our
mission
like.
J
H
A
Know
we
could
segue
to
discussion
if
we
want
to
so
that
miss
Scott
doesn't
have
to
stand
up
there,
the
whole
time.
So
do
you
have
questions,
or
should
we
just
go
into
our
debate?
Thank.
A
F
Scott
and
then
we
I'm
certainly
too
happy
to
kick
off
the
debate.
Miss
Scott.
Could
you
just
give
us
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
being
here
and
thank
you
for
taking
on
the
work
of
the
center
role.
I
only
wish
you
had
applied
to
be
the
director,
because
I'm
so
confident
in
your
leadership,
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
your
history.
You
didn't
come
to
mPHA
from
working
for
a
developer
right,
yeah.
H
I
have
been
involved
in
the
public
housing
arena
for
nine
of
those
I
was
with
the
Atlanta
public
housing
authority
and,
as
part
of
that
was
head
of
strategy,
innovation
working
with
HUD
working
with
the
Atlanta
Housing
Authority
that
had
a
hundred
million
dollar
redevelopment
effort
that
was
going
on
at
the
time
and
including
working
on
rad,
the
very
first
version
of
rad,
as
well
as
hope,
six
and
choice
neighborhoods,
which
is
another
other
grant
programs
that
HUD
has
in
order
to
do
redevelopment
and
community
revitalization
and
so
very
involved
in
those
efforts.
Thank.
F
A
A
A
In
fact,
this
is
coming
more
from
the
perspective
of
how
are
we
going
to
manage
this
transition
so
that
we're
protecting
everybody
and
we're
making
sure
we're
doing
the
right
thing?
Moving
forward
and
I
think
kind
of
facilitating
a
community
process
trying
to
bring
people
together,
trying
to
make
sure
there's
enough
reassurances-
and
we
can
address
concerns,
that's
more.
A
What
I'm
doing
and
it's
more
of
the
process
of
this
and
I'm,
hoping
that
we
can
improve
the
process
now
as
soon
as
this
came
up
back
in
May,
I
actually
sent
a
letter
then
to
the
executive
director
at
the
time
and
I
said:
could
you
slow
this
down?
It's
creating
a
lot
of
problems
and
a
lot
of
legitimate
concerns.
A
A
So
this
transition
is
transfer
of
sales
to
the
nonprofit.
That,
incidentally,
does
include
the
Board
of
Directors
plus
one
the
executive
director,
and
it
has
their
own
set
of
bylaws
and
it's
in
there,
so
it's
slightly
different,
but
it
does
and
their
bylaws
could
be
amended.
Presumably
somehow
I
was
able
to
get
a
copy
of
actually
the
governing
documents
of
that
so
I
was
able
to
study.
Those
was
also
able
to
study
some
other
things,
they're
moving
now
to
a
restrictive
covenant
of
20
years.
So
we
know
there's
affordability
there.
A
So
one
of
my
concerns
that
I
have
that
I
thought
is
legitimate
is
how
are
we
going
to
guarantee
the
long
term
affordability
of
these
places,
and
you
and
I
have
both
seen
many
instances
in
ways.
They've
done
this.
There's
examples
of
city-owned
land
all
over
Cedar
Riverside
that
we
lease
back
to
somebody
for
90
years.
So
couldn't
we
be
creative
with
the
scattered
site
and
do
something
like
that?
A
F
Know
you
don't
have
any
authority
over
them
so
you're
acting
as
though
were
experts
they're,
not
we
as
a
governance
board
of
the
city
are
smarter
than
the
governance
board
of
the
public
housing
authority
and
we're
acting
as
though
we
know
something
that
we
have
the
director
standing
in
front
of
us
who
has
said
there
is
going
to
be
no
displacement
and
any
delay
will
result
in
the
loss
of
three
million
dollars
and
you're
seem
to
be
saying.
That's
not
true.
I
know
better
than
you
and
I
am
just
confused
to
where
that
comes
from.
F
Do
you
really
think
that
the
people
who
work
at
the
public
housing
authority
are
there
to
make
money
or
otherwise
displace
residents
and
isn't
the
reason
you
go
into
a
public
housing
authority
in
the
first
place,
because
you
deeply
care
about
affordable
housing
and
its
residents?
