Committee denies staff recommendation to award Minnesota Agape Movement exclusive development rights for Peoples Way

The Housing & Zoning Committee rejected staffs recommendation on June 2, 2026 to grant Minnesota Agape Movement exclusive pre-development rights for the Peoples Way site at George Floyd Square, citing community concerns about stewardship, development capacity and survey results.

CPED manager Myles Mercer presented the recommendation and the RFQ process, saying the city sought a community-rooted development partner and that "the People's Way is a complex site with many stakeholders and a topic of significant sensitivity." Mercer said the award would grant Agape two years of exclusive rights for pre-development activities (with a possible one-year extension) to complete feasibility analysis, design, fundraising and community engagement before the city would consider a redevelopment contract.

Several council members and community representatives objected to the selection process and the recommended grantee. Council Member Soren Stevenson said he was "concerned that awarding Minnesota Agape Movement exclusive rights ignores the clearly stated input" from the neighborhood and cited a city-commissioned survey showing stronger overall community support for a competing proposal, Rise and Remember. Council Member Chavez urged colleagues to "return this matter back to staff," arguing the selection did not reflect the survey or community priorities and that the proposed timeline (two to three years) risked further delay.

CPED Director Erik Hansen and staff defended the RFQ process, stressing that an RFQ evaluates teamsqualifications rather than a final project proposal and that staff had reviewed community feedback as one of multiple scoring criteria. Hansen told the committee staff had documentation of Agape's 501(c)(3) status and noted the organization had assembled a development team including several partners and consultants; he also acknowledged reporting gaps in publicly visible filings and said staff would provide additional documentation on request.

The committee debated feasibility, the adequacy of Agape—s development partners, the timing for structural and environmental assessments, and the extent to which the city could or should supplement a chosen partner—s capacity. Several members said trust with neighborhood stakeholders was essential and could not be substituted by technical capacity alone.

Council Member Chavez moved to deny the recommendation; the motion carried 4-2 (Warren and Shaffer recorded as "nay," Chavez, Chughtai, Chowdhury and Chair Osman voting "aye"). The committees vote instructs staff to reconsider next steps; Attorney Schutt told the committee that if the council denies the recommendation staff could reissue a solicitation and start a new procurement process, at which point any qualified party (including Agape) could be considered under the new terms.

Whats next: staff will report back on procurement options and next steps, and the denial clears the way for CPED to pursue an amended or new process that addresses the committee's concerns about community alignment, team capacity and timelines.