Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, April 19, 2011 <br />Page 4 <br />1 <br />opined that, from a policy-maker standpoint, there seemed to be a conflict and questioned <br />2 <br />whether a cross-generational community could be provided. <br />3 <br />4 <br />Ms. Burjold opined that people would choose a housing product; and further opined that <br />5 <br />seniors may not want to live only with others their age, but actually preferred some diversity <br />6 <br />and variety, represented by a neighborhood and providing cross-generational communities. <br />7 <br />Ms. Burjold noted that the City of Roseville may already be accomplishing that cross- <br />8 <br />generational community; and that while some people may be coming to Roseville based on the <br />9 <br />type of housing product they had to offer; others may be coming due to the amenities offered. <br />10 <br />11 <br />Member Pust left the meeting at this time, approximately 7:03 p.m. <br />12 <br />13 <br />Mr. Hamilton opined that people moving into Roseville needed a mission and sense of <br />14 <br />participation; and may stay in the community but move to another type of housing product. <br />15 <br />16 <br />Further discussion included trends seen in the condominium housing market elsewhere based <br />17 <br />on specific interests; with the OVAL possibly presenting an option for people sharing a skating <br />18 <br />passion, whether still actively skating or observing; spiritual communities offering flexible <br />19 <br />housing products that support specific interests, but may provide a partnership opportunity in <br />20 <br />using multiple financial recourses; increased fuel costs possibly driving and changing the <br />21 <br />concept of living inside rather than outside the metropolitan area; advantages and/or <br />22 <br />disadvantages of simply allowing the market to sort out future housing trends; Roseville <br />23 <br />currently offering the same thing to families now as it did when first developed; and <br />24 <br />recognizing that homeowners associations as they’re currently designed and governed were not <br />25 <br />attractive to the baby boomer generation based on their tendency to be “rule breakers.” <br />26 <br />27 <br />Discussion was interrupted momentarily to move to action items while a quorum of Members <br />28 <br />was still in attendance. <br />29 <br />30 <br />9. Action/Discussion Items <br />31 <br />32 <br />a.Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) Update for 2011 <br />33 <br />Executive Director Trudgeon provided a summary of the NEP Program proposed for 2011, <br />34 <br />noting that this would be the fourth year of the program, having completed a full three-year <br />35 <br />cycle in a reduced time frame, with the 2011 program revisiting properties first viewed in <br />36 <br />2008; as detailed in the staff report dated April 19, 2011. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the exhibit <br />37 <br />showing the breakdown of areas; and advised that letters had been sent to the first group, with <br />38 <br />staffer Brian Kaufland (sp?) returning to perform the program for the City again, based on his <br />39 <br />positive interaction within the community. Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would report back <br />40 <br />to the HRA on the 2011 program at year-end; and thanked the HRA for supplying the $20,000 <br />41 <br />funding for the NEP Program. <br />42 <br />43 <br />Discussion included how the various areas of the City are divided for balance; and use of a <br />44 <br />third party for bulk mailing of the notices to save funds, with notices mailed out of Duluth at <br />45 <br />half the cost of City staff doing the mailing. <br />46 <br />47 <br />No formal action required. <br />48 <br />49 <br />b.Ratify Work Plan <br />50 <br />Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the revised work plan as presented in the meeting packet and as <br />51 <br />detailed in the report dated April 19, 2011; noting that the 2011 Work Plan, provided as a <br />52 <br />attached hereto and made a part hereof, <br />bench handout, represented some minor revisions <br />53 <br />following review by Chair Maschka and staff. <br />54 <br />55 <br />Motion: Member Majerus moved, seconded by Member Masche to approve the 2011 <br /> <br />