You
kind
of
start
with
the
motivation.
What
is
the
motivation
of
Tracy
Scott
and
the
MUB
liqu
Housing
Authority
board?
What
is
their
motivation
to
confuse
residents,
displace
them
or
otherwise
kick
them
out
of
their
housing?
What
would
be
the
motivation
for
that?
I.
F
Well,
this
delay
says
that
this
the
way
you've
heard
the
public
housing
authority
director
who
we've
already
stipulated,
knows
what
she's
doing
you
have
her
standing
in
front
of
us
and
kind
of
like
a
public
embarrassment
caught
trying
to
call
her
out
and
say
she
doesn't
know
what
she's
doing
and
that
we
know
better
and
we
don't
know
better.
First
of
all,
we
can
only
be
advised
by
those
who
are
experts
in
this
area
and
you're,
insisting
that
we
delay
something
that
potentially
could
cost
us
three
million
dollars
so
I'm
just
trying
to
find
out.
F
Where
are
we
at
where
we
with
no
authority
over
this,
seem
to
know
more
and
are
telling
the
people
who
do
this
work
for
a
living,
that
what
they're
doing
is
questionable
I,
don't
think
what
they're
doing
is
questionable
at
all,
because
I
believe
the
motivation
of
the
people
that
work
in
public
housing
is
to
serve
residents,
keep
them
in
their
housing.
Avoid
displacement.
I
have
to
believe
that
I
mean
I.
It
would
be
Tara
if
you're
saying
we
shouldn't
believe
that
and
there's
some
other
motivation
to
play
here.
F
Please
let
us
know
you're
thinking,
but
short
of
that
this
resolution
is
just
simply
to
tell
them.
We
don't
trust
you,
but
we
have
no
authority
to
tell
you
anything
anyway.
So
we're
just
gonna
pass
this
resolution
saying
we
don't
trust
you.
There
seems
to
be
a
pattern
with
that
going
on
here
we're
professional
staff.
We
don't
trust
them
so
I.
F
Don't
I
cannot
imagine
passing
a
resolution
like
this,
but
quite
frankly,
I
don't
like
the
staff
direction,
either
as
your
suggested
staff
direction,
that
the
city
start
funding
public
housing
because
that's
kind
of
what
it
looks
like
in
time
to
inform
the
budget
process.
The
total
annual
investment
of
the
city,
because
I
mean
between
the
seven
percent
tax
increase
the
massive
displacement
of
renters,
whose
taxes
are
going
up
there
for
their
housing
is
going
up.
F
We're
gonna,
increase
taxes
to
now
take
public
housing
on
is
our
new
thing,
or
maybe
we
should
just
use
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
to
fund
public
housing
and
not
do
any
other,
affordable
housing
work
I'm
confused
by
the
staff
direction.
You
seem
to
be
saying
turn
back
three
million
dollars
from
the
feds,
and
the
city
will
cover
that
another
decision
that
cannot
be
made
actually
by
us
in
this
committee.
F
A
Don't
think
that's
exactly
what
we
heard
I
think
we
heard
there's
a
risk
in
any
delay,
but
I
think
we
also
heard
that
February
16th
isn't
necessarily
locked
in
stone
when
the
lands
supposed
to
transfer
or
not
so
I
think
that
the
risks,
what
we
heard
are
pretty
minimal.
We've
also
heard
from
others
who
are
engaged
in
this-
that
it's
rather
harmless.
What
the
what
we're
suggesting
is
the
best
course
of
action
we
think
is
to
postpone
some
of
these
decisions
until
we
get
some
more
reassurance.
C
F
A
The
resolutions
not
giving
them
a
staff
direction
to
do
anything.
We
don't
have
any
authority
to
tell
them
not
to
do
this.
The
federal
government
doesn't
ask
for
our
permission
to
sign
off
on
it
when
we
separated
ourselves
from
the
minneapolis
public
housing
authority.
We
also
gave
away
this
authority.
A
Could
you
support
us
taking
a
pause
in
this
action
till
we
finish
the
transition
and
leadership
over
there,
and
we
can
make
sure
that
we've
studied
and
covered
some
other
issues
that
other
people
have
raised?
I'm,
not
questioning
the
intent
of
anybody
to
preserve
this
or
not
preserve
it.
