[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.