[0:22] » Good afternoon, and welcome

[0:23] to the regular meeting of the

[0:25] committee of the whole for

[0:27] monday, august 10, 2026.

[0:29] my name is you are rin

[0:30] chowdhury, and I'm the chair

[0:32] of this committee.

[0:33] I will call this regular

[0:34] meeting to order and ask the

[0:35] clerk to call the roll to

[0:37] verify the presence of a

[0:38] quorum.

[0:44] payne prent.

[0:45] » Wonsley is absent.

[0:46] » Vetaw.

[0:47] » Present.

[0:47] » Warren.

[0:48] » Present.

[0:48] » Osman is sbt.

[0:50] » Shaffer.

[0:51] » Present.

[0:52] » Stevenson is absent.

[0:53] » Chavez.

[0:54] » Present.

[0:55] » Whiting.

[0:56] » Present.

[0:57] » Palmisano is absent.

[1:00] vice chair chughtai.

[1:01] » Present.

[1:02] » And chair chowdhury.

[1:05] » Present.

[1:06] » There are nin members

[1:07] present.

[1:07] » Thank you, let the record

[1:09] reect that we have a quorum.

[1:10] before we start the meeting,

[1:11] let me ask a friendly reminder

[1:13] that these meetings are

[1:15] broaast live to enable

[1:17] greater public participation.

[1:18] the broadcast include realtime

[1:20] captioning to increase

[1:21] accessibility for our entire

[1:22] community.

[1:23] so it's important thatll

[1:24] speakers be mindful of the

[1:25] rate of their speech so that

[1:27] our captioners can ful

[1:29] capture and transcribe all

[1:30] comments for the broadcast.

[1:32] we ask all speakers to please

[1:35] moderate the speed and later

[1:36] of their comments.

[1:40] colleagues, our anda is in

[1:42] front of us, are there any

[1:43] amendments to make before we

[1:45] begin?

[1:45] and we are using speaker

[1:47] management, so please jump in

[1:50] if you have any amendments.

[1:52] okay.

[1:53] I don't see any amendments.

[1:55] so I will move to adopt the

[1:57] agenda.

[1:57] is there a secon

[1:58] » Second.

[1:59] » All those in favor say aye.

[2:02] those posed say nay.

[2:03] the motion carries.

[2:05] we will start with our

[2:07] standing committee report,

[2:08] starting with the business,

[2:10] housing and zoning committee.

[2:12] and I will give the report, as

[2:14] the committee's vice chair.

[2:16] so the business, housing,

[2:18] zoning committee will be

[2:19] bringing 20 items forward to

[2:21] thursday's council meeting.

[2:24] item number 1 approves a

[2:25] permanent expansion of

[2:27] premises and sidewk way.

[2:29] item number 2 approves a

[2:30] permanent expansion of

[2:32] premises and sidewalk café for

[2:33] bills bait shop.

[2:37] item number 1 a resolution

[2:40] approving the minneapolis

[2:41] tourism district toontinue

[2:43] collecting a service charge.

[2:44] item number 4 appves two

[2:46] liquor licenses.

[2:47] item number 5 approves 15

[2:49] liquor licse renewals.

[2:51] item number 6 approves two

[2:54] gambling licenses.

[2:55] item number 7 approves four

[2:57] gambli license renewals.

[2:59] item number 8 approves a

[3:00] rezoning application for the

[3:02] neighborhood development

[3:03] center at 2941 chicago avenue.

[3:07] item number.

[3:07] approves an appointment to the

[3:10] minneapolis workforce

[3:11] development board.

[3:11] item number 10 authorizes a

[3:14] contract amendment for pizza

[3:16] project at the convention

[3:17] center.

[3:18] item number 11 accepts a bid

[3:21] for target sister's interior

[3:23] doors.

[3:23] item number 2 accepts a bid

[3:25] for the convention center

[3:28] concession stand's remodel

[3:29] project.

[3:30] item 13 approves a loan

[3:31] forgivess for the lindquist

[3:33] apartments at 1931 west

[3:35] broadway avenue.

[3:36] item number 14 auth authorizes n

[3:41] ownership opptunity fund

[3:43] loan for the business.

[3:45] item number 15 amends a

[3:48] previous contract andment to

[3:50] correct the not to exceed

[3:52] amount.

[3:52] item number 16 grants the 2026

[3:55] hennepin county transit

[3:56] oriented community awards and

[3:57] authorizes a

[3:58] multijurisdictional agreement.

[4:00] item number 17 is a resution

[4:02] accept a reimbursement

[4:04] donation from the

[4:05] international codcouncil.

[4:06] item number 18 is resolution

[4:09] accepting donation from the

[4:11] international association of

[4:13] plumbing and mechanical

[4:13] officials.

[4:14] item number 19 proofs a

[4:19] dwelling license reinstatement

[4:20] for the property at 2131 ilian

[4:26] avenue north.

[4:27] and lastly, item 20 is

[4:29] nominating an appointment to

[4:31] the minnesota ballpark

[4:32] authority.

[4:32] and I'll note to members, this

[4:34] was sent without

[4:37] recommendation and the other

[4:37] thing that I would just

[4:38] highlight that would be good

[4:39] for folks to take a loo at is

[4:41] the resolution approvalsing

[4:44] the minneapolis improvement

[4:46] tourism district and the

[4:46] annual report they give.

[4:47] this is the first annual

[4:48] report that they gave to our

[4:52] committee following the

[4:53] ordinance that was passed last

[4:54] term.

[4:54] and just wanted to shout-out

[4:57] council member rainville and

[4:59] council member wonsley for

[5:02] authoring the improvement

[5:05] tourism district ordinance.

[5:06] and I think that's something

[5:07] we should take a look at.

[5:09] members, are there any

[5:10] estions on this report?

[5:13] okay.

[5:14] seeing none, we will now go to

[5:16] the climate and infrastructure

[5:17] committee and that's going to

[5:19] be given by council member

[5:22] vetaw.

[5:23] » Thank you, madam chair.

[5:24] the climate and infrastructur

[5:25] committee has 18 items to

[5:27] bring foard.

[5:27] item number 1 is sidewalk

[5:29] repair and construction

[5:30] assessments.

[5:30] item 2.

[5:31] the gopher garden large

[5:33] block event permit for

[5:35] september 3, 2026.

[5:36] item 3 is the annual target

[5:40] tother, core week block

[5:40] event permit for september 14

[5:43] through 18, 2026.

[5:44] item 4 is the target together,

[5:47] core week community

[5:49] celebration block event permit

[5:51] for september 16th, 2026.

[5:53] item number 5 is the loring

[5:56] alley live 2026 music festival

[5:59] for august 14, 2026.

[6:02] item number 6 is mode by

[6:05] ickr large block event

[6:07] permit for september 18

[6:08] through 20, 2026.

[6:10] item 7 is contract amendment

[6:12] with hennepin county for road

[6:14] maintenance assistance.

[6:15] item 8 is nongovernmental tax

[6:20] exempt partial street

[6:22] maintenance 2027 assessments.

[6:23] item 9 is nongovernmental tax

[6:26] exempt streetlight operation

[6:27] fee for 2027 assessment.

[6:30] item 10 is a contract

[6:32] amendment with st. Paul for

[6:34] the eb spo netwo project

[6:37] agreement, item 11 is a

[6:38] contract withhe university

[6:40] of washington urban freight

[6:41] labn support of themart

[6:44] grant stage 2 project.

[6:46] item 12 is a contract with the

[6:50] university of minnesota center

[6:51] for transportation studies in

[6:52] pport of the smart grant

[6:54] stage 2 project.

[6:55] item 13 is bid for large

[7:00] diameter cured I place pipe

[7:02] lining 2026.

[7:02] item 14 is a contrt

[7:05] amendment with z companies,

[7:06] inc., for engineering and

[7:08] design services for the north

[7:09] side greenway phases 1 and 2

[7:12] project.

[7:15] item 15 is contract amendments

[7:16] with moltonnd mink, inc.,

[7:21] and alliant engineering, inc.,

[7:22] r engineering and design

[7:23] services for the 38th

[7:24] street and chicago avenue

[7:27] george floyd square street

[7:28] reconstruction project.

[7:29] item 16 is a contract

[7:32] amendment for alliant

[7:34] engineering, inc., for

[7:35] bloomington avenue and

[7:36] minnehaha parkway, safety

[7:39] improvement project.

[7:41] 17 is a legislative directive

[7:43] related to zero waste funding.

[7:46] and item 18 is the 2026

[7:49] through 2029 climate and

[7:51] infrastructure committee work

[7:52] plan and I'll stand for any

[7:54] questions.

[7:55] neu>> members, are there any

[8:04] questions or comments?

[8:06] council member warren.

[8:07] » I have a question.

[8:09] in our committee meeting,

[8:10] there were some presentations

[8:11] that we were going to take up.

[8:12] how are we doing that?

[8:14] is that going to happen in the

[8:15] full council?

[8:16] » Great question.

[8:17] we aually do have it on our

[8:18] agenda today.

[8:19] it's item number 2, we moved

[8:22] contract with oncourse home

[8:27] solutions for asewer lateral

[8:29] insurance program here.

[8:30] an the chair for the climate

[8:32] and infrastructure plan should

[8:33] moved approval because it had

[8:34] been ptponed and it was justgoit

[8:37] slides, whh is attached to

[8:38] the rca.

[8:39] so we're not doing that

[8:40] presentation because under the

[8:41] discretion of the vice chair.

[8:43] » Thank you for the

[8:44] clarification.

[8:45] » Yes.

[8:46] great question.

[8:50] we will next go to the

[8:52] enterprise, labor relations

[8:53] committee.

[8:53] that report will be given by

[8:55] its vace chair -- advice

[8:58] chair.

[8:58] council member whiting.

[8:59] » Thank you, madam chair.

[9:00] the enterprise and reb rib

[9:03] relations committee has six

[9:04] items t bring forward today.

[9:06] number 1 is authorize an

[9:08] agreement with the los angeles

[9:10] organizing committee for the

[9:10] city of minneapolis to serve

[9:12] as the host city for the l.a.

[9:15] 028 summer olympic games flame

[9:17] d torch relay.

[9:18] item number is a contract

[9:20] amendment with roshon

[9:24] corporation for the police

[9:25] department annex buildout

[9:26] project.

[9:27] item number 3 is a contract

[9:29] amendment with various

[9:29] entities to provide

[9:32] computer-aided dispatch and

[9:35] related mobile equipment

[9:35] support services.

[9:37] item number 4 is a legal

[9:38] settment for worrs

[9:40] compensation claim of heather

[9:44] bithal.

[9:44] item number 5 is approving the

[9:46] establishment of one appointed

[9:48] assistant city clerk position

[9:50] to support operational

[9:50] leadership within the

[9:52] legislative support division.

[9:53] and item number is

[9:55] confirming the city clerk's

[9:57] appointment of ken dahler to

[10:00] the appointed position of

[10:03] assistant city clerk for

[10:05] legislative support.

[10:06] I'll stand for questions.

[10:09] » If there are no questions

[10:09] for members, we will now move

[10:11] to the final report of the

[10:13] public health, safety and

[10:15] equity committee, given by its

[10:17] chair, council member chavez.

[10:18] » Tnk you, madam chair.

[10:20] the public health, safety a

[10:22] equity committee will be

[10:23] bringing forward nine items.

[10:25] item number 1 and 2 authorize

[10:27] a contract amendment with the

[10:29] burebureau of criminal

[10:30] apprehension for the human

[10:33] trafficking investigators task

[10:34] force, crime analyst and

[10:35] investigators.

[10:37] item 3 authorizes a contract

[10:39] amendment with canopy roots

[10:42] for behavioral crisis rponse

[10:43] services.

[10:45] item 4 accepts the public

[10:46] health emergency preparedness

[10:48] grant to support emergency

[10:50] preparedness activities.

[10:53] item 5 accepts the public

[10:54] health resnse sustainability

[10:56] grant, emergency response.

[10:58] item 6 accepts the minnesota

[11:01] department of public safety

[11:03] for bomb disposal equipment

[11:04] and training and authorizes an

[11:05] agreement for the grant.

[11:08] item 7, 8, 9 are gift

[11:11] acceptances for staff

[11:13] conference attends.

[11:14] and in the committee we also

[11:15] heard a report from the city

[11:17] trees program annual report.

[11:18] we heard a report from the

[11:21] minneapolis tree advisory

[11:22] commission, 2026, so that

[11:24] annual report.

[11:24] we also heard an update on the

[11:27] policy and procedures report

[11:29] from theolice department

[11:30] related to allison lusher and

[11:34] davis maturi.

[11:37] members of the committee gave

[11:37] feedback for a more thorough

[11:39] presentation next time.

[11:39] and then we also heard an

[11:41] update from our legislative

[11:43] research office regarding

[11:44] public safety policies and

[11:45] practices related to public

[11:47] gatherings and transparency

[11:48] where there was an outline of

[11:49] a variety of different

[11:50] recommendations.

[11:54] » Thank you council member.

[11:55] e there any questns on

[11:56] that report?

[11:59] seeing none,e wil now turn

[12:00] to the two items on our

[12:02] discussion agenda.

[12:05] our first discussion item is

[12:08] comingrom staff at cped and

[12:09] it is related to heritage

[12:12] park, deveping a voluntary

[12:14] relocation plan.

[12:15] I will have director hansen

[12:17] speak more on the item.

[12:19] and will just give the

[12:20] director a ltle bit of time

[12:22] to get set up and welcome.

[12:29] » Good afternoon, madam

[12:30] chair, members of the

[12:31] committee.

[12:31] my name is erik hansen, I am

[12:33] the director of community

[12:36] planning and economic

[12:37] development.

[12:37] and I'm here today to provide

[12:38] an update on heritage park,

[12:40] and specifically to present a

[12:43] proposed heritage park

[12:44] voluntary relocation plan

[12:45] policy.

[12:47] the purpose of this policy

[12:49] would provide eligible

[12:50] heritage park residents who

[12:52] have health or safety concerns

[12:55] with volunteer option to

[12:56] relocate.

[12:57] I'll walk through the current

[12:59] situation at heritage park,

[13:00] the proposed eligibility

[13:02] requirements, the relocation

[13:03] proces and the financial

[13:05] assistance that would be

[13:06] available through the policy.

[13:12] befo we get started I want

[13:14] to briefly update you on the

[13:16] heritage -- the status of

[13:17] heritage park.

[13:18] as I shared with you last

[13:20] month, heritage park is a

[13:23] 444-unit mixed rental

[13:23] community in ward 5.

[13:24] that was developed in fou

[13:26] phases.

[13:26] currently only 211 units are

[13:28] occupied with an estimated

[13:29] popution of more than 680

[13:31] people.

[13:32] living in those units.

[13:36] heritage park hasoth rental

[13:38] and ownership unit as a master

[13:39] plan site.

[13:40] the map highlights the four

[13:41] phases of the rental project

[13:44] components that were owned in

[13:47] four subsidiary units.

[13:54] mbs built the rental housing

[13:56] between 2002 and 2006.

[14:02] there are several important

[14:04] developments that provide

[14:04] context to today's policy.

[14:06] heritage park continues to be

[14:07] in a court order receirship.

[14:12] the city continues to work

[14:15] with sertis and minneapolis

[14:17] public housing authority to

[14:18] coordinate responses to the

[14:19] conditions that I raised last

[14:21] time I was here to talk to you

[14:22] about this.

[14:23] lamonth you approved $2.5

[14:25] million for emergency repairs

[14:26] and relocation assistance.

[14:27] right after that the -- that

[14:30] approval, the emergency

[14:31] management department set up

[14:33] the heritage park coordination

[14:35] group.

[14:35] that group focused on

[14:37] identifying and respondg to

[14:38] urgent household-specific

[14:40] needs and working with the

[14:44] mpha, -- working the mpha and

[14:46] the receiver on outcomes.

[14:58] starting in august, cped

[15:00] resumed leadership of the

[15:03] coordination group at the

[15:05] process will require a

[15:07] sustaine effort -- sustained

[15:08] attention as we assess the

[15:09] long-term plan for

[15:11] rehabilitation and work

[15:13] with -- work through the

[15:14] process of relocation.

[15:15] one outcome of this initial

[15:16] work of the coordination group

[15:18] was the identification of the

[15:19] need for an approved policy

[15:22] for voluntary relocation to

[15:24] support the fdingved to

[15:26] assist residents who may want

[15:27] to relocate.

[15:33] now I'll go through the

[15:34] policy.

[15:34] the policy is intended to full

[15:36] an important gap.

[15:37] there are heritage park

[15:39] residents who may have health

[15:40] or safety concerns and may

[15:41] want to relocate.

[15:43] but who do not qualify for

[15:45] relocation assistance from

[15:47] other agencies.

[15:48] this policy provides voluntary

[15:50] relocation assistance for

[15:51] those eligibleouseholds.

[15:53] there are two primary

[15:55] components.

[15:56] first, there's a movin

[15:57] stipend to help cover the

[15:59] practical costs of moving and,

[16:00] second, there's a rent

[16:03] differential benefit that can

[16:05] help households managed the

[16:06] potential increased housing

[16:08] costs associated with moving

[16:11] to an appropriate replacement

[16:12] unit.

[16:13] taken together,he estimated

[16:14] support illustrated in this

[16:16] policy is approximately $6,500

[16:19] to $12,500 per household,

[16:21] depending on household size --

[16:26] household and unit si and

[16:27] actual rent differential.

[16:28] and I'll get into the details

[16:29] of that shortly.