One
of
the
problems
as
we've
gotten
trapped,
because
what
we
have
is
the
federal
government
out
here.
A
Who's
come
up
with
programs
to
offer
money
to
support
public
housing
which
will
allow
people
to
make
investments
so
that
they
can,
you
know,
keep
more
their
wealth
in
the
long
run.
We
don't
necessarily.
We
know
what
the
motivations
were
of
the
grant
compromises
that,
if
they're
made
at
the
federal
government-
but
it
looks
like
some
of
them-
are
because
they
even
themselves
want
to
get
out
of
the
business
of
worrying
about
and
paying
for
public
housing.
A
So
it
seems
like
we
could
all
do
our
due
diligence
together
and
we
could
be
careful
and
we
could
move
move
slowly
and
we
could
at
least
try
to
include
the
people,
who's
impacted,
who
will
be
most
impacted
in
these
decisions.
The
residents
of
the
buildings
to
be
part
of
crafting
the
solutions
and
working
towards
the
solutions
and
buying
into
the
solutions.
A
I,
don't
know
if
they
are
at
this
point
and
I'm
going
with
the
chair
of
the
public
housing,
a
Authority
board
for
another
listening
session
with
residents
who
are
concerned
and
upset
and
want
us
to
help
make
sure
that
we're
doing
the
right
thing.
So
that's
all
I'm
asking
the
council
to
do
is:
let's
be
a
partner
and
let's
try
to
do
the
right
thing
and
let's
try
to
make
sure
that
we're
here
supporting
engagement
of
the
residents
and
we're
trying
to
do
our
own
due
diligence
about
this
I
can
see
that
there's.
A
A
lack
of
support
for
the
resolution
here.
I'd
rather
talk
about
that
separately
than
that
the
staff
direction.
And
if
we
want
to
debate
it
more,
we
can,
or
we
can
take
a
vote
on
it
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
more
questions.
You
have
maybe
about
what
I
think
somebody's
I'm
not
sure
how
elaborate
the
questions
were.
But
I
can
we,
if
you,
if
you
want
to
engage
more
but
I,
know
councilmember,
Ellis
and
also.
F
F
Gonna
stand
up
for
the
residents
that
don't
really
need
to
be
stood
up
for
in
this
case,
I
mean
I'll
stop,
but
I
find
it
totally
hypocritical
to
suggest
that
we're
a
partner
in
this
when
we
have
no
power
to
do
anything,
but
we
want
to
slap
them
upside
the
head
anyway.
That's
what
it
feels
like
it
feels
like
me
sitting
here,
is
being
party
to
that.
F
So
if
you
want
to
call
the
vote
on
the
resolution
and
we
can
move
on
to
the
staff
direction,
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
I
feel
like
I've,
been
part
of
a
little
pong
game
here
in
being
asked
to
come
to
committee,
to
tell
them
to
do
something
that
I,
don't
even
think
we
should
be
telling
them
to
do
and
that
we
have
no
authority
to
do
either
and
I.
Don't
like
that.
F
A
I'm
not
trying
to
do
that
and
I'm
not
trying
to
do
any
slapping
I'm
trying
to
have
a
community
conversation
and
a
formal
public
dialogue
about
some
of
these
issues
and
concerns
and
I
think
some
of
them
might
be
more
legitimate
than
others,
and
at
least
we
can
have
that
conversation
and
also
how
do
we
help
manage
the
community?
So
when
we
come
out,
the
other
side
of
this,
like
I,
think
we're
gonna
do
with
the
Elliotts
we're
gonna
come
out
on
the
other
side
of
this
and
we're
gonna
say
wow.
A
What
a
great
success
well
I
want
to
do
that
with
all
of
these
projects
and
all
these
efforts
we
have
to
preserve
public
housing
and
then
I
want
to
look
back
if
I'm
fortunate
enough
to
be
here
in
20
or
30,
40
50
years
and
say
and
look
we
preserved
it
all
and
not
only
that
we
got
more
of
it
and
part
of
it
because
of
the
city,
investment
that
we
put
into
it
to
which
we
put
in
the
last
few
years
in
one
way
or
another
in
these
projects
and
also
trust
fund
money,
sometimes
going
to
public
housing
projects
as
well.
