The meeting’s primary focus was the appointment of Sarah Abe as the new HRA Administrator. Kim, the committee director, introduced Abe, detailing her extensive qualifications, including master’s degrees in public policy and social work from the University of Minnesota and over a decade of experience in local government and nonprofit sectors. Abe’s previous roles involved managing housing and redevelopment projects and establishing key city housing policies, such as the tenant notification ordinance and affordable housing preservation programs. Her efforts in advancing equity and inclusion, particularly through the Urban Land Institute’s diversity initiatives, were also highlighted as notable achievements.

Abe addressed the board, expressing her excitement for the opportunity and her commitment to furthering the HRA’s mission of addressing housing affordability and preserving the dignity of existing housing. Her appointment was approved unanimously, without any questions or objections from the board members.

Following the appointment, the board shifted its focus to the preliminary budget for 2025. The current administrator presented a report indicating that the board’s goal was to approve a preliminary budget and levy request, with a final approval expected in November. The proposed budget totaled $10,339,341, which included a levy request of $1,965,356—a $300,000 increase from the previous year. This budget aligns with the mission statement developed during a recent board retreat, which emphasizes creating stable and inclusive housing options.

The administrator elaborated on the structure of the HRA, which comprises general administration and two primary workgroups: the Stability and Homeownership Team and the Residential Development and Services Team. The Stability and Homeownership Team manages the housing choice voucher program, while the Residential Development and Services Team oversees various development activities, primarily funded through the Community Development Block Grant. The budget breakdown showed revenue sources, including property taxes, grants, and rental income from properties owned by the HRA.

A significant portion of the budget discussion revolved around the increased levy request, with specific reference to key programmatic items. One notable component was inspection services under a new protocol called INSPIRE, tied to the housing choice voucher program. The HRA is exploring the option of contracting these services instead of relying on existing staff capacity.

Another substantial allocation in the budget was for the affordable homeownership program, which received a $3.19 million grant from Minnesota Housing. These funds are intended for the development of housing units but also require additional resources for program management and partnerships with organizations capable of providing technical assistance to emerging developers. The administrator noted ongoing initiatives to implement online tools to enhance efficiency and improve application processes for various programs.

During the budget discussion, questions arose regarding the financial statements presented in the slides, specifically concerning a net positive revenue difference of $4.9 million. The administrator clarified that the previous year’s levy had been maximized, leading to adjustments in the current year to ensure no impact on households. A breakdown of the budget by funding source was presented, with the largest share allocated to the housing choice voucher program and a portion directed toward general administrative functions and professional services.

Board members expressed a desire for further clarification on the strategic partnerships referenced in the budget proposal. The administrator explained that these partnerships would involve organizations already active in the development community, equipped to assist emerging developers through the permitting process and beyond. The structure of these partnerships is still under consideration, with plans for a competitive process to determine the best approach to collaboration.

Concerns emerged about whether the preliminary budget would be presented in a manner that would encourage public input. One member highlighted the need for a clear understanding of the specifics of the budget before feeling comfortable voting on it. It was clarified that the preliminary budget would serve as a cap and that adjustments could be made prior to final budget approval. A request for more detailed information from staff was made to help board members address their concerns about the budget specifics.