[16:36] eligibility, eligible

[16:36] residents who have health or

[16:37] safety concerns can choose to

[16:39] relocate and receive

[16:40] assistance if they meet the

[16:41] policy requirements.

[16:42] choosing to receive 'benefits

[16:44] from this policy is voluntary

[16:47] and residen -- for residents

[16:48] that are not in mpha units.

[16:52] residents of mpha housing

[16:54] units are not eligible for

[16:55] these city benefits under ts

[16:57] policy.

[16:58] mpha residents will need to

[17:00] continue with them on

[17:01] transfers and available moving

[17:03] assistance from the mpha

[17:05] directly

[17:05] currently of the 211 occupied

[17:09] units, 128 are mpha units and

[17:13] 83 household would be eligible

[17:14] for this policy.

[17:15] cped is working to contract a

[17:19] relocation consultant to

[17:19] perform the work with the

[17:20] residents.a household must recee

[17:24] eligibility approval from

[17:25] the -- from tt relocation

[17:27] consultant before moving.

[17:31] households receiving rental

[17:33] vouchers are eligible,

[17:34] although they wld need to

[17:35] consult their subsidy provider

[17:37] to understand whether

[17:38] accepting these benefits has

[17:39] any implication on their

[17:41] vouchers.

[17:42] there are several important

[17:43] dates in this polic

[17:45] a household must have legally

[17:46] occupied a heritage park unit

[17:48] as of july 18, 2026.

[17:51] that household then must

[17:52] report health or safety

[17:54] concerns to the city by

[17:56] october 15th of this year.

[17:57] and then the household must

[18:00] relocate outside of heritage

[18:01] park no later than january

[18:05] 31st, 2027.

[18:07] there is a six-month extension

[18:10] that the cped director may

[18:12] provide to that moving

[18:14] deadline in case of hardship

[18:16] to provide some flexibility.

[18:22] the next component in this

[18:26] dividualized relocation

[18:29] assessment is the assesent

[18:31] services.

[18:32] eligible households will work

[18:33] directly with the city's

[18:35] relocation consultant to

[18:36] identify an appropriate

[18:37] housing option based on the

[18:39] individual circumstances of

[18:39] that household.

[18:42] that incdes household

[18:44] preferences, schooling and

[18:45] transportation needs,

[18:46] affordability, the

[18:47] availabili of decent, safe,

[18:49] and sanitary housing, andny

[18:52] necessary mpha approvals.

[18:54] the receiver has also

[18:55] indicated a wilngness to

[18:56] allow for relocating

[18:58] households to end their

[18:59] existing leases.

[19:02] and return any security

[19:03] deposits.

[19:04] we will encourage residents to

[19:07] seek professional legal advice

[19:09] regarding the implications of

[19:11] accepting assistance and

[19:12] ending their currentease.

[19:16] resident choice and agency

[19:17] remains fundamental to this

[19:18] policy and our work.

[19:20] if a household cannot identifyae

[19:23] housing option and it does

[19:26] not -- and it does not have to

[19:28] proceed with the relocation.

[19:31] finally, if someone relocates

[19:33] and later wants to return to

[19:35] heritage park, they would need

[19:36] to go through the property's

[19:39] standard new resident

[19:40] application process.

[19:44] there are two financial

[19:45] components of this policy, and

[19:46] I'll get into that in depthhere.

[19:47] the first is a permanent

[19:49] relocation benefit.

[19:52] in simple terms, this is

[19:53] designed to help address the

[19:55] increased housing costs that a

[19:57] house head may experience when

[19:58] moving to an appropriate

[19:59] replacementnit.

[20:00] the benefit is based on 12

[20:02] months of the difference

[20:02] between a household's current

[20:04] out-of-pocket rent and the

[20:06] rent for the approved housing

[20:09] unit.

[20:09] taking into consideration any

[20:12] voucher benefits that they

[20:12] might he.

[20:14] the replacement unit must be

[20:18] appropriately sized and

[20:19] approved to be habitable by

[20:20] the relocation consultant.

[20:21] there is also a cap on the

[20:23] benefit based on the hud 6

[20:26] area median income standard

[20:29] and 30% affordability

[20:31] threshold.

[20:31] the second component is a

[20:32] moving stipend.

[20:33] this is a flat amount based on

[20:37] bedroom size of the unit the

[20:39] household is leaving.

[20:39] it is intended to address

[20:41] practical relocation expenses.

[20:43] things like application fees,

[20:45] moving costs, transportation,ust

[20:50] stipend ranges from $3,500 for

[20:54] a one-bedroom to $7,500 for

[20:56] the five-bedroom units.

[20:58] and, importantly, $500 of t

[21:00] moving stipend can be made

[21:02] available early once the

[21:04] eligible household is met --

[21:07] has met the relocation

[21:08] consultant and identified an

[21:10] acceptable unit or when the

[21:11] cped director approves other

[21:14] health or safety-related

[21:15] emergency needs.

[21:18] give you a sense of the

[21:19] calculations.

[21:19] you see on this slide

[21:23] il

[21:23] like to speak.

[21:24] we will first go to council

[21:25] member warren.

[21:26] » Thank you, chair.

[21:31] thank you, director hansen,

[21:32] for the hard work that the

[21:33] city has done in organizing

[21:38] this relocation policy.

[21:46] and I don't have a problem

[21:48] with the relocation assistance

[21:50] that's being given.

[21:50] I just have an issue with the

[21:51] fact that the individuals who

[21:53] are participating -- who are

[21:57] participant of minneapolis

[21:58] public housing authority are

[21:59] essentially being punished for

[22:01] being low to no income.

[22:06] we know that individuals who

[22:07] have low to no income and are

[22:10] receiving public housing are

[22:11] the ones who need help the

[22:13] most.

[22:16] and I'm upset at the fact that

[22:19] for the last several months,

[22:22] since the 23rd of march,

[22:23] since this was placed on my

[22:25] desk and I was brought to the

[22:27] attention of coming to meet

[22:29] with the 30 residen that

[22:32] were there above the office in

[22:34] the manement building that

[22:36] we're talking about the

[22:37] conditions in heritage park,

[22:40] there hasn't been a response

[22:46] of effort and those are the

[22:46] people who are the most

[22:47] vulnerable, those are the

[22:48] people who have been crying

[22:49] out for the longest, and

[22:50] they've been being gas lit by

[22:54] mpha, they've been being gas

[22:57] lit by proper solutions,

[22:58] they've been being told that

[23:00] theiunits have passed

[23:02] inspection, they're being told

[23:03] that theyidn't need to move,

[23:07] that there is not anything

[23:08] that I wrong with the

[23:11] conditions inhich they're

[23:13] living in.

[23:14] the thing that stood out to me

[23:15] the most in this relocation

[23:17] policy is the fact that there

[23:21] are people, you say residents,

[23:23] who may not want to relocate

[23:26] on mpha.

[23:27] there isn't a choice.

[23:28] because if you're inspecting

[23:29] the properties and you know

[23:30] that there is mold on top of

[23:33] mold, that there are floors on

[23:35] top of floors, that there are

[23:36] walls on top of walls, that

[23:38] there's over 2,700 failing

[23:40] windows in that property, that

[23:44] the entire envelopes of the

[23:45] buildings have to beemoved,

[23:47] the stucco has to be removed,

[23:49] the siding has to be remov.

[23:51] and in order to do that, you

[23:52] have to cut off all the

[23:54] utilities for the property

[23:56] itself.

[23:56] the fact that I was told by

[23:58] the fire inspectornd fire

[24:02] chiefs that with buildings

[24:02] that are boarded with one or

[24:05] two residents living in there

[24:06] because the campus is cut like

[24:09] swiss cheese that with only

[24:10] one or two residents living in

[24:12] a building that it's not even

[24:15] safe, that in order to service

[24:18] that building in the event of

[24:22] an emergency, if there was a

[24:23] fire or anything, they would

[24:24] have to removall the boards

[24:26] from the building, which would

[24:27] delay a response to a family,

[24:29] it is not habitable

[24:30] if they have to remove all of

[24:33] the exterior envelope of the

[24:34] building, it's not habitable.

[24:36] if they have to depot inside

[24:38] and gut the entire inside of

[24:40] the building to remove the

[24:41] mold, it's not habitable.

[24:44] if every roof in heritage park

[24:46] has to be replad, it's not

[24:48] habitable.

[24:48] because the water intrusion is

[24:50] there.

[24:53] so I don't know why mpha,

[24:55] their board, their chairs,

[24:57] their whoever keeps

[24:59] gaslighting residents saying

[25:01] that there are -- that this

[25:03] place is somewhere where they

[25:05] can be, and the majority --

[25:08] theye taking advantage of

[25:09] not just low to

[25:10] moderate-income families, but

[25:11] a lot of them are immigrant

[25:13] families, too.

[25:13] we just had the entire city of

[25:15] minneapolis, through operation

[25:16] metrsurge, talk about

[25:18] standing up to fight for our

[25:19] neighbors, and here it is the

[25:20] people who need the most

[25:23] dang-on protection aren't

[25:23] receiving it.

[25:25] no one is standing up,

[25:26] fighting for them, and this is

[25:27] their first tier of public

[25:29] safety.

[25:35] coming to the table and doing

[25:38] anything they were supposed to

[25:39] do as far as being right to

[25:40] these people.

[25:41] you make it optional, keep

[25:42] lying to the board, saying

[25:44] that these units are passing

[25:45] inspection and they're not.

[25:45] and we know, I've read the

[25:47] reports, you've read the

[25:48] reports, we read the reports,

[25:49] do we not read the reports?

[25:51] we saw 'em.

[25:53] it's a real place.

[25:55] this is absolutely devastating

[25:59] and it's ignorant!

[26:01] I've lived in public housing.

[26:03] I've held a section 8

[26:04] certificate.

[26:06] I know how difficult it iso

[26:09] find housing and I know how

[26:11] expensive it is to move.

[26:16] the individuals who are in

[26:18] desperate need of this

[26:19] assistance, the difference

[26:20] between them applying for

[26:22] apartment, paying a security

[26:24] deposit or going out to go buy

[26:26] boxes is a difference for them

[26:28] having a roof ove their head

[26:30] or not.

[26:30] they can't afford this.

[26:31] they can't.

[26:33] this is not fair to them.

[26:41] and happy and everything, oh,

[26:43] we just built new sustainable

[26:45] housing, solar panels, this,

[26:46] that, and the other on south

[26:47] minneapolis, but according to

[26:48] your mission statement, you

[26:49] said that you were there to

[26:51] protect, preserve, in

[26:51] partnership and all the rest

[26:52] of this stuff with minneapolis

[26:55] public housing.

[26:56] preservation means taking care

[26:57] of the stock you already got.

[26:59] how you planning for tomorrow

[26:59] when you didn't do anything

[27:01] about today?

[27:04] doesn't make any sense at all.

[27:06] it's absolutely disrespectful.

[27:10] affordable housing and public

[27:11] housing is not a sentence.

[27:14] and their health and

[27:15] well-being is not discounted

[27:18] because their income is low.

[27:22] mpha needs to get their shit

[27:24] tother.

[27:25] that's all I got to say.

[27:26] the end.

[27:30] » All right.

[27:30] thank you, council member

[27:33] warren.

[27:33] I ve myself in queue.

[27:36] director hansen, thank you for

[27:37] the presentation.

[27:39] could you just, like, walk

[27:40] through a little bit on how

[27:42] this policy was developed with

[27:44] your team and then kind of the

[27:48] realtime, on-the-ground

[27:49] considerations in making it?

[27:52] » Chair chowdhury, good

[27:53] questions.

[27:54] so, if you recall, if I can,

[27:57] I'm going to comment on se

[28:00] of the council member warren's

[28:02] observations here.

[28:05] back a month ago, we were in

[28:06] front of you with an ergency

[28:09] situation.

[28:10] and when I spoke to you about

[28:12] that, we were talking about

[28:13] something with incomplete

[28:15] information.

[28:18] we knew that it was evolvg,

[28:20] the situation at heritage park

[28:21] was evolving.

[28:25] and we needed to make sure

[28:27] that there were resources

[28:28] available for peopleho

[28:29] wanted to go.

[28:32] I will agree with the council

[28:34] member on the conditions of

[28:35] the buildings.

[28:35] I talked about the threshold

[28:37] questi of are the buildings

[28:38] worth saving or not, we have

[28:40] still not been to a

[28:42] definitive, can we save the

[28:43] buildings or not?

[28:44] I think we're on the side of

[28:46] the fence where we can.

[28:47] but we don't -- I can't give

[28:49] you with total confidence that

[28:51] we can save the buildings.

[28:52] and to that point, that means

[28:57] that there is no habitable

[28:59] unit.

[29:00] so when we were working

[29:04] getting the resources -- which

[29:05] I want to thank you for

[29:07] trusting staff to come to you

[29:09] and working through with

[29:12] incomplete information in an

[29:14] emergency -- we then the went

[29:15] to work.

[29:16] we had director sayer here at

[29:17] the migrate to talk about the

[29:19] coordination group that was

[29:20] stood up immediately after the h

[29:24] you, and that has been working

[29:25] and doing some assessments

[29:26] about what's happening and

[29:28] that's where we uncover that

[29:31] under our current picies we

[29:33] do not have the authority to

[29:35] provide relocation benefits

[29:36] unless we come back to you

[29:37] with this policy.

[29:39] so that's 'the reason we're

[29:41] here, and through that

[29:43] coordination group, that

[29:44] includes, you kw, at points

[29:46] the emergency management

[29:48] department, the other

[29:50] ancillary departments that

[29:51] were in that coordination

[29:53] group, like ncr, neighborhood

[29:56] community relations, or

[29:57] regulatory services, or the

[29:59] health department, as well as

[30:02] as pminent cped leadership

[30:03] and the city attorneys, and as

[30:05] we were working towards the --

[30:06] kind of the transition back to

[30:09] cped, we knew we had to come

[30:11] backith this policy.

[30:12] and, so, in earnest, for a

[30:16] majority of the last ten days,

[30:17] up until friday when we

[30:19] released this policyor you

[30:22] to review, it has city staff,

[30:28] workin with the city

[30:29] attorneys and housing staff,

[30:30] and our policy research and

[30:31] outreacheam, working to

[30:34] craft what we've learned from

[30:36] peoplen the ground at

[30:38] heritage park.

[30:39] so that's why we're tryingto --e

[30:42] in front of you is helping

[30:45] people for a year, the extra

[30:49] cost, we think, so they can

[30:50] meet it, and then figuring out

[30:52] what that stipend would be for

[30:55] moving.

[30:55] and we understand that the

[30:57] smaller your dwellg unit is,

[31:00] the likely -- lower cost than

[31:03] the larger units so that

[31:04] that's why you have a -- so

[31:06] that's why you have a

[31:08] graduated benefit to units.

[31:09] and as we do that, we still

[31:10] continue to talk about what

[31:11] is the condition of heritage

[31:13] park?

[31:13] and I want to address, the

[31:17] minneapolis public housing

[31:17] authority continues to work

[31:18] with the city of minneapolis

[31:19] and I will agree that they

[31:21] have not been as forthright,

[31:23] but they are finding resources

[31:28] for transfers of public

[31:30] housing units within heritage

[31:33] park for those that have to

[31:35] move because they have decided

[31:36] that - or determined that

[31:37] they're not habitable units

[31:38] anymore and they're worki

[31:40] towards resources for those

[31:42] that voluntarily want to

[31:44] transfer to other units.

[31:46] we have to hold -- they have

[31:49] resources, we have to hope

[31:50] that they're bringing those

[31:51] and we have to expect that the

[31:54] minneapolis public housing

[31:55] authority is bringing

[31:57] resources for minneapolis

[31:58] public housing authority

[31:59] residents.

[31:59] the city is here because we

[32:00] make the discretionary

[32:01] decision thaheritage park is

[32:03] important in this case and we

[32:04] need to help the others that

[32:05] don't have that path out that

[32:08] mpha units would.

[32:10] and that' what this policy is

[32:11] about.

[32:11] and I have to think about,

[32:14] like, at this moment in time,

[32:15] I'm thinking about what is

[32:18] heritage park now?

[32:19] what aree doing?

[32:21] how do we effectuate the

[32:22] funding in a reasonable and

[32:23] manageable way?

[32:24] how do we start working with

[32:25] the residents of heritage park

[32:27] that don't have a path out?

[32:30] this provides that option.

[32:31] and, you kw, get on the

[32:32] ground.

[32:33] we are bringing in a

[32:34] relocation consultant that

[32:35] will work with us, that can

[32:38] sit down with each individual

[32:39] household and work on, where

[32:41] do you want to go?

[32:42] what works for your family?

[32:43] where do your kids go to

[32:45] school?

[32:45] what other things do we need

[32:46] to think about?

[32:47] and that's going to take some

[32:48] time and that's wt we're

[32:49] going to manage.

[32:50] this helps us open that up so

[32:51] that we can start working

[32:52] towards that and I tnk

[32:53] that's going to help, and then

[32:55] we can go back to say, how did

[32:56] we get here?

[32:58] I mean, we're just focused, as

[32:59] much as we can, on the

[33:01] conditions of folks in

[33:04] heritage park now and

[33:05] hopefully we can get back and

[33:06] then we can talk about how we

[33:08] got here.

[33:08] and I'm all open for that

[33:10] conversation, how we got here,

[33:11] because we have to learn as a

[33:13] city, when we make these

[33:15] substantial investments into

[33:17] people's homes, this is not an

[33:18] fordable housing project,

[33:21] this is 400 homes that we

[33:23] invested in, and we had the

[33:26] front-row seat to this

[33:28] development, and now we're at

[33:30] this condition, we have the

[33:31] same conditions we were

[33:32] supposed to abate with the

[33:33] const decree.