J
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
I
think
that
if,
if
we
hadn't
already
engaged
in
this
conversation,
then
PHA
and
had
an
standing,
MoU
sort
of
committed
to
a
lot
of
these
things,
I
think
that
it
would
be
worth
voting
for
this
to
sort
of
stand
on
our
principles.
But
I
think
that
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
taking
a
note
of
today
is
that
when
we
engaged
in
the
MOU
discussion,
I
think
mPHA
sort
of
met
us
at
the
table
and
was
happy
to
sit
down
and
work
out.
J
Whoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo
I've,
seen
in
the
past,
be
a
lot
less
passionate
standing
up
here.
Telling
us
you
know
hey
the
MOU
was
was
a
good
way
to
go.
This
is
not
the
way
to
go
and
I
think
that
I'm
putting
some
weight
behind
that
as
well
so
see
ya.
So
I
I
do
think
it's
fair
for
us
to
debate
and
and
and
and
sort
of
put
our
foot
down,
principally
when
it
comes
to
disagreeing
with
federal
policy,
but
I
think
here
we're
putting
our
foot
down
at
mPHA
and
I.
I
You
mr.
chair
I'm
kind
of
not
even
sure
how
much
I
want
to
say
or
how
much
more
time
we
want
to
devote
to
this,
but
I
guess
I
want
to
say
a
few
things.
I
The
first
is
that
just
kind
of
regrinding
ourselves
and
what
is
our
role
related
to
this
agency
that,
as
has
been
mentioned
a
couple
of
times,
the
City
Council
appoints
the
board
of
directors
of
the
Minneapolis
Public
Housing
Authority,
and
then
we
have
ultimate
decision
over
the
the
person
who
is
the
director
of
the
agency,
which,
as
we've
heard
several
times
here,
is
currently
under
consideration.
We
have
not,
as
far
as
I
know,
as
of
today
received
a
letter
from
the
Minneapolis
public
housing
authority
that
would
initiate
our
approval
process.
I
So
we
are
awaiting-
and
you
know
even
the
initiation
of
the
council
approval
process
for
the
candidate
that
the
board
selected,
who
is
our
colleague
currently
on
the
City
Council
and
in
fact,
actually
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
feel
comfortable
with
this
motion.
I
think
it
puts
us
in
challenging
position
enough
already
to
be
asked
to
vote
on
the
appointment
of
a
colleague
to
this
role
as
much
as
we
may
trust
in
and
be
inspired
by
his
leadership
as
a
council
member
I'll,
just
state
that
I
think
it's.
I
It
is
a
challenge
for
us
to
begin
with,
and
so
then,
to
tie
decisions
that
have
been
made
in
the
past
to
the
future
of
a
point
of
a
colleague
feels
very
uncomfortable
to
me
in
so
I
would
not
support
it.
Just
for
that
reason
alone,
I
think
you
know
going
further
than
that.
I
mean
business
in
the
context
of
a
letter
that
a
number
of
our
elected
officials,
our
center
delegation,
sent
to
HUD
not
to
the
public
housing
authority
not
to
the
Minneapolis
City
Council
to
the
funder.
I
So
we
had
an
application
that
had
already
been
approved
that
was
in
under
Canole,
are
working
to
get
money
into
the
homes
of
people
who
need
repairs
in
their
homes
and
so
for
us
to
take
an
action
that
I
think
would
be
seen
as
agreeing
without
an
initial
letter
which
was
not
to
our
our
local
agency,
but
rather
to
the
funder.
Asking
for
a
delay
is
cause
for
concern
and
I.
Think,
especially
in
the
context
of
this
second
letter
coming
from
the
delegation,
you
know
essentially
not
asking
for
a
delay
anymore.
I
I
I've
appreciated
the
public
housing
authorities,
patience
with
talking
with
elected
officials,
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
keep
having
these
conversations
because
it's
hard
for
any
of
us
to
look
someone
in
the
eye
when
we
don't
have
direct
control
over
something
and
make
promises,
because
none
of
us,
the
senator,
is
the
City
Council
members
have
that
direct
control
to
say
like
absolutely
not
you
will
you
know
nothing.
Bad
will
ever
happen.
So
I
know
that's
why
we
keep
coming
back
here
and
I
know.
