2011-08-16_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – June 21, 2011 Page 4 1 Member Pust asked if the Louisiana Court units were market rate units or affordable housing 2 rate units. 3 4 Mr. Cramer advised that, based on PPL’s receipt of “General Obligation (GO) bonds from the 5 City to pay for the project, they were restricted to market rate; however, he noted that the 6 market rate was realistically for families below 50% AMI; and in a number of their operations 7 and locations, the rental limit by virtue of their funding sources, was often at the top of the 8 market or at market rate. Mr. Cramer advised that it was the intent of PPL to not bring the 9 market rate down with their housing projects, whether reconstruction renovation, but to make 10 them comparable if not better than other units in the neighborhood. 11 12 Member Pust asked what the average rate was in the Louisiana Court building; with Mr. 13 Wilson advising they were $800 per month. 14 15 Member Pust sought clarification on the schools operated by PPL, but not affiliated with their 16 housing projects. 17 18 Mr. Cramer advised that they had sponsored a charter school in Richfield for several years, and 19 while the schools were stand-alone projects, it did provide an opportunity to identify housing 20 or other needs of students and/or families that PPL could fulfill that were related to their 21 mission: a better education for a better quality of life. 22 23 At the request of Member Pust, Mr. Cramer advised that they operated three (3) contract 24 alternative schools, and one (1) authorized charter school; and were open to the possibility of 25 more if they found other good fits to the PPL mission. 26 27 Member Masche congratulated PPL on the longevity of their organization and spoke in support 28 of their mission concept to combine housing and the social holistic approach as their core 29 philosophy. Member Masche asked the presenters, if they were to locate a site in Roseville 30 similar to the Louisiana Court project, what kind of opportunities they would seek from the 31 HRA or what could the HRA offer that would be of the most benefit to their project. 32 33 Mr. Cramer advised that PPL had held very preliminary conversations with Housing Manager 34 Jeanne Kelsey; and advised that a key lesson learned from the Louisiana Court project was the 35 need to identify financing and underwriting partners very early on in the process. Mr. Cramer 36 opined that you could not over-leverage this type of project, and that the challenge was to get 37 the financing in place upfront. As far as identifying potential buildings in Roseville, Mr. 38 Cramer advised that they were aware of some of the challenges and nuisance buildings in 39 Roseville; however, he noted the complications in getting site control and doing it in a way 40 that made it more likely to become a long-term success and turn the project around. 41 42 Mr. Wilson, continuing to respond to Member Masche’s query, advised that PPL attempted to 43 plug into existing programs, to avoid reinventing the wheel. 44 45 Chair Maschka thanked Mr. Cramer and Mr. Wilson for their very informative and thought- 46 provoking presentation. 47 48 9.Action/Discussion Items 49 50 a.2012 Budget Discussion 51 Executive Director Trudgeon announced the upcoming joint meeting between the City Council 52 and HRA scheduled for Monday, July 25, 2011. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the proposed 2012 53 budget, as presented and detailed in the staff report dated June 21, 2011; provided the 54 recommendation of staff and the HRA’s Finance Subcommittee for a zero percent (0%) levy 55 increase for the third year in a row.