[33:34] and now we're here.

[33:36] so it is important and

[33:38] imperative for cped to sit

[33:39] down and figure that o.

[33:40] we're going to work with the

[33:42] other departments that are

[33:44] within the city about what

[33:45] went wrong so we don't have

[33:47] this thing happen again.

[33:49] it is not delight me to be in

[33:50] front of you to talk about

[33:53] th, but it is important for

[33:53] the city to, when they know

[33:55] something, to do something and

[33:56] that's what wre here to do.

[33:58] I hope I answered your

[34:00] question.

[34:00] » Yeah.

[34:01] for sure, in part.

[34:04] I want to make sure we get to

[34:06] others r in the queue because

[34:07] there's a number of council

[34:09] members.

[34:10] I did have a question, maybe

[34:11] perhaps for the city attorney.

[34:13] could youind of speak to the

[34:18] risdictional issue that cped

[34:19] came across?

[34:22] that's requiring them bring

[34:23] this policy forward.

[34:25] » Sure.

[34:26] yeah.

[34:28] good afternoon.

[34:29] so, essentially our existing

[34:31] relocation policies, for

[34:35] example, for redevelopment of

[34:39] a project, which cped often

[34:42] uses didn't fit with this one

[34:43] because there isn't aually

[34:45] redevelopment occurring at the

[34:45] moment.

[34:46] and, so, -- and then there's

[34:47] also a separate temporary

[34:50] relocation policy that is

[34:51] generally used as part our

[34:53] lead abatement program that is

[34:54] really intended for a

[34:56] short-term, you know, right,

[35:00] contractors go in, remove the

[35:01] lead, someone comes back

[35:02] within a week.

[35:03] and neither of those seemed

[35:04] feasible here where the

[35:06] overall coition of the

[35:08] property and what the

[35:09] long-term plan is is still

[35:11] unclear.

[35:12] and, so, looking at those

[35:14] existing options, there wasn't

[35:17] anything that fits squarely in

[35:19] this need of a voluntary

[35:22] relocation of an undetermined

[35:23] duration.

[35:24] and, so, that was where we

[35:26] just did not think either

[35:29] existing policy would work and

[35:31] it would be better for

[35:33] everyone and I think provide a

[35:34] lot of clarity, frankly, for

[35:37] folks within heritage park to

[35:37] understand what the potential

[35:39] befits would be and have

[35:41] some clearly defined standards

[35:45] and benefits for how those

[35:47] determinations would be made

[35:47] instead of trying to just kind

[35:51] of cobble togetheromethingthrout

[35:53] don't really fit this

[35:54] scenario.

[35:55] » Okay.

[35:56] th's helpful.

[35:58] I definitely think it opens up

[35:59] other questions.

[36:00] my last thing, then I'll pass

[36:01] it on, is what I see attache

[36:05] in the lims file and the rca

[36:08] is not a typical policy format

[36:10] that we see.

[36:11] we usually see a policy

[36:12] resolution or an ordinance.

[36:14] could you speak to what policy

[36:16] format this is?

[36:18] that we are passing.

[36:20] or voting on.

[36:22] » Sure.

[36:23] so this one was drafted and

[36:26] intended so it woulde as

[36:27] clear as possible so folks

[36:28] both within the city and

[36:29] outside of the city would get

[36:32] a clear understanding of what

[36:32] the benefits would be and how

[36:35] the policy works.

[36:35] and, so, we want this to be

[36:39] someing that everyone can

[36:42] see.

[36:43] I think it is written somewhat

[36:45] similarly to our existing

[36:47] relocation polies from cped.

[36:48] but in terms of whether a

[36:50] resolution will be added to it

[36:51] or not, this is something

[36:52] we're working with the clerk's

[36:54] office to finalize before

[36:55] thursday.

[36:55] » Yeah.

[36:56] I see that this is available,

[36:57] clearly, for the public to

[36:59] understand.

[37:00] I just- for me, it's

[37:01] important that, like, we have

[37:03] clarity as a legislative body

[37:07] in what way we're approving

[37:10] legislation, right, because we

[37:13] typically have an author,

[37:15] there's no author on this.

[37:17] right?

[37:18] and we also have a process

[37:20] that shows, like, this is when

[37:23] it's enacted.

[37:24] I also have some questions

[37:25] about, like, do whave to

[37:27] pass something in order to

[37:29] void this policy?

[37:32] we're using the -- we're using

[37:33] the term "licy" really

[37:35] broadly, and up here every

[37:36] time we've had a policy

[37:38] discussion it hado be really

[37:40] clear in terms of this is the

[37:43] type of -- it's a policy

[37:44] resolution or it's an

[37:46] ordinance or it's this

[37:47] ecific thing.

[37:49] additionally, I feel like --

[37:51] this isn't to speak against

[37:54] this, I'm in no way doing

[37:56] that.

[37:56] I just think we're having a

[37:57] big issue with how this is

[37:59] formatted and how we are

[38:01] taking this up as a

[38:02] legislative body.

[38:03] there's obvioly a financial

[38:06] impact.

[38:06] there's the $2.5 million we

[38:08] passed, buthere isn't an

[38:10] attached fiscal note.

[38:10] so I just wanted to point that

[38:12] out.

[38:12] I don't know if there is

[38:17] anhing from director hansen

[38:20] or yourself, city attorney, in

[38:23] terms of kind of those

[38:24] leftover questions in terms of

[38:26] policy format and then fiscal

[38:27] note.

[38:33] » As to the policy format, I

[38:34] think this is similar to other

[38:36] cped policies, but we can

[38:38] certainly look at thatnd get

[38:39] back to you.

[38:40] » Yeah, that would be

[38:41] helpful.

[38:41] » On the formatting.

[38:42] » I hear that you'reaying

[38:43] it's similar to others.

[38:44] I just -- we're voting on

[38:45] something, and I know that

[38:47] cped hasnternal policies.

[38:48] so it would just be helpful.

[38:51] but happy to follow up later.

[38:56] council member vetaw, you're

[38:57] next in queue.

[38:57] » Thank you, chair.

[39:01] director, welcome back.

[39:03] just a few questions about

[39:06] some of the things you brought

[39:07] up in the presentation.

[39:09] have you selected a relocation

[39:12] consultant already?

[39:12] do w kno who that is?

[39:14] and when is that person going

[39:16] to start on this?

[39:18] » Chair chowdhury, council

[39:20] member vetaw, we are working

[39:25] to utilize an existing

[39:28] contract through public rks,

[39:30] so we don't have to do an rfp.

[39:32] so we have a fir called srf

[39:35] that we're negotiating a

[39:37] contract with.

[39:38] so it wouldn't be one person.

[39:40] it would be a group of people

[39:42] that have used -- that we've

[39:44] used to do relocation when we

[39:48] do tax projects and other cpe

[39:52] projects.

[39:54] » What does srf sta for, do

[39:56] you know?

[39:57] » Srf is a multiexpertise

[40:01] firm that does engineering,

[40:05] land planning, helps with

[40:08] housing projecti don't know howe

[40:11] them.

[40:12] they used to be just purely

[40:13] engineering firms.

[40:14] they have now expanded their

[40:16] work.

[40:16] it's not uncommon for

[40:17] companies like this that have

[40:19] typically, unfortunately, havetf

[40:23] is one that's been around for

[40:24] a while.

[40:25] has bought other companies

[40:26] that have done some of this

[40:27] work.

[40:28] so they have some expertise inr.

[40:30] but we need people -- we just

[40:32] need -- I mean, to be honest

[40:33] with you, we they'd people

[40:34] that can just sit down with

[40:36] households and work through

[40:37] their issues and we think

[40:39] that's going to expand our

[40:41] ability to do that quickly.>> I.

[40:44] I'm just looking to make sure

[40:46] we have a trusted source,

[40:47] right?

[40:47] like I get it that we have a

[40:49] history with this group.that's .

[40:52] bui also want to make sure

[40:54] that the people who live here

[40:57] feel comfortable approaching

[40:58] the folks who they need to

[40:59] t -- I mean, housing is very

[41:01] intimate, right?

[41:02] like these are people that you

[41:03] have to talk to about

[41:04] everhing.

[41:05] so I justant to make sure

[41:08] at whoever you select is --

[41:10] and I certainly understand the

[41:11] process of an rfp a how long

[41:14] that can take, in delay.

[41:19] I just want to make sure that

[41:21] whatever choice cped makes,

[41:23] these are trusted folks who we

[41:24] can rely on to be accepting

[41:26] and helpful to people around

[41:29] the needs they're facing,

[41:31] especially when you're saying

[41:32] things like, you know it's

[41:34] going to be a lot of things --

[41:35] I mean, it's going to get

[41:36] complicated.

[41:37] it's housing, right?

[41:39] like these are one-bedroom to

[41:42] five-bedroom units.

[41:44] thesere people who may have

[41:45] questions about things that

[41:46] existed -- didn't exi when

[41:48] they moved into heritage park.

[41:49] soius looking for a level of

[41:52] comfortrom whoever is going

[41:53] to be this relocation

[41:57] consultant.

[41:57] my next question is, it seems

[41:59] like the numbers changed since

[42:02] we talked originally whe you

[42:04] gave the presentation, and you

[42:05] told us the $2.5 million would

[42:08] go to assist with that.

[42:09] the number was shocking, it

[42:11] was over 600 people and 200

[42:13] families that needed to be

[42:14] relocated.

[42:16] what is the number now, you

[42:17] think?

[42:20] » Counci member chowdhury,

[42:22] council member vetaw, yes,

[42:23] this is the part of the

[42:24] conversation we were having

[42:25] with you about having

[42:27] imperfect information.

[42:28] » Yes.

[42:28] » And a we are putting

[42:30] together -- learning about the

[42:32] powers we have under theexistind

[42:34] for the policy that's in fnt

[42:36] of you, that's when we looked

[42:38] at which agencies would then

[42:41] provide assistance.

[42:42] and mpha, that's where we got

[42:44] a better understanding of who

[42:45] was in there.

[42:47] there's still 211.

[42:49] one household has left since

[42:50] the last time I was he.

[42:52] so it was 212 when I was back

[42:53] he.

[42:53] that's why you heard me say

[42:55] over 380 people, because I

[42:57] don't know how many people

[42:58] were in that household.

[42:59] we said 385, 386, the last

[43:02] time I was here about people

[43:03] that were in there.

[43:04] from o work in the last

[43:05] month, we've been able to

[43:07] discern that 128 of the

[43:11] households are mpha units of

[43:13] the occupied units and the

[43:15] remaining 83 would be eligible

[43:16] r this benefit.

[43:17] » Okay.

[43:19] and --

[43:19] » And 83 households, I don't

[43:21] know how many people are in

[43:24] those households, I didn't do

[43:26] that analysis.

[43:26] I will tell you about srf and

[43:28] relocation, I expect 83

[43:30] complex conversations.

[43:33] » Bsolutely.

[43:33] » Yeah.

[43:34] » And I don't know how much

[43:37] staffing srf has, that seems

[43:40] like a lot for 83 complicated

[43:44] households.

[43:44] » Yeah.

[43:44] » Okay.

[43:45] so we knowhat we've

[43:46] identified possibly 83

[43:49] households that could come

[43:51] through the city program.

[43:51] we don't know if they want to

[43:52] do it.

[43:53] » That's right.

[43:54] » But we've identified 83

[43:56] households that could come

[43:57] through this program.

[43:58] and you said that mpha is

[43:59] going to relocate the mpha

[44:02] families.

[44:03] is there a regular meeng,

[44:09] conversations with mpha t

[44:10] talk about a timeline or,

[44:13] like, -- because what I fr

[44:14] with this is that when people

[44:17] start sing the srf families

[44:19] getting relocated at a pace or

[44:23] vice versa, it could happen

[44:24] with mpha, then there will be

[44:27] some confusion, right?

[44:28] like people wl expect that

[44:29] they can get the same amount

[44:30] of money that we're offering

[44:31] to the families who can g

[44:33] through the cy program

[44:35] thugh public housing.

[44:35] and I don't know wha that

[44:36] looks like.

[44:38] so who is at this table with

[44:40] mpha and, like, how regular

[44:42] are you all meeting and how is

[44:44] this going to be communited

[44:47] to the families, you know, the

[44:49] differences in the programs?

[44:50] » Yeah, chair chowdhury,

[44:53] council member vetaw, very

[44:53] good questio

[44:55] one of the stumbling point

[44:56] we've had with residents at

[44:58] heritage parks we cannot

[45:00] articulate what the benefits

[45:01] are, and this is one of those

[45:03] sts.

[45:03] we're taking these kind of in

[45:07] in order as best we can.

[45:08] we're tking to the

[45:10] minneapolis public housing

[45:10] authority on a daily basis

[45:12] about their progress, about

[45:14] our expectations, about our

[45:16] partnership, we're talking

[45:17] with ser -- certus, the

[45:20] receiver, on a daily basis,

[45:22] we're talking with the

[45:23] property management on a daily

[45:24] basis.

[45:24] as we know what authority we

[45:25] have under this policy, we

[45:27] will then be putting together

[45:29] additional communications.

[45:30] we've hosted community hours

[45:33] already that we expect to do

[45:34] things like that engagement

[45:35] and make sure that we can

[45:37] demark the difference between

[45:39] transfer assistance through

[45:41] mpha and voluntary relocation

[45:43] assistance from the city.

[45:46] so, you know, get the policy

[45:48] approved, then move towards

[45:49] how to communicate that to get

[45:54] our relocation group in place,

[45:56] then get settled, because we

[45:57] don't wanto give people

[46:00] imperfect information, we'll

[46:01] give them the best but we

[46:03] don't want to give them

[46:04] incorrect information where

[46:05] people will think it's going

[46:07] to go quick or slow or what

[46:08] have you.

[46:09] we're working on that.

[46:09] like I said, since it's come

[46:11] back to cped, we've been

[46:14] focused primarily on getting

[46:16] this policy approved and then

[46:18] we will go to how to engage

[46:19] the community so everybody is

[46:20] clear.

[46:21] » Okay, thank you.

[46:22] yeah, I guess I'm just -- I'm

[46:25] just a little skeptical of,

[46:27] like, how you move forward

[46:29] with all these different

[46:31] moving parts in making sure

[46:32] people understand that, like,

[46:35] I don't want people to feel

[46:38] segregated from something,

[46:39] right?

[46:39] like you're coming the with

[46:41] people whore eligible for

[46:43] housing, but I'm not certain

[46:44] that there's going to be a

[46:46] representative there from mpha

[46:48] to offer up something, too.

[46:50] so I don't want the woman who

[46:52] lives in mpha to feel like s

[46:55] has to stay somewhere she

[46:56] doesn't want to, but the man

[46:58] who qualifiesor the city

[47:00] project -- so I'm hoping to

[47:03] see better coordination of,

[47:05] like, how thi is launched and

[47:09] how it's presented to people

[47:10] in a way to help but not

[47:13] divide, not to make some

[47:14] people feel likthey have an

[47:15] option and others to feel like

[47:17] they don't.

[47:18] and I guess that's wha I'm

[47:19] gonna be looking to make sure

[47:21] is happening because if I talk

[47:23] to people from there, I don't

[47:25] know, like, if they have a

[47:26] voucher or -- you know wha I

[47:28] mean?

[47:28] you don't know who has what

[47:30] and it just feels better,

[47:32] like, if we go in there with a

[47:35] coordinated plan with everyone

[47:36] who should be at the table to

[47:38] help, going in together, you

[47:40] ow, hosting people at the

[47:44] reception cter to come in

[47:45] andet help if they need it

[47:46] on all sides of this and not

[47:48] feeling like theity can only

[47:51] lp how many families and we

[47:52] don't know what's gonna hapn

[47:54] with other people.

[47:55] » Yeah, chair chair

[47:58] chowdhury, council member

[47:59] vetaw, I agree with you on all

[48:01] those pois f. We reflect

[48:03] back on what council member

[48:04] warren has said, information

[48:06] has not been clear.

[48:07] it is now important, more than

[48:10] ever, to have clarity of a

[48:11] message and coordination of a

[48:13] message so we're working with

[48:15] mpha t do exactly what you're

[48:17] talking about is to have both,

[48:18] we do not want to cause

[48:20] segregation within the

[48:21] community.

[48:24] » Next we have up in queue,

[48:27] council member shaffer.

[48:27] » Yh, a couple questions.

[48:30] is srf the srs consulting that

[48:32] works closely with mprb, is it

[48:34] that same organization that's

[48:36] working with public works?

[48:37] » Chair chowdhury, council

[48:39] member shaffer, I would

[48:40] suspect, yes.

[48:42] » Right off of 394?

[48:44] » Yeah.

[48:45] » Thank you, that's helpful.

[48:47] can you speak a little b to

[48:49] the fund that we allocated and

[48:50] what you anticipate spending

[48:51] out of that fund?

[48:53] it seemsike even with 83

[48:55] households, if they were five

[48:57] bedrooms, that's not even

[48:58] million dollars yet.

[48:58] so I'm just trying to

[49:00] understand, you know, some of

[49:00] it was for repairs, somef it

[49:02] was for relocation.

[49:03] can you speak a little bit to,

[49:05] you know, that was kd of a

[49:07] broad umbrella direction to

[49:08] help you.

[49:08] can you just speak to where

[49:10] you areight now with, okay,

[49:12] how much of that repair is

[49:13] actually going to happen or is

[49:14] that all going to relocation?