That's
the
underlying
motivation
of
any
elected
official.
I
You
know
help
create
systems
where
people
can
trust
in
our
government
and
when
that
government
is
the
current
federal
administration
that
controls
HUD.
That
brings
another
layer
of
challenge,
so
I
get
concerned
about
things
that
aren't
even
though
I
know
we're
coming
from
the
same
motivations
of
wanting
to
help
folks
and
wanting
to
protect
people.
I
I
worry
that
the
way
in
which
we're
doing
it
could
continue
to
create
an
erosion
of
trust
where
that
might
not
be
justified,
and
so
I
hope
that
we
can
all
continue
to
work
together
to
get
those
insurances,
we
need
like
them
a
memo
of
understanding
that
has
been
referenced,
but
also
work
together
to
you
know,
then
help
people
not
be
unnecessarily
stressed
like
this
idea
that
people
are
hearing
that
they're
gonna
lose
our
homes
when
they're.
Not
that's.
I
That's
really
a
heartbreaking
situation,
so
kind
of
a
winding
way
of
saying
that
I
I
wish
we
weren't
having
this
discussion
in
this
way.
I,
don't
support
the
resolution.
I
need
to
think
more
about
the
staff
direction,
so
I
know
we're
moving
to
that
next.
But
if
the
current
vote
focused
on
this
after
action
is
not
one
that
all
support.
K
Thank
You
mr.
chair
and
I'm
glad
councilmember
Ellis
and
publicly
refreshed
our
memory
of
the
work
that
did
go
into
that
MOU
I
thought
that
was
significant
I
think
it
captures
not
only
some
of
the
content,
but
also
the
spirit
of
which
we're
discussing
now.
So
it
almost
seems
like
this
would
be
additive,
but
not
substantially
additive
and
so
I
I
think
I.
Concur
with
that
notion
that
a
lot
of
this
has
been
developed
and
I
would
note
that
it
was
developed
in
partnership
with
our
reported
partners
here
and
so
in
some
respects.
I.
K
Think
that
delay
beyond
what
we've
already
agreed
to
that
entails.
All
the
things
that
we
want
in
terms
of
protections
wouldn't
be
a
delay
in
fact,
but
it
would
be
a
delay
in
partnership
that
we're
basically
saying
timeout
to
the
partnership.
We
still
don't
have
enough
trust,
even
though
we
had
a
binding
document
between
the
parties
and
MoU
that
I
thought
was
the
foundation
of
working
together
in
the
that
we
think
is
still
beneficial
to
our
community.
But
that's
just
my
perspective
on
that
matter.
Joe
Thank,
You.
G
You
mr.
chair
I
just
want
to
echo
the
statements
of
many
of
my
colleagues
up
here.
I
mPHA
is
an
impossible
situation.
You
know
it
really
comes
down
to
just
a
complete
lack
of
resources
and
support
from
so
many
levels
of
government
and
I.
Think
I
won't
be
supporting
the
resolution
or
the
staff
direction.
I
think
when
we
talk
about
just
finding
out
more
ways
of
what
the
current
funding
is
I
mean
we
can
answer
that
it's
tragically
underfunded
and
I
think
the
our
time
is
best
spent
figuring
out.
A
Appreciate
that
I
just
wanted
to
know
a
couple
things.
One
is
that
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding
won't
apply
to
the
section
18
scattered
site,
because
that
only
comes
into
play
when
there's
any
City
money
and
City
investment
in
the
project.
A
I
actually
think
it's
the
city,
investment
in
the
Elliotts
that
was
really
key
to
getting
to
make
sure
that
the
land
was
held
by
the
mPHA,
because
in
fact
there
are
city
money
in
that,
and
that
is
one
of
the
tools
in
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding
to
go
in
there
at
least,
and
that's
my
understanding.
The.
A
This
resolution
I
it
I've
just
the
intention
of
that-
was
absolutely
to
help
build
more
trust
and
more
confidence
with
our
residents
that
were
watching
out
and
we're
trying
to
do
the
right
things.
People
are
concerned
about
what's
happening
with
public
housing,
they're
concerned
about
the
evictions
and
when
they're
happening
they're
concerned
about
what
might
happen
if
one
of
their
scattered
site
housing
is
such
bad
shape
that
everybody
decides
it's
in
the
best
interest
to
tear
it
down
and
put
in
a
triplex,
which
is
probably
a
good
thing.
