2012-02-21_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Page 11 1 it was a full ½ acre, with the property assessment showing less value in the structure than in 2 the parcel itself. 3 4 Member Pust asked that the HRA again consider and discuss its role as property holders, 5 referencing past experiences that had proven unsuccessful, such as the home rehabbed by the 6 HRA on County Road B-2 at Lexington. Member Pust noted that, while this may be a great 7 idea, the other consideration was in whether the HRA should put itself in the role of competing 8 with the private market place; and what stipulations prompted such an action now and in the 9 future. Member Pust opined that having discussions with AEON or another developer was 10 different, but cautioned that the HRA couldn’t purchase every house that code enforcement 11 staff didn’t want to see turned into blighted potential. Member Pust admitted that this property 12 may be an exception to the rule; however, she further opined that the HRA needed to have that 13 public discussion before taking action. 14 15 Chair Maschka noted that one of the most prevalent problems with that specific parcel had 16 been in the market timing; and that the intent of this purchase would be buying dirt for 17 redevelopment. 18 19 Member Quam questioned the viability of the HRA putting the parcel under contract and 20 assigning it to a developer, with the HRA acting as a facilitator. 21 22 Member Pust questioned why there was no interest form a contractor or developer in 23 purchasing the property. 24 25 Member Battisto noted that there may be little interest due to the poor cost of construction at 26 this time. 27 28 Chair Maschka concurred, noting there would be the additional cost of demolition. 29 30 Member Lee noted that the HRA would be purchasing it to avoid blight, without seeking to 31 make a profit, while a private developer would be purchasing it with making a profit in mind. 32 33 Member Pust suggested it may be prudent for the HRA to have the first right of refusal for 34 code deficient properties; however, she reminded HRA members that the last time the HRA 35 ended up owning property or having an interest in a property, they had vowed to never do it 36 again. 37 38 Ms. Kelsey noted that this was a good discussion to have as the HRA went into their strategic 39 planning discussion in the future. Ms. Kelsey noted that the HRA inherited some of the City 40 programs in 2003, but that this program didn’t get carried forward based on budgetary 41 capacity. However, Ms. Kelsey advised that there were CDBG funds in the HRA coffers at 42 this time, approximately $140,000, in addition to excess funds available through Ramsey 43 County for purchase of homes currently in foreclosure, with some of those funds potentially 44 available for the HRA. As part of future strategic planning, Ms. Kelsey opined that whether to 45 resurrect the Roseville Replacement Program should be part of those discussions, particularly 46 with the availability of vacant and/or foreclosed properties, and whether there was a role for 47 the HRA to consider in the future, even if they chose not to pursue this property. 48 49 Chair Maschka questioned if the distinction for this property was that it was in foreclosure and 50 vacant, with Member Pust noting that there was a list of 100 of those types of properties. 51 However, Chair Maschka noted that none of those properties were at this price point. 52 53 Member Pust suggested that, if a developer was listening to this debate on cable, they should 54 not make an assumption of which side of the debate she was siding, noting that she was unsure 55 of that position herself.