[49:17] » Chair chowdhury, uncil

[49:19] member shaffer, I'll give some

[49:20] context for people because it

[49:22] gets complicated.

[49:24] when we presented the $2.5

[49:27] million, that was a number

[49:30] that was for -- primarily for

[49:33] short-term rehab costs.

[49:34] it was for roofing, it was for

[49:36] hvac improvements, and it was

[49:37] for unit turns.

[49:38] and it went so quickly in the

[49:40] last week before we were in

[49:41] front of the council that we

[49:43] added t relocation and

[49:45] communicated to the council

[49:46] that we've been working on

[49:48] prioritizi relocation.

[49:49] and, so, that money came from

[49:52] the affordable housing trust

[49:53] fund.

[49:54] we're looking at the

[49:57] discretions with cped about

[49:59] where it would go.

[50:00] we could not get to how much

[50:01] it would cost to relocate

[50:03] until we have a plan, and that

[50:04] will come out of ts policy.

[50:07] that will give you the

[50:08] benefits.

[50:08] and to your point, it's, you

[50:10] know, going to probably not

[50:12] exceed $2.5 million.

[50:13] we will have to pay the

[50:15] relocation consultant.

[50:18] so thas the negotiation that

[50:19] we're working on, that's goingt5

[50:22] million.

[50:25] undetermined at this point.

[50:27] and then we're looking at th

[50:29] long term.

[50:29] like I don't know if we are

[50:31] going to authorize

[50:33] improvements, you know, we'

[50:35] focused primarily on making

[50:37] sure we have mey for

[50:38] relocation.

[50:38] after that, we could have

[50:40] funding available for rehab.

[50:43] unfortunately, I don't know if

[50:45] that's worth it without a

[50:46] global plan.

[50:48] so cped has bn working on

[50:49] the global plan with the

[50:51] receiver, mpha, and the

[50:54] property manager, and that is

[50:55] going to require tens of

[50:56] millions o dollars in rehab

[50:57] costs.

[50:58] and I think that might be our

[50:59] focus.

[51:00] we might be tacting towards

[51:02] that focus and you might see

[51:03] that the $2.5 million isn't

[51:05] fully exhausted through this,

[51:07] but it's still too early to be

[51:08] known but we'll be reporti

[51:10] out on expenses.

[51:11] we're starting with

[51:12] relocation.

[51:12] » Okay.before thursday, I would

[51:15] really like to understand what

[51:17] we're paying to srp, is it a

[51:21] percentage, is it a flat rate?

[51:22] I mean, this is getting back

[51:24] to the fiscal note that

[51:26] council member chowdhury was.

[51:28] so, I would like to have that

[51:30] be public knowledge what we're

[51:31] paying out of the fund.

[51:32] and then also, is that whole

[51:34] $2.5 then -- I thought it was

[51:35] for repairs and relocation.

[51:37] but that needs to be clarified

[51:39] to the counc.

[51:41] is it all now 2.5 going to

[51:43] relocation, that seemsike

[51:44] that's going to be more than

[51:45] what we really need.

[51:46] but I'd like to understand

[51:47] what we've already spent on

[51:51] hvac, et cetera, et cetera.

[51:51] was thatot out of the $2.5,

[51:54] that was a different fund?

[51:56] » Yeah.

[51:56] chair chowdhury, council

[51:58] member shaffer, w have

[52:00] $500,000 in the city's budget

[52:02] for ritage park.

[52:03] that is being negotiatedor

[52:06] air conditioning and hvac

[52:07] equipment now.

[52:11] the status of the building

[52:13] conditions exceed the

[52:15] available cash that are in

[52:16] that $2.5.

[52:18] so, again, back to that

[52:20] threshold question I continue

[52:21] to bring up, is it worth

[52:23] putting funding in it if we

[52:24] don't have the global

[52:28] financing package and that's

[52:28] going to cost tens of millions

[52:29] of dollars.

[52:30] the city will potentially --

[52:31] we'll be asked to participate

[52:32] in that.

[52:33] that will be likely, you know,

[52:34] housing revenue bonds or

[52:36] other, you know, financial

[52:38] instruments to help with that

[52:40] full thing.

[52:41] when it comes to the

[52:43] relocation consultants, srf

[52:46] that we're negotiating with, I

[52:47] will say it's in the hundreds

[52:49] of thousands of dollars.

[52:50] it is a fee for a service, not

[52:52] a percenta, it's not as if

[52:53] they find something and the

[52:54] get a percentage off, it's a

[52:57] fee fee for their work.

[53:02] we're still negotiating that.

[53:03] I can give you as best I can

[53:05] by thursday.

[53:05] but we won't have that scope

[53:08] of work in place by thursday.

[53:11] take off a couple hundred

[53:13] thousand for that srf work.

[53:16] we might have some available.

[53:17] you'll hear fro cped, we're

[53:18] not going to exhaust that $2.5

[53:21] million if it means putting

[53:22] money into rehab that's not

[53:23] going to get to the end goal.

[53:26] » I appreciate that.

[53:27] can y speak to who's

[53:31] responsible for the repairs?

[53:33] » It's the owner o the

[53:34] property.

[53:35] the owner of the property

[53:36] right now is mccormack baron

[53:39] zal cza and they have it in

[53:41] reefership.so certus financial s

[53:45] operating as the

[53:47] court-apinted receivership,

[53:48] which means they have all the

[53:50] ownership duties and

[53:50] responsibilities.

[53:51] but it's up to them to come up

[53:52] with the property.

[53:54] and they can come to us like

[53:57] all other housing developers

[53:58] for financing, but in my

[53:59] opinion, it's not the city's

[54:02] responsibility to write a

[54:03] blank check to the owner of

[54:05] the property.

[54:06] disalz arrest.

[54:08] salz cza is.

[54:09] » Thank you for clarifying

[54:10] that.

[54:12] » It sounds like there's alegit

[54:14] in ter of the estimate and I

[54:15] think that should be something

[54:16] that's sent to thentirety of

[54:18] the body.

[54:20] next we'll go to council

[54:21] member whiti.

[54:22] » Thank you, chair chowdhury.

[54:23] and I think maybe just a

[54:26] threshold question, first, to

[54:27] make sure I'm hearing this

[54:30] correctly, too

[54:31] director, can you kind of

[54:32] explain, I had the same

[54:33] question that counc member

[54:34] shaffer does, particularly

[54:35] about the money at the moment.

[54:36] so it sounds like the $2.5

[54:39] million that we allocated out

[54:41] two weeks ago, or wheneverthat -

[54:44] » July.

[54:45] » Okay, perfect.

[54:46] that was specific to both

[54:49] relocation and repairs?

[54:50] because it sounds lik you

[54:51] just said tha lot of that

[54:52] has been used up already.

[54:55] » Chair chowdhury, council

[54:57] member whiting, there has not

[54:57] been a nickel spent on th

[55:00] $2.5 million.

[55:01] it is being held.

[55:05] we have another $500,000

[55:07] that's already in the city's

[55:09] budget that was appropriated

[55:10] through the budget process

[55:12] last december.

[55:13] that funding is for hvac.

[55:15] we're contracting that because

[55:17] people need --hey need to be

[55:18] able to, you know, they need

[55:21] air comin' in.

[55:24] we are focused, and I told the

[55:27] council when I was in front of

[55:28] you, that we will focus on

[55:30] relocation and then figure out

[55:32] if there's emeency needs.

[55:35] because you delegated

[55:36] authority to me to make some

[55:37] decisions.

[55:38] and o so, we're focused on

[55:40] the relocation needs.

[55:40] that's why we nee this

[55:41] policy.

[55:43] but as we learn as this comes

[55:45] into more focus, we need a

[55:46] global plan ofhat's

[55:49] happeng.

[55:49] to council member warren's

[55:50] point, you know, we continue

[55:52] to learn about windows and

[55:54] siding and roofing and all

[55:54] those sort of things.

[55:56] and, so, we're not going to be

[55:58] able to repair the needs of

[56:02] heritage park with the $2.5

[56:03] million that's bn

[56:04] appropriated.

[56:05] » Okay, great.

[56:05] thank you.

[56:06] and, so, it sounds like, so

[56:07] the money that you're talking

[56:08] about that was used up quickly

[56:10] is tt $500,000 tt was

[56:13] already attached to?

[56:14] » Chair chowdhury, council

[56:16] member whiting, we're sti

[56:17] contracting that.

[56:17] I don't think that's been

[56:19] spent, no.

[56:19] » So what was the money that

[56:21] has be used up fairly quick

[56:22] thaw mentioned?

[56:23] because I -- you said that

[56:24] earlier in your presentatn.

[56:25] you said there was a lot of

[56:26] money that's already been used

[56:28] to this point.

[56:28] so I'm trying to figure out if

[56:30] that was the 2.5 or this

[56:33] 500,000.

[56:34] » Chair chowdhurycouncil

[56:36] member whiting, I don't

[56:36] remember when I said that weuse.

[56:39] » Yeah.

[56:39] I think it was early in your

[56:41] presentation.

[56:42] » In my remarks?

[56:44] » Eah.

[56:45] answering council member

[56:46] shaffer's question.

[56:47] » Oh.

[56:50] so, I'm not --

[56:56] chair chowdhury, council

[56:58] memb whiting, just to clear

[56:59] it up.

[57:01] » Yeah, yeah, thank you.

[57:02] » Theity of minneapolis hasapp.

[57:09] in its

[57:09] budget.

[57:09] that is being contracted.

[57:11] it's not been spent.

[57:12] in july you appropriated --

[57:14] you moved $2.5 million from

[57:16] the affordab housing trust

[57:17] fund into this use.

[57:19] and that has not been used.

[57:21] if I said we've used up a lot

[57:22] of money really quickly, I

[57:25] apologize for that.

[57:26] that was an error.

[57:26] but we have not spent it.

[57:28] I will tell you, though, the

[57:31] expense, what we are learning

[57:32] is it is becoming more

[57:34] expensive and we need a global

[57:36] solution about what happens

[57:37] with heritage park.

[57:37] and in t meantime, this

[57:39] gets -- the policy gives an

[57:40] option for people to relocate

[57:41] and then we would start

[57:43] spending money and then once

[57:45] we start spending money, we'll

[57:46] be communiting that out so

[57:47] that people understand where

[57:49] the money is going.

[57:49] » Thank you.

[57:51] that's helpful.

[57:51] » Yeah.

[57:52] » Thank you for the

[57:53] clarification.

[57:54] particarly, too, I thinky

[57:55] first question, so you noted,

[57:59] I guess, currently -- has

[58:00] anyone signed up for these

[58:04] relocation assistance as of

[58:04] today?

[58:06] » Chairhowdhury, council

[58:08] member whiting, nobody has

[58:09] signed up for anything unde

[58:10] the city's policy because it

[58:12] esn't exist yet.

[58:13] that's been the -- that was

[58:15] the barrier.

[58:15] like we couldn't give people

[58:17] relocation assistance because

[58:17] we don't have the -- didn't

[58:20] have the authority based on

[58:21] our conversations with the

[58:22] enterprise.

[58:23] that's why we have to have

[58:24] the communication component t

[58:25] it so that we can communicate,

[58:26] here is what's available,

[58:27] here's how you access it, this

[58:29] is the process, all of those

[58:30] sort of things that are going

[58:32] to become very important very

[58:33] soon.

[58:33] » Yea

[58:34] do we know if anyone has

[58:35] signed up for mpha's transfer

[58:41] assistance yet?

[58:42] » Chair chowdhury, council

[58:43] member whiting, we are

[58:45] familiar with about 32

[58:46] households that have interest

[58:49] in this.

[58:52] that are working with public

[58:53] housing.

[58:53] I will say that there are four

[58:55] households that have expressed

[58:56] interest in the city's program

[58:57] when it starts.

[59:00] but I think there will be -- I

[59:02] think there will be more

[59:03] people that will show interest

[59:05] once they know what the

[59:08] program is.

[59:10] what the benefit is once

[59:12] the benefit is articulated, we

[59:13] will hear from more residents.

[59:14] » Perfect.

[59:15] I guess my last question here

[59:17] is, is there a reason, is

[59:18] there som policy or kind of

[59:22] reason why it's been sort of

[59:25] differentiated between mpha

[59:26] and the city of minneapolis?

[59:27] why isn't that we're also --

[59:28] like mpha residents an't

[59:30] also able to use city-funded

[59:32] dollars?

[59:33] chair chowdhury, council

[59:36] member whiting, I think it's

[59:37] important for the minneapolis

[59:39] public housing authority to

[59:39] take care of its residents.

[59:41] they haveesponsibility to

[59:42] the residents that are in

[59:43] their care.

[59:45] the city is making

[59:47] discretionary decision to help

[59:48] folks at heritage park for the

[59:51] reasons we've articulated over

[59:52] the last few council meetings

[59:53] with you on this subject.

[59:56] and, so, I think it's the

[59:57] right thing that the city is

[59:58] doing.

[59:58] but w need to make sure that

[1:00:00] the mpha uses their resources

[1:00:02] for the mph units, and then we

[1:00:04] can provide for the ones that

[1:00:06] do not qualify for them.

[1:00:09] » But seems like like there's

[1:00:11] no policy that could preclude

[1:00:13] us from assisting with the

[1:00:15] mpha residents if needed?

[1:00:17] » Chair chowdhury, cncil

[1:00:18] member whiting, I'm not

[1:00:19] certain if there's policy or

[1:00:21] not.

[1:00:21] I know that the city has some

[1:00:23] restrictions on how we are

[1:00:26] managing or potentially

[1:00:27] interfering with public

[1:00:30] housing operations.

[1:00:30] I could look at it, if there's

[1:00:33] like a definitive choice.

[1:00:36] I mean, what can we do say

[1:00:37] question and what should we

[1:00:38] do.

[1:00:39] and I'm going to tell you the

[1:00:40] policy that we have in front

[1:00:41] of you is the thing that we

[1:00:42] should be doing.

[1:00:43] » Helpful.

[1:00:44] I think just to both councilmeml

[1:00:47] mber vetaw's comments,

[1:00:48] right, if we are starting to

[1:00:49] see some discrepancies

[1:00:50] between, I think, certain

[1:00:53] programs that we're seeg an

[1:00:54] extended wait time for mpha or

[1:00:57] city of minneapolis, kind of

[1:00:59] the two different programs, I

[1:01:01] think there might be an

[1:01:02] ability, it sounds lik to

[1:01:03] kind of assist where needed.

[1:01:06] » Chair chohury, council

[1:01:07] member whiting, the first

[1:01:08] approach to that is to make

[1:01:09] sure that we're working as

[1:01:11] quicy as possible at the

[1:01:13] same pace.

[1:01:15] and hold the mpha to the same

[1:01:17] standards that we would hold

[1:01:18] ourselves to.

[1:01:19] » Perfect.

[1:01:19] thank you.

[1:01:20] » Yeah.

[1:01:24] » Thank y.

[1:01:24] I put myself in queue next.

[1:01:27] so, I was able to reference a

[1:01:33] policy that kind of followed

[1:01:35] the same policy framework and

[1:01:36] this was like the perpetually

[1:01:40] affordable housing program

[1:01:41] changes.

[1:01:41] so that was helpful for me to

[1:01:43] look back on myself.

[1:01:44] the thing that I feel like we

[1:01:48] need on this rca by thursday

[1:01:51] in order for me to vote on

[1:01:52] this is a fiscal note because

[1:01:54] there is clearly a fiscal

[1:01:57] impact.

[1:01:58] it says currently in the rca

[1:02:00] that there is no fiscal

[1:02:01] impact, but we know in this

[1:02:03] discussion that there will be.

[1:02:04] so if we could update an

[1:02:06] estimate within the fiscal

[1:02:07] note for transparency in the

[1:02:09] work that we're doi.

[1:02:11] is that something you can do?

[1:02:13] » Chair chowdhury, I can

[1:02:14] explain why there isn't a

[1:02:15] fiscal note.

[1:02:16] » Yeah.

[1:02:16] » So this is a policy that is

[1:02:18] being appended -- is the next

[1:02:22] step from the appropriation

[1:02:23] that you guys approved, which

[1:02:25] does have a fiscal note, back

[1:02:26] in july.

[1:02:27] and, so, this is just t

[1:02:28] policy that helps us direct

[1:02:30] how to use the funding that

[1:02:31] was moved from the affordable

[1:02:32] housing trust fund into this

[1:02:34] appropriation for heritage

[1:02:35] park.

[1:02:35] but we can bring thatiscal

[1:02:37] note back up.

[1:02:38] » I think that's really

[1:02:40] important becau when the

[1:02:41] public reads this, it says no

[1:02:44] fiscal impact anticipated so

[1:02:45] even if it's the same fiscal

[1:02:47] note, I think it's important

[1:02:47] because a lot of folks are

[1:02:49] following this closely and in

[1:02:51] the future we might need to

[1:02:52] look back on it.

[1:02:53] the other thing is, there

[1:02:59] isn't a rhea attached to it

[1:03:02] either.

[1:03:02] and I think a race equity

[1:03:04] analysis would be really

[1:03:05] important for this poly.

[1:03:08] rea.

[1:03:10] I think as a legislati

[1:03:11] follow-up, it's like once this

[1:03:14] is completed whatappens to

[1:03:16] this policy?

[1:03:16] like what's the -- is it

[1:03:19] sunsetted?

[1:03:19] does the department just make

[1:03:21] a call?

[1:03:22] because for our perpetually

[1:03:24] affordable housing program,

[1:03:25] that just continues, right?