A
If
we
then
have
three
units
instead
of
one,
but
how
are
they
going
to
be
protect
and
cared
for
and
there's
just
some
more
details
that
we
could
work
out
and
I
do
think.
There
are
some
opportunities
that
by
slowing
this
down
and
by
making
sure
that
the
current
leadership
and
future
leadership
were
involved
and
working
together,
there
could
be
a
way
to
reach
out
to
more
residents.
A
So
they
could
have
more
confidence
and
more
trust
in
that,
and
I
and
I
think
I'll
call
the
vote
on
this
and
then
maybe
we
can
move
it
forward
without
recommendation
because
I'm
predicting
it's
going
to
fail,
but
I
was
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed
that
motion
doesn't
carry
I'll
move
to
forward
it
without
recommendation,
all
those
in
favor
of
forwarding
of
that
recommendation
say
aye
all
those
opposed.
A
So
what
happens
with
that
now.
L
A
A
This
is
a
staff
direction
that
was
worked
on
with
input
from
the
mayor's
office,
as
well
as
from
cpad
and
I.
Think
it's
something
that
we've
talked
about
for
a
long
time
and
kind
of
missed
the
opportunity,
because
we
didn't
dump
do
the
background
work
for
the
budget
this
year
and
the
sense
is
if
we're
really
going
to
be
doing
something
in
the
budget.
Let's
get
together
so
that
we
can
work
on
that
with
the
mayor's
office
and
and
understand
and
get
some
recommendations
moving
moving
forward,
councilmember
Goodman
thank.
F
A
F
F
So
are
we
gonna
not
do
something
so
that
we
can
are
we
gonna
do
something
less
like
with
our
affordable
housing
trust
fund
or
something
else
we're
gonna
do
less
so
that
we
can
fund
public
housing
now
I'm
just
interested
in
what
you're
thinking
by
bringing
this
forward
and
I
mean
since
you're,
the
chair
of
the
committee
and
you're
gonna
be
involved
in
trying
to
determine
where
money
goes
with
regard
to
housing.
I
think
that's
a
fair
question.
I
mean
Olevia
is
a
levy
just
saying.
F
Oh
one
or
two
percent
for
public
housing
adds
to
the
7
percent
levy
we're
already
looking
at
and
that
just
makes
housing
less
affordable
for
everybody
else.
My
taxes
going
up,
especially
in
places
quite
frankly
that
can
afford
it,
the
least
so
I'm
interested
in
what
source.
But
what
is
the
investment
that
you're
thinking
about
outside
of
what
we
already
invest?
Well,.
A
It
could
include
what
we're
already
investing
to.
Maybe
that's,
not
the
right
investment
so
do
I,
want
this
to
be
open
and
give
us
a
chance
to
come
back
with
some
best
recommendations
possible.
In
fact,
last
budget
we
didn't,
can
we
we
we
did
project
that
we
would
fill
the
hole
that
we
created
by
moving
some
of
that
three
million
from
stable
home,
stable
schools
to
another
use.
So
maybe
maybe
there's
a
it's
discussion
about
what
that
should
be.
A
A
I
think
when
you
and
I
were
both
on
the
council
for
security
and
those
kinds
of
things
for
them
to
which
I
I
would
not
support
now,
and
this
is
clearly
focused
on
preservation,
repair
and
creation
of
public
housing,
but
maybe
there'd
be
an
appetite
for
that.
A
F
Mr.
chair
every
item
that
we
want
in
the
budget,
are
we
gonna
put
together
a
staff
work
team
to
determine
how
we
can
put
something
into
the
budget,
because
in
one
week
we've
already
done
it
twice
so
I'm
just
wondering:
what's
the
next
thing,
I
would
assume
vision.
Zero
is
gonna,
have
a
work
team
to
put
together
to
determine
how
we're
gonna
do
that,
just
because
I'm
sitting
there
it
could
be
in
any
area
I
could
be
in
public
health.
F
F
A
Homelessness
is
a
critical
problem
in
our
city,
deeply
affordable
housing.
Isn't
it
is
an
incredible
need
that
we
have
right
now
we're
focused
on
that.