[1:03:27] » Chair chowdhury, the intent

[1:03:29] of this policy is to be time

[1:03:32] limited.

[1:03:32] you would have to move by the

[1:03:35] 31st of -- you'd hav to

[1:03:37] tell you also by the 15th

[1:03:39] of october and move by t end

[1:03:41] of january of next year with a

[1:03:43] six-month bfer for

[1:03:47] circumstances, but then this

[1:03:48] is tailored exactly to

[1:03:50] heritage park relocation at

[1:03:51] this moment.

[1:03:52] so it would be unique to this

[1:03:54] situation and it would not

[1:03:55] live on after the last person

[1:04:00] took advantage of the policy.

[1:04:02] » Okay.

[1:04:03] and are you able to attach a

[1:04:06] rea to this as you have for

[1:04:08] other programs?

[1:04:09] » Chair chowdhury, we'll do

[1:04:10] our best between now and

[1:04:11] thursday.

[1:04:11] » Yeah.

[1:04:12] and I appreciate that you're

[1:04:13] doing your best, and I think

[1:04:14] we're moving this through

[1:04:16] really quickly.

[1:04:18] and at the same time, like,

[1:04:19] director, you're providing us

[1:04:21] very dense policy with very

[1:04:25] significant financial

[1:04:26] implications for the city and

[1:04:28] implications for residents

[1:04:28] here.

[1:04:30] and, so, just the basics of

[1:04:33] this request for committee

[1:04:34] action are really important to

[1:04:36] me because I think not having

[1:04:38] it today is positing more

[1:04:40] questions tha I anticipated.

[1:04:41] so that's why I'm asking for

[1:04:43] that.

[1:04:44] » Yeah.

[1:04:44] chair chowdhury, I would say

[1:04:46] that I think it's important

[1:04:47] and imperative for the city to

[1:04:50] move.

[1:04:50] if we're thinking about the

[1:04:51] racial equity impactf not

[1:04:54] acting, we're putting people

[1:04:57] in, you know, communities of

[1:04:59] color, black folks in north

[1:05:01] minneapolis in circumstanc

[1:05:02] where they cnot get out of.

[1:05:03] » Yes.

[1:05:03] » So we can put that into an

[1:05:05] analysis, but I c tellou,

[1:05:07] just off the top, this is

[1:05:11] addressing community need

[1:05:13] exactly where the community

[1:05:13] needs us to be.

[1:05:15] » Yeah.

[1:05:16] I 100% hear you.

[1:05:17] and I'm not debating that

[1:05:19] whatsoever.

[1:05:19] but there's a level of

[1:05:22] oversight that's necessary for

[1:05:23] us to do our work, and I'm

[1:05:26] genuinely just struggling with

[1:05:27] it.

[1:05:27] this is a dense policy load

[1:05:29] that's before us, and within

[1:05:31] the cped department, when you

[1:05:33] bring forward program changes,

[1:05:35] you have a vy thorough

[1:05:37] background analysis and

[1:05:38] reas, you always do, and as

[1:05:40] a committee member of the

[1:05:42] business, housing, zoning

[1:05:43] committee, I rely on those and

[1:05:45] have relied on those for

[1:05:46] agenda settings and on items

[1:05:47] that we have to vote on

[1:05:49] because they can be

[1:05:49] complicated.

[1:05:50] so I do think it's a fair ask

[1:05:51] to say that we need that and I

[1:05:53] don't think it's in

[1:05:55] competition with moving

[1:05:56] urgently, but it's like, thi

[1:05:57] is the legislative body, this

[1:05:58] is what we need to -- I'll

[1:06:00] just speak for myself.

[1:06:01] this is what I need in order

[1:06:04] to make such a significa

[1:06:05] change

[1:06:06] I mean, if other members are

[1:06:08] fine with that, that's -- I

[1:06:11] totally understand that, but I

[1:06:13] want to -- I want to say, I

[1:06:14] know that there are council

[1:06:16] members that are wondering the

[1:06:17] same thing.

[1:06:18] and also getting questions

[1:06:20] from constituents,he media

[1:06:23] at I can't answer.

[1:06:25] that's difficult, especially

[1:06:26] when I take an affirmative

[1:06:29] vote on something.

[1:06:29] » Right.

[1:06:30] » And I think we are all in

[1:06:32] super shared agreement on the

[1:06:35] urgency and the need,

[1:06:37] especially the race equity

[1:06:38] components of it.

[1:06:40] just having that clarity, I'm

[1:06:42] just stating it's just not

[1:06:43] there fully in the way that it

[1:06:44] needs to be.

[1:06:45] » And I agree with you, chair

[1:06:47] chowdhury.

[1:06:48] it is important thave

[1:06:48] information.

[1:06:51] this situation is not -- you

[1:06:56] know -- the typical approach

[1:06:59] to the way cped does its work.

[1:07:01] we're rising to meet the

[1:07:02] need -- as I communicated and

[1:07:03] shared in this presentation --

[1:07:05] we're trying to mt the needs

[1:07:07] of community in a situation

[1:07:08] that if we had more time, we'd

[1:07:10] take it and we just -- we're

[1:07:12] working with imperfect

[1:07:13] information, we're moving as

[1:07:14] fa as we can, and we'll get

[1:07:15] you as much of the information

[1:07:16] as we can by thursday.

[1:07:18] » Yeah.

[1:07:18] and I appreciate that.

[1:07:20] I think, like, just the

[1:07:22] clarity the fiscal note, so

[1:07:24] it doesn't say there's no

[1:07:25] fiscal impact, and, like, eve

[1:07:27] just diving a little bit more

[1:07:30] on that sunsetting piece and

[1:07:30] that type of intention.

[1:07:33] the background analysis that

[1:07:34] cped usually does, a little

[1:07:36] bit more would be helpful.

[1:07:37] and I just want to say, like,

[1:07:38] thank you for your work on

[1:07:40] this and thank you to your

[1:07:41] team for working on this.

[1:07:42] I know it's not easy.

[1:07:44] I know it's really around the

[1:07:47] clock, I know thaw guys are

[1:07:48] really pressed for time.

[1:07:51] and I think that is reflective

[1:07:53] of, like, this isn't the same

[1:07:55] level of information that

[1:07:56] shows in our business,

[1:07:58] housing, and zoning committee.

[1:07:59] so I hope you take that

[1:08:01] feedback genuinely, I mean it,

[1:08:02] like I appreciate it.

[1:08:09] xt on queue is council

[1:08:10] member warren.

[1:08:13] » Thank you, chair.

[1:08:17] director hansen, we talked

[1:08:18] about a couple of -- I'm

[1:08:21] listening to you as you're

[1:08:23] saying wt's going on with

[1:08:26] this relocation program.

[1:08:29] srf firm is currently getting

[1:08:30] ready to be paid $400,000 by

[1:08:32] the city of minneapolis to be

[1:08:36] a fiscal agent.

[1:08:37] they're only providing about

[1:08:38] two staff people to support

[1:08:42] with the assistance in

[1:08:46] relocation when in north

[1:08:48] minneapolis currently,

[1:08:49] specifically, in ward 5, we

[1:08:51] have organizations like alma

[1:08:57] oon, northpoint and the urban

[1:08:59] league twice who are able to

[1:09:00] support the residents, who are

[1:09:01] working with the residents

[1:09:02] because this is predominantly

[1:09:05] a black and muslim community

[1:09:07] so it would be beneficial for

[1:09:08] them to work with individuals

[1:09:11] who are connected directly

[1:09:12] with their autonomy.

[1:09:13] the city relocation plan

[1:09:16] provides assessment, services

[1:09:17] that considers schooling,

[1:09:19] transportation, household

[1:09:20] preferences, housing

[1:09:21] availability, and all of these

[1:09:22] very human-centered approaches

[1:09:23] around autonomy, then whether

[1:09:25] you're a resident of public

[1:09:28] housing or not, you still

[1:09:30] should be given that same

[1:09:32] grace and human-centeredness,

[1:09:34] and the ability to work wh

[1:09:35] people that are directly

[1:09:36] within your community so that

[1:09:37] there is a very cultured and

[1:09:40] human-centered approach.

[1:09:40] I want that changed.

[1:09:43] I'm n working with srf or

[1:09:45] whoever those people are, if

[1:09:46] we're going to pay $400,000 is

[1:09:48] going to north minneapolis, we

[1:09:49] did something else like that

[1:09:51] already, we won't have more of

[1:09:52] the same.

[1:09:53] next thing with this, becse

[1:09:56] the other component in this is

[1:09:59] that they can't articulate,

[1:10:04] the residents, who are having

[1:10:05] issues around saying, yes, I

[1:10:07] want to move, it's because

[1:10:09] they're constantly being lied

[1:10:10] to by everybody.

[1:10:11] everybody keep changing the

[1:10:13] story.

[1:10:13] there's no consistency.

[1:10:15] when I talked about this in

[1:10:16] the beginning and I said,

[1:10:18] housing insecurity is a real

[1:10:23] thing, I don't know if you

[1:10:25] don't get it or you don't

[1:10:27] understand when I say it,

[1:10:29] like, if you don't know what

[1:10:31] housing insecurity means, that

[1:10:32] means the difference between

[1:10:33] being housed and unhoused, the

[1:10:38] difference between m getting

[1:10:39] my car towed and being able to

[1:10:42] pay my rent.

[1:10:43] you know, the difference

[1:10:44] between one little mistake,

[1:10:46] living paycheck to paycheck,

[1:10:48] the difference between buying

[1:10:53] diapers and eating today means

[1:10:56] th I might not be able to

[1:10:57] pay my rent tomorrow if I have

[1:10:59] to spend too much or the price

[1:11:00] goes up.

[1:11:01] like that housing insecurity

[1:11:03] is a real place.

[1:11:06] the barriers that individuals

[1:11:08] have to housing, background,

[1:11:11] previous landlords,

[1:11:12] individuals who are being

[1:11:15] retaliated against in this

[1:11:17] tuation, dealing with mpha

[1:11:20] and property solutions now

[1:11:22] still currently.

[1:11:23] there are residents who are

[1:11:24] going to court and are

[1:11:26] experiencing housing barriers.

[1:11:29] this $2.5 million that we

[1:11:33] allocated towards heritag

[1:11:34] park would essentially equate

[1:11:36] to about $12,000 per household

[1:11:39] for all 211 families.

[1:11:41] instead, we've discounted, and

[1:11:43] we're payin' all of these

[1:11:44] additional administrative

[1:11:45] costs.

[1:11:45] there's not anythin that

[1:11:47] anyone needs to do, really,

[1:11:50] essentially to qualify to

[1:11:52] move.

[1:11:53] everybody is eligible.

[1:11:54] they should be.

[1:11:55] the truth is, it's not

[1:11:57] habitable.

[1:11:58] it's not anywhere that anyone

[1:12:00] should want to live.

[1:12:01] like it's a real place, and I

[1:12:04] think that, yes, as the city

[1:12:07] we can't tell people, you have

[1:12:09] to go, but what we should do

[1:12:12] is give them proper

[1:12:14] information around the

[1:12:15] implications of -- I still g

[1:12:17] some -- black mold.

[1:12:18] I still got some stuff growing

[1:12:20] on my arm from being out tre

[1:12:21] door knocking.

[1:12:22] do you see what I'm saying?

[1:12:24] it's still growing there.

[1:12:25] it'sery visible.

[1:12:26] being out there, if it's

[1:12:28] doing this to my arm, in

[1:12:29] addition to sitting right

[1:12:30] underneath the herke and

[1:12:32] everything that's going -- the

[1:12:33] herc and evething else

[1:12:34] that's going on over there,

[1:12:35] all of these conditions weigh

[1:12:37] a heavy factor on how peoe

[1:12:38] are living in this situation.

[1:12:41] there should not be any

[1:12:42] gaslighting going on here.

[1:12:44] they can't articulate it

[1:12:45] because they're being lied to.

[1:12:47] and the residents have a

[1:12:49] community meeting every

[1:12:50] tuesday.

[1:12:51] I know because I go.

[1:12:53] and they're working with

[1:12:55] organization like northpoint,

[1:12:57] like the naacp, like zur are,

[1:13:01] holistic healthcare and

[1:13:02] wellness, those are people

[1:13:03] that a centered in the needs

[1:13:05] in the community and they've

[1:13:06] come forward, we've tried to,

[1:13:09] you know, make warm

[1:13:11] introductions and transfer --

[1:13:12] because people are essentially

[1:13:13] going to want to talk to

[1:13:14] someone who looks like them

[1:13:17] and understands their struggle

[1:13:18] and where they're coming from,

[1:13:19] not whoever the srf people

[1:13:21] are.

[1:13:22] I'm sure they're nice folks.

[1:13:23] great.

[1:13:23] thank you.

[1:13:24] I ain't seen them not one

[1:13:25] time.

[1:13:26] and no information has been

[1:13:28] even provided to me to make a

[1:13:30] warm introduction of, hey,

[1:13:32] community, here's some people

[1:13:33] that are coming that are not

[1:13:35] going to examine you like lab

[1:13:38] rats, you know, when we're

[1:13:40] talking about

[1:13:43] human-centeredness and we're

[1:13:44] talking about assessing

[1:13:45] community members' needs, this

[1:13:46] is not -- you know wt I

[1:13:46] mean?

[1:13:47] we don't want people picked

[1:13:48] apart.

[1:13:49] we've got folks that are

[1:13:50] experiencing some real serious

[1:13:52] challenges, when you're going

[1:13:53] through transition and

[1:13:56] transitional change, anything

[1:13:57] could cause cps to get

[1:13:58] involved in your life,

[1:14:00] anything could cause anything

[1:14:01] to happen.

[1:14:01] right?

[1:14:03] so the delicacy that we've

[1:14:05] already placed and put things

[1:14:07] in place within our community

[1:14:10] of north minneapolis in its

[1:14:12] exactness, it's important that

[1:14:13] the city works with the

[1:14:15] community in that position.

[1:14:16] I really just -- northpoint,

[1:14:20] black social worker network,

[1:14:22] dr. Bravado, all of these

[1:14:24] wonderful individuals, our

[1:14:25] fremont clinic, you know,

[1:14:28] north memorial hospital, all

[1:14:30] of these individuals are ready

[1:14:32] and prepared to do a very

[1:14:35] human-centered and holistic

[1:14:35] approach with these residents,

[1:14:38] I appreciate all of this

[1:14:39] stuff, it's great, but I don't

[1:14:42] know who srf is and that

[1:14:44] frightens me.

[1:14:45] and I'm sorry I have to say

[1:14:46] that.

[1:14:47] and paying them $400,000 also

[1:14:49] frightens me because that'stake.

[1:14:52] that's over 15%.

[1:14:55] when it was, you know, -- when

[1:14:59] itas operation metro surge

[1:15:00] and we gave all of that money,

[1:15:02] it was over 3 or so million or

[1:15:05] whatever, to -- what was it --

[1:15:06] 6 million we gave to the

[1:15:08] agencies over south to help

[1:15:09] with rental assistance, they

[1:15:11] charged a 5% administrative

[1:15:12] fee, right?

[1:15:13] why are we paying so much

[1:15:14] money to srf?

[1:15:17] that just doesn't make any

[1:15:17] sense to me.

[1:15:19] so, the residents, the

[1:15:24] community, have been having

[1:15:25] meeting.

[1:15:25] it is a division because it's

[1:15:27] public housing and the

[1:15:29] nonpublic housing individuals

[1:15:30] who have housing choice

[1:15:32] voucher stuff.

[1:15:33] iet it.

[1:15:34] 83 households.

[1:15:35] we have more than enough to

[1:15:37] help 83 households.

[1:15:37] but we also have enough to

[1:15:40] help 211 households, too, with

[1:15:44] $12,000 essentially per

[1:15:47] household, 11,889 dollars per

[1:15:50] hoehold could help them.

[1:15:52] and if we did a 5%

[1:15:54] administtive fee, that would

[1:15:56] be $125,000, and we could pay

[1:15:57] that to somebody bause all

[1:15:59] they're really doing is paying

[1:16:02] for accounting and

[1:16:05] bookkeeping.

[1:16:06] the people who need help need

[1:16:08] public supportive housing,

[1:16:09] things like that, application

[1:16:11] fees, what have you.

[1:16:12] the money is there, it's how

[1:16:13] are we managing it, how are we

[1:16:15] using it, but we do have more

[1:16:16] than enough, essentially.

[1:16:18] that would be about $4,000 a

[1:16:21] month would be enough to help

[1:16:22] a family stablize itself.

[1:16:25] and I don't -- I think that

[1:16:26] that -- on top of whatever

[1:16:29] they're already -- whatever

[1:16:31] their acquired income is, I

[1:16:32] think they would be okay.

[1:16:34] I don't see that as an issue.

[1:16:35] if I had an extra $4,000 a

[1:16:38] month, I would be okay, too,

[1:16:39] you know.

[1:16:39] so I think thile be just fine

[1:16:42] if everybody spreads the

[1:16:44] wealth evenly across the board

[1:16:45] and starts using yardsticks

[1:16:47] and whatever else because,

[1:16:49] like I said, the 128 people

[1:16:51] are the people who really need

[1:16:54] the suppor

[1:16:54] and I know mpha has a job, but

[1:16:57] at this point, I d't even

[1:16:59] think those people show up for

[1:17:01] work.

[1:17:01] I left a message at their

[1:17:04] voice answering service -- you

[1:17:05] know they got an awering

[1:17:08] service, erik, when you call,

[1:17:09] you can't reach a real person.

[1:17:10] and they still haven't called

[1:17:11] back.

[1:17:12] and it's been weeks.

[1:17:14] so, I don't know how they're

[1:17:16] responding to the needs of

[1:17:17] these people.

[1:17:18] and I understand that someone

[1:17:20] is there providing what they

[1:17:22] call a relocation pket for

[1:17:24] individuals who have housing

[1:17:27] choice vouchers onuesdays

[1:17:28] and thursdays, the city is

[1:17:30] there, but that's not the same

[1:17:31] as what's called a transfer

[1:17:33] packet.

[1:17:34] a transfer packet is what's

[1:17:35] utilized for an individual who

[1:17:37] is a participant of public

[1:17:40] housing, so they can transfer

[1:17:44] to another public housing

[1:17:45] space or they can port out to

[1:17:48] another city, whether it's

[1:17:50] metro hra or ramsey hra or

[1:17:53] dakota county cda or what have

[1:17:56] you, they can move into

[1:17:58] another -- if mpha is saying

[1:18:00] they don't have the capacity.

[1:18:01] but no one is helping them

[1:18:02] with that, and then they're

[1:18:03] being told that they got to

[1:18:05] qualify and someone needs to

[1:18:06] come and look.

[1:18:07] it just is not making sense to

[1:18:08] me.

[1:18:08] and I wish that everyone would

[1:18:11] really get their act together

[1:18:14] because this is -- this I

[1:18:15] ridiculous.

[1:18:16] but I don't agree with srf.

[1:18:21] I don't agree with giving them

[1:18:26] that $400,000.

[1:18:27] that doesn't make any sen to

[1:18:28] me because I don't know what

[1:18:29] they're doin' with it.

[1:18:30] they should already have

[1:18:32] accountants and people who do,

[1:18:37] do,you know, sales force or

[1:18:39] however they're utilizing

[1:18:40] their client base record,

[1:18:43] datakeeping stuff, should

[1:18:45] already be in place, it's not

[1:18:46] like they're buying new

[1:18:48] software or whatever else.

[1:18:49] if we're allowing for

[1:18:50] something that to be done, we

[1:18:51] should invest in putting that

[1:18:53] in in north minneapolis,

[1:18:54] directly.

[1:18:54] because that is just the tip

[1:18:55] of the iceberg.

[1:18:56] everything else over there is

[1:18:57] going to need some examining,

[1:18:59] too, right, you know?

[1:19:00] so this is just the worst of

[1:19:01] the worst.

[1:19:01] so it be would better to have

[1:19:04] it in-house and get that stuff

[1:19:05] together over there.

[1:19:07] but this is -- I don't agree

[1:19:08] with them at all for that.

[1:19:12] and the residents may not want

[1:19:14] to relocate, but we really

[1:19:15] need to give them stern

[1:19:19] adsement about the health.

[1:19:20] I'm really kind of feeling the

[1:19:22] way that our public healthdepare

[1:19:25] forward and talked about the

[1:19:28] public health and safety

[1:19:32] implementations that this

[1:19:33] living condition is having on

[1:19:34] people.

[1:19:35] and I would expect to have

[1:19:37] heard more of a statement from

[1:19:40] our public health departmen

[1:19:40] besides the fact that there's

[1:19:42] mold in the air everywhere

[1:19:44] because we know that, but this

[1:19:46] is black mold.

[1:19:47] and black mold has a dferent

[1:19:49] impact on your lungs and on

[1:19:52] your body.

[1:19:57] on your entire well-being,

[1:19:58] right?

[1:19:58] and I'm just thinking about

[1:20:00] how that needs to -- that

[1:20:02] real needs to come forward.

[1:20:04] but if peoe stop gaslighting

[1:20:07] the residents and just tell

[1:20:08] them the truth, then

[1:20:10] individuals can make a

[1:20:14] well-informed, conscious

[1:20:17] choice, you know, instead of a

[1:20:18] decision to think about

[1:20:21] whether this will be short

[1:20:23] term or long term because this

[1:20:24] is going to be long term.

[1:20:27] heritage park buildings cannot

[1:20:29] be rehabbed in six months.

[1:20:31] not in eight months.

[1:20:32] not in three months.

[1:20:34] it will be more than a year's

[1:20:35] worth of work tt needs to go

[1:20:38] on over there in order to

[1:20:39] bring it up to par.

[1:20:40] and the fact that we're

[1:20:42] spending money on air

[1:20:44] conditioningnits and central

[1:20:45] air units over there to blow

[1:20:47] the mold spores around I just

[1:20:50] ridiculous.

[1:20:51] all of the hvac units, the 168

[1:20:53] of them that were placed in

[1:20:55] there over the winter when

[1:20:55] people didn't have heat, erik,

[1:20:58] we know have to be replaced

[1:20:59] because they contain mold

[1:21:01] spores.

[1:21:03] like, this is -- we don't want

[1:21:04] to hustle backwards.

[1:21:05] let's not hustle backwards.

[1:21:07] let's move forward.

[1:21:10] my campaignlogan was moving

[1:21:11] us forward, let's move

[1:21:12] forward, let's do the right

[1:21:13] thing.

[1:21:13] you know?

[1:21:15] let's move forward and let's

[1:21:17] ensure that people have right

[1:21:20] information so they can make

[1:21:22] right choices and clear, you

[1:21:25] know, understanding, access,

[1:21:25] and the opportunity, you know.

[1:21:29] don't strip people of their

[1:21:30] autonomy.

[1:21:31] we cannot d that.

[1:21:33] like I'm seeing this and

[1:21:36] literally every day it breaks

[1:21:37] my heart.

[1:21:38] I sat in my car for an hour on

[1:21:43] friday, after they called me

[1:21:46] and cried because I'm like,

[1:21:47] these are publicousing

[1:21:49] residents.

[1:21:49] they're not going anywhere.

[1:21:50] they're the ones who are being

[1:21:53] gaslit through this whole

[1:21:53] thing.

[1:21:55] mpha is not doing enough.

[1:21:58] this wasn't even our stuff.

[1:21:59] but we stood up.

[1:22:03] I called jacob and I said, I

[1:22:06] need you to flex your strong

[1:22:08] mayor muscle or something

[1:22:09] because thiss not fair to

[1:22:11] our people.

[1:22:12] we give them $5,000 a year to

[1:22:15] go towards their levy.

[1:22:16] I'm not sayin' that they got

[1:22:18] $5,000 sitting in a pot

[1:22:21] somewhere, in a vault.

[1:22:23] but I'm saying that we've

[1:22:24] contributed a lot to help

[1:22:27] support them.

[1:22:28] they're not preserving people.

[1:22:30] they're not preservin housing

[1:22:32] stock and they're not

[1:22:33] preserving opportunity.

[1:22:35] no one's putng the people

[1:22:36] first.

[1:22:37] because this would not have

[1:22:37] gone on for as long as it has.

[1:22:43] » Chair chowdhurycouncil

[1:22:45] member warren, the city is

[1:22:50] putting the people first.

[1:22:52] when it comes to what we can

[1:22:55] do here.

[1:22:55] I think we need to makeure

[1:22:57] that we're not letting the

[1:22:59] public housing authority off

[1:23:00] the hook.

[1:23:01] they do receive levy, it's $5

[1:23:04] million.

[1:23:04] » Right.

[1:23:05] » Hey have resources.

[1:23:09] and the political pressure

[1:23:12] needs to be applied so that

[1:23:13] they use it.

[1:23:14] and they've been showing that

[1:23:15] they're coming to the table.

[1:23:16] so we have to continue to work

[1:23:17] with them so that those 128

[1:23:20] public housing units still get

[1:23:23] the transfer benefits, those

[1:23:24] transfer packages you were

[1:23:25] talking about.

[1:23:27] it is a very complicated

[1:23:28] situation.

[1:23:28] you and I have had this

[1:23:31] conversation multiple times.

[1:23:33] we talk a lot about heritage

[1:23:35] park.

[1:23:37] and, you know, I've used some

[1:23:41] of your turns of phrases with,

[1:23:43] you know, band-aid on a bullet

[1:23:45] wound, and also, you know, so

[1:23:47] you talk about the hvac units,

[1:23:49] we should be looking at that

[1:23:51] because some people will not

[1:23:52] move.

[1:23:55] back to centering to their

[1:23:56] agency of the residents, some

[1:23:58] people will not move.

[1:23:59] so we have to look at the

[1:24:00] conditions on which they're

[1:24:01] living and if we can help with

[1:24:02] that, then we should be

[1:24:03] providing it.

[1:24:04] I'm just saying to us as a

[1:24:06] city, we should not be

[1:24:08] throwing all of the money into

[1:24:09] it until we have a global

[1:24:10] plan, and that's what we're

[1:24:11] working as hard as we can to

[1:24:13] get to is thatlobal plan,

[1:24:14] which is going to be, you're

[1:24:15] right, it's going to be like a

[1:24:17] year and a half plusr min

[1:24:18] a couple of months on both

[1:24:20] ends, right.

[1:24:20] so it could be 18 months to

[1:24:22] two years to rehab heritage

[1:24:25] park and that hasn't started.

[1:24:26] d with respect to srf,

[1:24:28] they're not coming out and

[1:24:29] talking to people because

[1:24:30] they're not underontract.

[1:24:31] if we would bring in

[1:24:33] organizations from other --

[1:24:34] that are not contracted, I

[1:24:35] would have to go through a

[1:24:36] procurement process.

[1:24:37] I'd have to go through an rfp.

[1:24:40] » Rfp would only take 30

[1:24:41] days, correct?

[1:24:42] » It would take 30 days, then

[1:24:43] we'd have to contract, you

[1:24:44] would not see relocation

[1:24:47] assistance available until the

[1:24:49] middle of the summer -- middle

[1:24:51] of the fall.

[1:24:51] and that is unacceptable for

[1:24:53] me.

[1:24:54] I think we need to be able to

[1:24:56] push this funding out as

[1:24:59] quickly as we can, and the

[1:24:59] staff and the team have come

[1:25:00] up with a way to do that.

[1:25:03] it's not perfect.

[1:25:03] nothing is perct in a

[1:25:07] unplanned situation.

[1:25:09] and, so, that's why we're

[1:25:11] suggesting here that we work

[1:25:13] wi a contract we already

[1:25:14] have in place and if we have

[1:25:17] community-minded supporters,

[1:25:19] that's positive, but I want to

[1:25:21] make sur that we can get to a

[1:25:22] point where we can start

[1:25:23] sitting down with households

[1:25:24] and finding out where they are

[1:25:27] and where they can be as soon

[1:25:28] as possible.

[1:25:29] and I think another two months

[1:25:31] of waiting for a contract to

[1:25:32] be in place is two months we

[1:25:34] don't have.

[1:25:35] » I hear exactly what you're

[1:25:38] saying.

[1:25:38] I mean, I have s many

[1:25:40] questions for this invisible

[1:25:43] company, ts srf.

[1:25:45] like do you have any

[1:25:47] experience in working with

[1:25:49] minority populations?

[1:25:50] that's just like me going to

[1:25:51] go pick a realtor who I'm

[1:25:54] choosing to go buy a house

[1:25:55] with and he haso experience

[1:25:57] working with a first-time home

[1:25:58] buyer, you know?

[1:25:59] you don't know how to -- you

[1:26:01] don't know how to help people

[1:26:03] with, you know, wine tasting

[1:26:04] be money, I mean, I don't

[1:26:05] know who these people are.

[1:26:07] and they're taking a lot off

[1:26:09] the top.

[1:26:11] so, I see this as somebody

[1:26:14] siezing more of an opportunity

[1:26:15] than I do more a jumpin' in.

[1:26:18] and then what happens if

[1:26:19] they're not meeting the

[1:26:21] standard?

[1:26:21] what happens if the community

[1:26:23] complains and they don't feel

[1:26:25] comfortable or they're not

[1:26:26] getting exactly what it is

[1:26:27] that they need?

[1:26:28] we gotta go to our rfp too,

[1:26:32] then again, don't we?

[1:26:33] what's happening?

[1:26:34] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:26:35] member warren, you know, I'm

[1:26:37] not going to opine on h much

[1:26:39] it's going to cost, I just

[1:26:40] know it's going to be hundreds

[1:26:41] of thousands of dollars based

[1:26:42] on the scope of work.

[1:26:43] » Alfred told me --

[1:26:45] » And that we're managing --

[1:26:46] that's not something we've

[1:26:47] agreed to with srf yet.

[1:26:49] » Oh, well --

[1:26:51] » We have to hold -- we have

[1:26:53] to manage that contract.

[1:26:55] we have to setxpectations.

[1:26:56] and we're expecting to set

[1:26:59] those expectations to meet the

[1:27:01] needs of the community.

[1:27:02] and, so, if srf is not meeting

[1:27:06] the expectations, then cped is

[1:27:07] not doing its job.

[1:27:09] be rest assured, we're going

[1:27:10] to be managing the contract so

[1:27:12] that the needsre being met.

[1:27:14] and those questions about

[1:27:15] cultural competence is

[1:27:16] something that we're asking as

[1:27:17] well, like, how do you know

[1:27:20] who -- you know, have you

[1:27:22] worked with communities --

[1:27:24] vulnerable communities like

[1:27:27] this before?

[1:27:27] and if w don't get a suitae

[1:27:29] answer, then we might have to

[1:27:30] go to an rfp.

[1:27:32] but I need t-- we need as a

[1:27:34] city to look at this option

[1:27:35] because it gets the money

[1:27:37] available sooner.

[1:27:38] » I understand.

[1:27:40] and I am agreeing with the

[1:27:44] urgency because I, like you,

[1:27:47] want the families to get the

[1:27:49] help that they need.

[1:27:51] it's been far too long.

[1:27:55] but I don't want it to be done

[1:27:57] any old kind of way just

[1:27:59] because.

[1:27:59] you know?

[1:28:01] and I don't want them being

[1:28:03] short-changed in the process

[1:28:05] either because I broke it

[1:28:07] down, $12,000 per household,

[1:28:11] 211 families, 686 people, the

[1:28:17] math math'd, right?

[1:28:19] so those are -- those are just

[1:28:21] some ofy thoughts.

[1:28:22] and I know that we're not --

[1:28:26] and we shouldn't let mpha off

[1:28:29] the hook.

[1:28:30] I just really hope that we as

[1:28:34] a city look at who we're

[1:28:38] assigning to our boards and

[1:28:40] that we are attentive of who

[1:28:42] we a placing in these

[1:28:46] positions.

[1:28:47] you know, so that we can

[1:28:50] ensure that we have the right

[1:28:51] oversight when it comes to our

[1:28:55] public housing and supporting

[1:28:56] the residents who need the

[1:28:59] most support, like public

[1:29:01] housing was designed to help

[1:29:03] these individuals and keep

[1:29:04] th from being in situations

[1:29:06] like this.

[1:29:06] this is what ourublic tax

[1:29:10] dollars go to, to support and

[1:29:12] help the most vulnerable in

[1:29:14] our community, who need an

[1:29:16] extra boost and some extra

[1:29:17] support.

[1:29:18] you know?

[1:29:20] and I don't -- I don't think

[1:29:22] that, you know, it should have

[1:29:23] ever gotten to this point and

[1:29:27] that their humanity or their

[1:29:29] autonomy should be discounted

[1:29:30] for any reason.I thank you for n

[1:29:35] this, erik, and I know we're

[1:29:36] going to continue to tal

[1:29:38] about this.

[1:29:39] but those are my concerns and

[1:29:45] my frustrations, and you know

[1:29:49] I don't mind being vocal about

[1:29:51] it all, and I'm not happy with

[1:29:55] certu.

[1:29:55] and I'm not happy with

[1:29:57] property solutions.

[1:29:58] just so we have that on the

[1:30:00] record, too, as well.

[1:30:01] thank you.

[1:30:02] the end.

[1:30:05] » Thank you.

[1:30:06] the last person that we have

[1:30:07] on queue is council member

[1:30:08] shaffer.

[1:30:08] » One other question around,

[1:30:11] if you could speak a little

[1:30:11] bit in the policy of why you

[1:30:14] were bumping anywhere from t

[1:30:17] current rent to the

[1:30:18] anticipated new future rent

[1:30:20] was anywhere from 250 to $450

[1:30:23] for each bedroom.

[1:30:25] can you speak a little bit to

[1:30:26] that?

[1:30:27] the reason I'm asking about it

[1:30:29] is just knowing this is a

[1:30:31] short-term fix, knowing that

[1:30:33] 12 months from now, most

[1:30:36] likely people will not be able

[1:30:37] to move back into their unit,

[1:30:38] they'd have to go through the

[1:30:39] whole leasing process again, I

[1:30:41] am conceed that 12 months

[1:30:43] from now we're going to be in

[1:30:45] the same situation where

[1:30:47] folks, because of not having

[1:30:49] the differential of the extra

[1:30:51] 250 to 450 a month, are going

[1:30:54] to be over their skis in being

[1:30:58] able to stay in that unit that

[1:31:00] we provided for them for a

[1:31:01] year.

[1:31:02] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:31:04] member shaffer, thanks for

[1:31:06] those questions.

[1:31:07] I put the table back up.

[1:31:08] these are illustrative.

[1:31:10] this is an average estimated

[1:31:12] monthly rent based on

[1:31:18] affordability figures based on

[1:31:20] one-bedroom to five-bedroom.