We
talk
about
how
it's
such
a
big
priority.
Absolutely
it's
something
that
we
need
to
work
on
and
I
think
by
getting
some
people
together.
It's
gonna
help
us,
maybe
we're
gonna
find
out
that
vision.
A
Zero
is
also
that
critically
important
and
we
should
have
a
work
team
working
on
that
I
forget
what
workgroup
we
just
started
in
adrs,
but
I
think
we
came
up
with
something
to
help
small
businesses
so
I'm
not
sure
what,
where
we'll
stop
or
where
we'll
go.
But
I
think
this
is
a
critically
important
need.
A
I
think
we
need
to
focus
some
attention
and
resources
here
and
bring
together
a
team
I
think
we
saw
in
the
past
years
we're
not
doing
this
work
in
advance,
made
it
harder
for
her
us
to
have
something
clear
and
an
ask
that
we
could
have
together
where
the
city
could
come
with
mPHA,
and
we
could
say
we
think
this
is
a
good
plan
and
it
will
provide
support.
It's.
F
Worth
you
not
doing,
the
work
in
advance
on
the
budget
is
one
of
the
biggest
problems
which
is
by
biennial.
Budgeting
was
so
important
so
that
one
year
we
can
do
work
like
this
and
the
next
year
we
could
actually
adopt
a
budget,
but
you
were
the
person
who
didn't
want
to
do
that
so
in
we
have
a
budget
every
year
now
and
for
like
five
minutes
staff
aren't
working
on
the
budget.
I
would
guess.
Mr.
Frank
can
tell
me,
when
is
your
budget
information
due
to
the
mayor's
office.
E
F
March
is
what
he
said
so
if
they
just
finished
the
budget
in
December
and
now
they're
moving
towards
March
and
now
you're.
Adding
a
work
team
on
this
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
biennial
budgeting
would
have
allowed
us
to
have
a
year
to
do
this
kind
of
thing,
but
instead
they're
now
gonna
be
asked
to
create
a
work
team
to
come
up
with
some
budget
thing.
In
addition
to
all
the
other
budget
things
they
are
willing
and
needing
to
do
so.
I
So
I
I
take
councilmember
Goodman's
points
about
sort
of
these
one-off
directions
to
staff
and
there
have
been
a
lot
of
them.
I
do
think,
though,
that
in
the
discussions
with
this
sort
of
summary
that
we've
seen
from
housing
that
they
were
working
on
around
their
funding
and
the
discussions
we're
seeing
in
our
community
and
among
colleagues
that
there
is
a
lot
of
interest
in
longer
term,
affordability
and
permanent
affordability
and
supporting
public
ownership
of
land
and
housing,
and
so
I'm
happy
to
support
this
staff
direction.
I
I
didn't
you
know,
I,
don't
know
how
much
capacity
it's
really
asking
for
and
I
think
as
we
move
forward,
you
know
I
think
we
do
need
to
continue
to
do
those
check-ins
and
and
make
sure
we
know
we're
really
asking
or
if
it
is
reasonable
or
possible
to
complete
the
work,
but
with
the
understanding
that
it
would
be
an
essential
extension
of
the
kinds
of
discussions
are
already
happening
around
housing.
We
have
this
very
long
term.
Affordability,
study
happening
I
know
that
this
is
intended
to
inform
the
budget
process.
That's
coming
up.
I
So
anyway,
I'm
willing
to
support
the
staff
direction.
I
would
look
to
staff
to
say
you
know
to
see
what's
really
possible
between
now
and
those
budget
discussions
with
the
mayor,
but
I
think
at
the
least.
It
does
signal
to
me
or
FRA
that
we
are
willing
partners
here
on
the
council
to
continue
to
support
this
movement
toward
long
term
affordability,
to
partnerships
with
the
public
housing
authority
like
stable
home,
stable
schools,
so
I'm
I'm,
okay,
to
support
them.
I.
A
All
right
move
to
forward
that
with
so
that's
a
fail
to
vote
three
to
three:
that's
how
I
heard
it!
That's
all
I!
Hopefully
the
clerk's
would
agree
with
that.
Could
we
move
this
forward
without
recommendation,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye
opposed
that
passes
and
then
seeing
no
further
business
before
that.