[1:31:23] there's an expecting that --

[1:31:25] the reason we provide this

[1:31:28] stipend for rent differential

[1:31:30] is because of a shock where

[1:31:33] you're ming from one place

[1:31:34] and then the rent goes up and

[1:31:36] this gives the ability for

[1:31:38] households to stablize their

[1:31:40] budgets, to figure out how to

[1:31:43] control for that rental

[1:31:47] increase in month 13.

[1:31:49] this is typical of relocation

[1:31:51] policies that we've had, is to

[1:31:54] give a certain period of time

[1:31:56] for people to make it.

[1:31:57] and we see mostly that

[1:31:59] households will put their

[1:32:00] money into rent first and

[1:32:02] other things, and then we're

[1:32:03] trying to make it as clean and

[1:32:07] easy as possible for that move

[1:32:10] to take place by offering the

[1:32:14] moving stipend which, you

[1:32:15] know, varies from $3,500 to

[1:32:18] $7,500, depending on bedroom

[1:32:19] size, but that's also a way

[1:32:20] for them to absorb that shock

[1:32:22] of moving and make it as

[1:32:23] smooth as possible.

[1:32:24] » Okay.

[1:32:25] and so you're confident a year

[1:32:26] from now we won't be in the

[1:32:28] me situation with another

[1:32:29] policy?

[1:32:30] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:32:34] member shaffer, we already

[1:32:35] know that there's a

[1:32:37] extraordinary burden on

[1:32:38] renters in the city of

[1:32:39] minneapolis.

[1:32:39] the people who livet

[1:32:41] heritage park are most likely

[1:32:42] the same situation where

[1:32:44] they're paying more than 30%

[1:32:45] or higher than their income on

[1:32:46] rent.

[1:32:47] so it's unaordable rent in a

[1:32:50] lot of cases.

[1:32:51] and, so, we will still have

[1:32:53] that problem regardless of who

[1:32:54] we do, whether we're in

[1:32:57] heteroheritage -- whether

[1:32:58] we're in heritage park, I

[1:33:00] would imagine there are people

[1:33:01] in heritage park who are rent

[1:33:02] burdenedow, so they will,

[1:33:04] unfortunately, ctinue to be

[1:33:05] rent burdened in the future.

[1:33:07] want city,he way the

[1:33:09] structure -- the city, the

[1:33:12] structure, the way of housing

[1:33:16] inequality, we're not in a

[1:33:17] position to address that whole

[1:33:19] problem, but it will be aproble,

[1:33:20] not just these 83 households.

[1:33:22] » Well, thank you for trying

[1:33:23] to figure out the best way to

[1:33:25] handle this and that

[1:33:26] explanation helps me.

[1:33:27] I would just say, with srf, in

[1:33:29] your continued negotiations,

[1:33:32] you know,ith that number, if

[1:33:33] that number is correct, you

[1:33:35] know, that's about $000 per

[1:33:38] family, or per unit, and that

[1:33:40] is almost equal to the

[1:33:43] one-bedroom relocation.

[1:33:44] and, so, maybe there's some

[1:33:45] way we can tier it to the size

[1:33:47] of the unit or some sort like

[1:33:49] that.

[1:33:49] but thank you for your work on

[1:33:53] this.

[1:33:53] we're going to make I

[1:33:54] through.

[1:33:55] we just gotta help everybody

[1:33:56] else make it through.

[1:33:58] » Yeah.

[1:34:01] » All right.

[1:34:02] thank you.

[1:34:03] are there any other council

[1:34:07] members that want to get into

[1:34:10] queue?

[1:34:10] seeing none, is there a motion

[1:34:12] for this item?

[1:34:13] » So moved.

[1:34:15] » Secd.

[1:34:16] » Great.

[1:34:18] all those in favor say aye.

[1:34:21] those opposed say nay.

[1:34:22] that motion carries.

[1:34:26] our next discussion item was

[1:34:29] originally scheduled for the

[1:34:31] climate and irastructure

[1:34:32] meeting lasthursday, august

[1:34:34] 6, but was postponed due to

[1:34:35] time.

[1:34:36] this all item authorizes a no

[1:34:38] cost contract with oncourse

[1:34:40] home solutions for sewer

[1:34:41] lateral insurance program.

[1:34:45] I'll invite ross jon yack,

[1:34:46] manager with sanitary sewer

[1:34:48] division, to get us started

[1:34:49] about this new pgram.

[1:34:49] welcome.

[1:34:51] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:34:53] members, thanks for havg me

[1:34:54] this afternoon.

[1:34:55] I'm here to talk about the

[1:34:58] insurance.

[1:34:58] you said my name but it's ross

[1:35:00] jon yack, again,anager of

[1:35:03] the business team for things,

[1:35:07] sewer, infrastructure,

[1:35:09] division.

[1:35:10] before getting into the

[1:35:12] program, I just want to kind

[1:35:14] of go over the basics of the

[1:35:15] sewer lateral and some of the

[1:35:18] common problems that occur.

[1:35:19] so with the sewer lateral,

[1:35:21] it's one of those things that

[1:35:21] I allot of homeowners don't

[1:35:23] realize that they own a that

[1:35:24] they have to maintain.

[1:35:26] it's the lateral that leaves

[1:35:27] your house, and it takesour

[1:35:28] waste, it takes your toilet

[1:35:30] waste, it takes your sink,

[1:35:32] your dish wash e your shower,

[1:35:34] your clothes washer, it takes

[1:35:35] all of that and it conveys it

[1:35:38] to the main that's out in the

[1:35:40] middle othe street.

[1:35:41] a lot of homeowners don't

[1:35:42] realize that they do own that

[1:35:43] sewer lateral all the way from

[1:35:45] their house all the way

[1:35:45] through the yard out to the

[1:35:46] street under the sidewalk, as

[1:35:48] well as the connection.

[1:35:51] so, that's in city ordinance,

[1:35:53] been existing f a long time.

[1:35:55] some of the common issues that

[1:35:57] exist with these had lines is

[1:35:59] root intrusion, so all those

[1:36:02] nderful trees, they're great

[1:36:03] at finding moisture, so they

[1:36:04] will go out there and they

[1:36:05] will find moisture in the

[1:36:06] sewe line.

[1:36:07] so they find a crack, and they

[1:36:09] start to develop issues within

[1:36:11] e line.

[1:36:11] probably the number one thing

[1:36:13] that we get calls about is

[1:36:15] people having root intrusions

[1:36:16] into a line.

[1:36:18] so cracks exist.

[1:36:19] also the gap at the connection

[1:36:23] to the main can develop issues

[1:36:26] where it disconnects.

[1:36:28] another common one that's not

[1:36:29] in the image here, there will

[1:36:30] be dips in the line, so at

[1:36:32] some point the erosion

[1:36:33] happened below the lin it

[1:36:34] dips out, and then those dips

[1:36:35] start to not let the graff

[1:36:38] temporary flow of the line

[1:36:42] occur not anymore.

[1:36:43] most of the lines in the city,

[1:36:44] they're orinal, right?

[1:36:45] so they're original from when

[1:36:46] the home was built.

[1:36:47] majority of the homes in

[1:36:48] minneapolis were bui prior

[1:36:49] to 1939.

[1:36:50] so we're looking at 90, 100,

[1:36:53] you know, we see, you know, up

[1:36:55] to 150 years, right?

[1:36:56] some of these lines are really

[1:36:57] really old.

[1:36:59] average repair costs that we

[1:37:00] see for the ones that kind of

[1:37:01] co through our programs is

[1:37:03] $13,000.

[1:37:03] there's definitely a wide

[1:37:05] range.

[1:37:05] I've seen up to $40,000.

[1:37:08] so they can get really

[1:37:09] expensive to repair the

[1:37:10] things.

[1:37:15] current programs that we have

[1:37:16] right now, we have a sewer --

[1:37:19] private sewer lateral grant

[1:37:20] program.

[1:37:21] homeowners can get a grant of

[1:37:23] 5,000, 7500, or $10,000

[1:37:25] grants.

[1:37:25] this funding comes from met

[1:37:27] council.

[1:37:27] we'veeen doing the program

[1:37:28] for three years now.

[1:37:30] this year we had 350

[1:37:33] applications and only enough

[1:37:35] funding for 36 grants.

[1:37:37] and, so, definitely a long

[1:37:38] wait list and that 350

[1:37:40] applications, those are all

[1:37:41] homeowners who submitted

[1:37:45] that -- they proved that they

[1:37:46] had issues with their lines,

[1:37:47] not just people saying, oh,

[1:37:48] I'm interested in applying,

[1:37:49] these are people that

[1:37:52] contractors report, yup, fix

[1:37:52] your line, heard about the

[1:37:54] program and applied for it.

[1:37:55] so definitely a big need

[1:37:57] there.

[1:37:58] definitely evidenced by the

[1:37:59] just the number of people

[1:38:01] applying forhat this year.

[1:38:04] it's an assessment program.

[1:38:05] so with this, the sanitary

[1:38:07] sewer fund financially

[1:38:09] supports individuals fixing

[1:38:10] their line.

[1:38:11] they can assess it to their

[1:38:12] property taxes at a five, ten,

[1:38:14] 15, 20-year payback period.

[1:38:17] in 2025, there was 116

[1:38:18] property owners that took

[1:38:19] advantage of this program.

[1:38:20] at the cost to the sanitar

[1:38:23] sewer fund of $1.1 million in

[1:38:25] repairs.

[1:38:25] just as we were sitting there,

[1:38:28] we get, we have an online

[1:38:30] application system, I got one

[1:38:31] in, the homeowner is facing

[1:38:35] $25,000, and they're choosing

[1:38:36] to assess that over 20 years.

[1:38:38] so, they can always pay it

[1:38:39] back early buts a homeowner,

[1:38:40] now you're having to pay that

[1:38:42] back and it's going to be on

[1:38:44] your property taxes.

[1:38:45] so it's great the program

[1:38:46] exists, but it's not always

[1:38:48] the best thing when you

[1:38:50] already have property taxes

[1:38:51] that are going up as well to

[1:38:52] have something else on there.

[1:38:59] so private sewer lateral

[1:39:00] insurance, so, we issued an

[1:39:02] rfp earlier in 2026.

[1:39:04] with this program it's 100%

[1:39:06] optional, it's not being

[1:39:07] forced object any homeowner,

[1:39:09] no one needs to sign up for

[1:39:11] it.

[1:39:11] the city endorsing a company

[1:39:13] allows homeowners to get a

[1:39:14] better rate in coverage limit

[1:39:15] than what it available on the

[1:39:17] open market, for the most

[1:39:18] part.

[1:39:19] no city funds will be used

[1:39:20] for this.

[1:39:21] so it's not costing the city

[1:39:22] any money.

[1:39:23] the city will provide branding

[1:39:25] and customer contact

[1:39:26] information.

[1:39:27] so, that is really kind of the

[1:39:28] part on the city side.

[1:39:29] you know, you put yr logo on

[1:39:31] there, you know, we want to

[1:39:33] stand behind a company to

[1:39:34] provide a good service.

[1:39:35] and many cities in minnesota,

[1:39:37] in and around the country have

[1:39:38] similar partnerships.

[1:39:41] so this is nothing new.

[1:39:42] we're not coming up with a new

[1:39:43] idea, it very very common

[1:39:44] around the country.

[1:39:48] from the rfp, we've decided to

[1:39:52] go with oncourse home

[1:39:53] solutions.

[1:39:53] they are endorsed by the

[1:39:56] national league ofities.

[1:39:57] the rate that they're offering

[1:39:58] for the first three years of

[1:40:00] this program is, for the first

[1:40:02] year it would be $5.49 per

[1:40:05] month for a homeowner.

[1:40:06] and then after that first year

[1:40:08] it would go up to $9.99 per

[1:40:10] month after that, you know,

[1:40:11] first 12 months.

[1:40:14] the coverage limit, number 3

[1:40:15] there, is an unlimited dollar

[1:40:17] coverage limit for repair or

[1:40:19] replacement of residential

[1:40:20] sewer service lines.

[1:40:22] that's why I w mentioning

[1:40:23] those costs earlier, that you

[1:40:25] get really expensive, if you

[1:40:26] can have insurance, it's going

[1:40:27] to cover that, versus only

[1:40:29] covering part of it, it's a

[1:40:30] great deal.

[1:40:31] this insurance also has

[1:40:32] additional benefits.

[1:40:34] $1,000 per ourrence,

[1:40:36] out-of-pocket restoration

[1:40:37] costs, $1500 for hotel

[1:40:39] accommodations or $500 bet

[1:40:40] boarding.

[1:40:42] pet boarding.

[1:40:43] really that number 3 is one

[1:40:45] of the big reasons why we

[1:40:46] wanted to go with oncourse,

[1:40:47] along withhe rate that

[1:40:49] they're offering.

[1:40:50] in addition to that they're

[1:40:52] offering a $100,000 community

[1:40:53] partnership fund, one-time

[1:40:54] amount of money to come to the

[1:40:55] city.

[1:40:56] number 5 there would be an

[1:40:58] annual $50,000 customer

[1:40:59] hardship fund.

[1:41:00] that fund would be something

[1:41:02] where we would refer a

[1:41:04] homeowner to them and, you

[1:41:06] know, cover -- it could be

[1:41:07] someone who doesn't have the

[1:41:09] insuranc

[1:41:10] the way these programs work,

[1:41:11] not everyone's going to hear

[1:41:12] approximate it, right you?

[1:41:13] knowhere's going to be a lot

[1:41:14] of marketing that happens, but

[1:41:16] someone might not have heard

[1:41:17] about it, didn't sign up for

[1:41:20] it, didn't think they uld

[1:41:22] afford the extra amount of

[1:41:24] money per month but they're in

[1:41:25] a hardship situation.

[1:41:28] last year we got a call from a

[1:41:29] case worker, a woman eye line

[1:41:33] impacted up.

[1:41:34] we have somhing who can help

[1:41:35] but we don't have programs to

[1:41:36] help with the cleanup that

[1:41:38] might occur.

[1:41:38] so something like that is

[1:41:40] something we could refer to

[1:41:42] this amount of money.

[1:41:45] $50,000 probably wouldn't go

[1:41:46] very far, it gets spent

[1:41:49] quickly.

[1:41:50] next steps withhis program,

[1:41:53] we need to refine and approve

[1:41:55] the crowd with -- contract

[1:41:56] with oncourse.

[1:41:57] I'm currently working on that.

[1:41:59] outreach to neighborhood

[1:42:00] associations, develop a city

[1:42:01] website, just so people have a

[1:42:02] place to go if they're

[1:42:04] questioning what the

[1:42:05] program's about.

[1:42:07] approve the marketing material

[1:42:08] that oncourse will use.

[1:42:09] anything they send out, we'll

[1:42:11] approve and have 100% approval

[1:42:14] for.

[1:42:15] and then that last thing, kind

[1:42:16] of mentioned that, set upome

[1:42:17] guidelines for that annual

[1:42:19] $50,000 hardship fund.

[1:42:20] you know, at what point do we

[1:42:22] refer someone who calls?

[1:42:28] and finally, yeah, just,

[1:42:29] again, thank you for your

[1:42:30] time.

[1:42:31] happy to have any -- answer

[1:42:34] any questions now or if

[1:42:35] there's any in-person

[1:42:36] briefings anyone wants, would

[1:42:37] be happy to meet with you.

[1:42:39] » Yeah, thank you so much,

[1:42:40] ross.

[1:42:40] this is really exciting

[1:42:42] prtation.

[1:42:43] kind of glad that we had it

[1:42:45] moved into cow so everyon

[1:42:47] could get it.

[1:42:48] we have a couple of council

[1:42:51] members in queue

[1:42:52] we can go to council member

[1:42:53] whiting first.

[1:42:54] » Thank you, chair chowdhury,

[1:42:55] thank you to ross and angie.

[1:42:57] I know this has been something

[1:43:00] I aggresivelyxcited

[1:43:00] about, particularly here for

[1:43:02] ward 11 being one of the

[1:43:03] highest homeownership wards in

[1:43:05] the city.

[1:43:05] and this is a strong statement

[1:43:07] coming from someone that hates

[1:43:10] insurance, hates insurance

[1:43:11] broadly, so anyone that knows

[1:43:13] me, I could not be -- I could

[1:43:15] not be in more support of a

[1:43:17] policy lik

[1:43:17] this I think it is helpf for

[1:43:19] individuals to know, I think

[1:43:20] maybe my example, I got a call

[1:43:22] from my mom, goodness,

[1:43:24] probably about six months ago,

[1:43:26] particar to -- she was

[1:43:29] extremely worried, kind of,

[1:43:32] jamison, how the heck am I

[1:43:33] going to retire?

[1:43:35] mom, hold on, what's actually

[1:43:36] happening, right?

[1:43:37] so there was a root intrusion.

[1:43:38] she got an estimate of

[1:43:39] somewhere upwards of $15,000

[1:43:41] to come and replace her sewer

[1:43:44] line that she didn't know that

[1:43:45] she had or even existed.

[1:43:48] and, so, I think this is

[1:43:48] something, you know, what she

[1:43:50] told me, hey, can you figure

[1:43:52] this with the city?

[1:43:53] mom, it takes a little bit

[1:43:55] longer than that.

[1:43:55] thank you for putting me in

[1:43:57] good graces with my mom.

[1:43:58] but I can't thank you enough

[1:44:00] for this wk, in particular,

[1:44:02] to my predecessor as well,

[1:44:05] counsel council member koski,

[1:44:06] for kind of putting this in

[1:44:07] motion, 's one of the thingsthat

[1:44:09] initially, right, when I came

[1:44:11] in to office here.

[1:44:12] I know her fourears of work

[1:44:14] to get this off the ground as

[1:44:16] well.

[1:44:17] and so, again, I just can't

[1:44:19] think, public works, you all

[1:44:20] enough for doinghis with the

[1:44:21] level of speed, transparency,

[1:44:23] I think accuracy for thi

[1:44:25] I think the only questio that

[1:44:27] I have particular to kind of

[1:44:30] the -- oh, goodness -- the

[1:44:32] hardship fund that we have

[1:44:35] object here -- on here, kind

[1:44:36] of the 50,000 and then the

[1:44:38] community partnership fd of

[1:44:39] the initial one-time payment,

[1:44:41] looking at those 350

[1:44:43] applicants, for kind of that

[1:44:45] lateral sewer grant, I just

[1:44:46] kind of did quick math, you

[1:44:48] know, if we took that at the

[1:44:50] average repair, right, that's

[1:44:52] $4.5 million across all of

[1:44:53] those applicantsor one year

[1:44:56] in the city of minneapolis.

[1:44:58] I guess the question is, how

[1:45:01] often is this -- are we kind

[1:45:03] of seeing these things kind of

[1:45:04] pop up and happen across the

[1:45:05] city of minneolis where

[1:45:07] there's som level of lateral

[1:45:10] sewer line replacement or

[1:45:13] repair?

[1:45:14] I know repairappens to

[1:45:15] happen more oftenhan the

[1:45:17] full replacement does.

[1:45:19] » Chairhowdhury, council

[1:45:20] member whiting, I don't have

[1:45:21] the numbers for for you.

[1:45:22] it's often.

[1:45:23] and we see ones that arecoming d

[1:45:27] assessment program.

[1:45:27] there are some, they don't

[1:45:29] come through those proams

[1:45:29] and they're just calling a

[1:45:31] contractor.

[1:45:31] I can definitely pull some

[1:45:33] numbers, we can pull the

[1:45:34] permit numbers, how many

[1:45:35] permits are happening.

[1:45:36] it's a good estimate.

[1:45:37] it's a lot.

[1:45:39] » Yeah, no, that's really

[1:45:41] helpful.

[1:45:42] let us know how we can be

[1:45:43] helpful to kind of get the

[1:45:44] word out.

[1:45:44] I did some more quick math,

[1:45:46] because you can tell how much

[1:45:47] I hate insurance, it would

[1:45:49] take 108 years of paying into

[1:45:51] th insurance to get to tt

[1:45:53] average repair cost.

[1:45:56] and, so, I think the

[1:45:57] investment is well worth t

[1:45:58] rub here.

[1:45:59] sohank you.

[1:46:02] » Thank you.

[1:46:03] next we have council member

[1:46:04] warren.

[1:46:06] » Thank you, chair.

[1:46:08] this is great.

[1:46:12] all of the sewer lines

[1:46:13] underneath my house collapsed

[1:46:14] about two years ago.

[1:46:15] where you been?

[1:46:20] so -- [ laughter ]

[1:46:23] it was a real place.

[1:46:24] it was devastating.

[1:46:25] but I know how expensive and

[1:46:28] how detrimental that this can

[1:46:31] be for people, and I knowhat

[1:46:34] we also have an extremely long

[1:46:35] waiting list.

[1:46:36] when we opened uphe

[1:46:38] application period for the

[1:46:39] city earlier this year, I had

[1:46:42] a number of residents calling,

[1:46:44] saying, when can I apply?

[1:46:45] how did I get -- how do I get

[1:46:47] on there?

[1:46:48] what do I need to submit,

[1:46:49] send, blah blah blah, what

[1:46:50] haveou.

[1:46:51] and that were even having

[1:46:53] trouble uploading photos or,

[1:46:54] you know, inspection reports

[1:46:56] in hopes of being chosen.

[1:46:59] so wh this insurance, visdz

[1:47:00] who have pre-existing

[1:47:02] conditions, especiay our

[1:47:03] seniors, who have been waiting

[1:47:05] to get picked on this lottery

[1:47:07] system that we have through

[1:47:08] the city, are they eligible

[1:47:10] for this insurance or, you

[1:47:12] know, because sometimes

[1:47:14] insurance don't cover

[1:47:15] pre-existing conditions?

[1:47:16] help me.

[1:47:18] » Chair chowdhury, counci

[1:47:20] member warren, yes, in talking

[1:47:23] with oncourse home solutions,

[1:47:24] we had the rfp, their

[1:47:26] response, we had them in for

[1:47:27] their presentation, it's one

[1:47:29] ofur question.

[1:47:30] it's pretty common, people

[1:47:31] know they have root

[1:47:32] intrusions, we wanted to make

[1:47:33] youre sure it wasn't going

[1:47:34] to be an exclusion.

[1:47:35] they said it wasn't going to

[1:47:36] be.

[1:47:36] and when we do the contract,

[1:47:38] we want to make sure that's

[1:47:39] part of it as well so it's in

[1:47:40] writing.

[1:47:41] » Oka yeah, I would love a

[1:47:43] report back to make sure that

[1:47:44] individuals are eligible for

[1:47:46] this insurance because this is

[1:47:48] something that would greatly

[1:47:50] befit, I know especially our

[1:47:53] seniors, because people have

[1:47:54] gotten injured carrying those

[1:47:56] huge augers up out of the

[1:48:00] basement, those 150-footers

[1:48:03] thatotta go to try to clear

[1:48:05] out the lines, get the roots,

[1:48:07] yeah, that stu is dangerous

[1:48:08] carrying it up and down, you

[1:48:10] know, to try to -- otherwise

[1:48:11] you goto pay so much money.

[1:48:13] like 5, $600 to have someone

[1:48:16] go through your main stack,

[1:48:17] all the way out, or through

[1:48:19] yourleanout, whatever else.

[1:48:21] I mean, that can get very

[1:48:22] expensive.

[1:48:23] and, so, knowing that we have

[1:48:25] these beautiful and amazing

[1:48:27] tree canopies that love sewage

[1:48:29] water in our front yards and

[1:48:32] things, but they definitely do

[1:48:36] a lot of damage to the

[1:48:39] underground piping and we want

[1:48:42] to make sure -- because

[1:48:44] getting it sleeved can go

[1:48:47] anywhere between $8,000 all

[1:48:48] the way up to $50,000 to

[1:48:51] $60,000.

[1:48:53] I know, because when I -- I'm

[1:48:54] telling you, they collapsed

[1:48:57] underneath my house.

[1:48:57] and the city sent me out a

[1:48:59] list, it was like 15 or 16

[1:49:01] different contractors of who

[1:49:03] they allow to come in contact

[1:49:05] with their lines.

[1:49:06] because the lines from our

[1:49:07] house go all the way to meet

[1:49:09] the sewage line in the city.

[1:49:12] and, so, if they got to open

[1:49:15] up, excavate and then disrupt

[1:49:17] the sidewalk and whatever

[1:49:18] else, like the homeowner has

[1:49:20] to pay for all of that.

[1:49:21] and that isot cheap at all.

[1:49:26] and, so, getting those

[1:49:27] different bids and things, I

[1:49:28] just want to make sure it will

[1:49:30] cover pre-existing conditions

[1:49:32] and that people will be able

[1:49:34] to get the help that they need

[1:49:36] if they're not eligible to

[1:49:38] take advantage of the lottery

[1:49:40] system.

[1:49:40] we're trying to help as many

[1:49:42] people as we can with the

[1:49:43] grant program with the city,

[1:49:44] but I know that this will give

[1:49:46] other folks some hope, too.

[1:49:47] thank you.

[1:49:49] the end.

[1:49:52] » Next we have council member

[1:49:53] shaffer.

[1:49:53] » Thank you, cha chowdhury.

[1:49:54] I have a question.

[1:49:55] thank you very much for this

[1:49:57] work.

[1:49:57] very excited to continue to

[1:49:58] share this with residents.

[1:50:00] is there any opportunity for

[1:50:03] water lateral pipe insurance?

[1:50:06] for water pipes.

[1:50:08] » Cir chowdhury, council

[1:50:10] member shaffer, in workingwith y

[1:50:12] don't feel there's a need.

[1:50:14] part of that is a lot of the

[1:50:15] breaks that happen with water

[1:50:17] lines are lead svice lines,

[1:50:19] so they've had funding

[1:50:19] available to replace those for

[1:50:23] individuals.

[1:50:23] there probably are some

[1:50:25] extreme cases where other ones

[1:50:26] do break.

[1:50:27] but they felt having it

[1:50:30] involved, would be a waste of

[1:50:31] money for individuals, that

[1:50:32] they'd be paying for something

[1:50:33] that's not needed.

[1:50:34] » Well, there's a lot of lead

[1:50:35] pipes that are still outn

[1:50:37] our system.

[1:50:37] so I think people would like

[1:50:39] to -- but maybe lead isn't a

[1:50:41] requirement for insurance, it

[1:50:42] has to actually break for

[1:50:44] replacement cost.

[1:50:46] and then can you speak to,

[1:50:51] just briefly, any of the

[1:50:52] condition of the city

[1:50:55] connections?

[1:50:56] I've heard that our city pipes

[1:50:57] are not in great shape.

[1:51:00] is that primarily the sewer?

[1:51:02] is thatrimarily the water?

[1:51:04] maybe you're not the right

[1:51:05] person.

[1:51:06] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:51:08] member shaffer, I can give you

[1:51:09] a general answer.

[1:51:10] we can definitely have a

[1:51:11] longer conversation, I think.

[1:51:12] but as a division, we do have

[1:51:14] an asset management program

[1:51:15] where we're looking at the

[1:51:16] health of our system.

[1:51:17] and this is the sewer system.

[1:51:20] and we have an active capital

[1:51:22] program to replace the sewer

[1:51:23] line.

[1:51:24] so it's something that there's

[1:51:26] nothing to be ignored, we need

[1:51:27] to kee doing t but we

[1:51:29] definitely have a plan.

[1:51:29] » Okay.

[1:51:29] all right.

[1:51:31] now that we have all the --

[1:51:33] all the laterals get replaced,

[1:51:35] we don't want to have a major

[1:51:36] with the main.

[1:51:37] but thank you for your work on

[1:51:38] this, it's exciting.

[1:51:39] » Thank you.

[1:51:41] and next we'll go to council

[1:51:42] member whiting.

[1:51:43] » Yeah, sorry, council membe

[1:51:45] shaffer, the same question

[1:51:45] that I asked as well about the

[1:51:47] water lines, and it's my

[1:51:48] understanding that it's kind

[1:51:49] of an add-on project.so it's noe

[1:51:52] city's endorsement, but it is

[1:51:53] something that you can add on

[1:51:56] as part of your packa, but

[1:51:59] it wouldn't be under the

[1:52:00] city's kind of endorsement of.

[1:52:02] so it's a program that you can s

[1:52:05] individuals, go on right now

[1:52:07] and purchase those insurances.

[1:52:08] yeah.

[1:52:08] and then the las kind of

[1:52:10] question he, maybe for the

[1:52:12] city attorney's office, I've

[1:52:12] never done a no cost contract

[1:52:17] before, acceptance.

[1:52:18] will this come back to us?

[1:52:22] since it is under the

[1:52:23] threshold of council

[1:52:25] authorization, does it not

[1:52:26] come back before the body?

[1:52:31] » I don't know if you have --

[1:52:33] generally speaking, because

[1:52:34] it's a nonstandard contract

[1:52:36] form,ven though the's no

[1:52:37] cost, it would come back to

[1:52:38] the council because it's not

[1:52:40] on a standard template.

[1:52:41] so this council action is to

[1:52:44] authorize -- enter into t

[1:52:45] contract and then once I --

[1:52:47] I'll defer to kind of t

[1:52:49] timeline, but then it would

[1:52:52] come back to approve the

[1:52:52] contract itself.

[1:52:53] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:52:55] member whiting, yes, that's my

[1:52:56] understanding as well.

[1:52:57] we started this process, do we

[1:52:59] even need to do the rfp?

[1:53:01] asked the question.

[1:53:02] yup, it's nonstandard, we're

[1:53:03] going to be endorsing, pigging

[1:53:04] a company over other ones,

[1:53:05] yeah, we'll go through the

[1:53:06] process, yeah, come back with

[1:53:07] the contract, yeah.

[1:53:08] » Thank you so much.

[1:53:09] » Thank you.

[1:53:10] I just had a quick question.

[1:53:11] what would be the rate if we

[1:53:13] didn't endorse this?

[1:53:14] do you know what t

[1:53:14] comparable is?

[1:53:15] and how much we're saving with

[1:53:17] the endorsement for folks?

[1:53:21] » Chair chowdhury, I'm

[1:53:22] association I don't know the

[1:53:23] exact what it would be.

[1:53:26] I do know competing companies,

[1:53:28] they might have a similar

[1:53:30] monthly rate, but their

[1:53:32] coverage limit's 12,000.

[1:53:34] » Um-hum.

[1:53:34] and this is unlimited.

[1:53:35] » Unlimited, yes.

[1:53:36] » Okay.

[1:53:37] that's great.

[1:53:37] okay.

[1:53:38] that's the only question that

[1:53:39] I had.

[1:53:40] member is there anyone else

[1:53:42] in queue?

[1:53:45] seeing no one else in queue,

[1:53:46] can I ask for a motion?

[1:53:49] oh, sorry, council member

[1:53:51] warren, didn't see you there.go.

[1:53:53] » Thank you.

[1:53:54] you said it was for unlimited

[1:53:57] amnt of repairs and stuff?

[1:53:58] but typically if a sewage line

[1:54:01] is sleeved and it's repaired,

[1:54:05] after, you know, you get that

[1:54:07] casting put in there, because

[1:54:09] I got mine sleed, and then

[1:54:11] it's under warranty for the

[1:54:13] next 25 to 30 years, like you

[1:54:17] wouldn't need the insurance to

[1:54:19] continue to pay it anymore.

[1:54:23] see, I'm worried about this.

[1:54:26] because you said it will cover

[1:54:27] the pre-existing conditions

[1:54:28] and then you're saying,

[1:54:30] unlimited numbe of repairs.

[1:54:32] but once you get your line

[1:54:33] sleeved or you get the line

[1:54:35] replaced, then the line would

[1:54:38] then be underneath the service

[1:54:40] rranty of whomever replaced

[1:54:41] the line and did the stuff, so

[1:54:43] then you wouldn't necessarily

[1:54:44] need to keep paying the

[1:54:47] premium for insurance.

[1:54:48] » Chair chowdhury, council

[1:54:50] member warren, in some of the

[1:54:52] situations, they're not going

[1:54:55] to replace it just off the

[1:54:56] bat.

[1:54:56] you know, they' going to try

[1:54:58] and re-establish the flow of

[1:54:59] the line.

[1:55:01] » Correct.>> take the roots ouf

[1:55:02] there.

[1:55:02] » And that's with the

[1:55:03] sleeving.

[1:55:04] and even with the sleeving,

[1:55:06] sleeving has about a 25-year

[1:55:08] warranty on the sleeving of a

[1:55:11] line.

[1:55:12] so, they jet it out with over

[1:55:16] 400 or 500 psi of water, clean

[1:55:19] out, then they're going to run

[1:55:21] that sleeve through there,

[1:55:23] then they're going to curate

[1:55:24] it.

[1:55:24] it's essentially like a whole

[1:55:26] new pipe that is then put

[1:55:28] through the sewage line.

[1:55:29] I know, I watched the whole

[1:55:31] process with the camera, it

[1:55:32] was slick as I don't know

[1:55:33] what, I'm telling you.

[1:55:34] but now I'm under the warranty

[1:55:41] of the company that put my --

[1:55:44] so they gave me a warranty

[1:55:46] that's good for 25 years.

[1:55:49] so if I had an insurance, why

[1:55:52] would I continue t pay the

[1:55:54] premium because all of those

[1:55:55] lines, cleanout included, are

[1:56:00] allun through the same

[1:56:01] sewage system, essentially,

[1:56:03] unless this is covering the

[1:56:05] stacking in the inside of a

[1:56:06] home, the main stack.

[1:56:07] no, this is just for the

[1:56:09] lateral lines exterior to the

[1:56:10] home, correct?

[1:56:11] » Correct.

[1:56:12] » Okay.

[1:56:13] » Cir chowdhury, council

[1:56:15] member warren, you're right.

[1:56:16] as a homeowner, it's 100%

[1:56:18] optional.

[1:56:19] so if you just had it fixed,

[1:56:21] you don't nee anymore.

[1:56:22] so you don't have to keep --

[1:56:23] » Right.

[1:56:25] » You cancel it, you stop

[1:56:27] paying.

[1:56:27] » All these dollars and stuff

[1:56:29] could go towards some eggs,

[1:56:30] okay, ank you.

[1:56:31] » Yup.

[1:56:33] thank you.

[1:56:33] yeah.

[1:56:34] it looks like on the website

[1:56:35] there's a pretty clear spot

[1:56:37] for program cancellation,

[1:56:39] which is really helpful.

[1:56:41] members, I'm not seeing anyone

[1:56:43] else in queue, so is there a

[1:56:45] motion for this item?

[1:56:47] » So moved.

[1:56:48] » Second.

[1:56:48] » Excellent.

[1:56:49] all those in favor say aye.

[1:56:53] that motion -- all those

[1:56:54] opposed say nay.

[1:56:55] that motion carries.

[1:56:56] and thank you for the

[1:56:59] presentation.

[1:56:59] and seeing no further business

[1:57:00] before us, and with no

[1:57:01] objection, I will declare this

[1:57:02] meeting adjourned.

Committee of the Whole

Agenda

Transcript