2012-03-20_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Page 6 1 2 3 What are ideas/questions the HRA Board wants to ask, specifically in the proposed 4 on-line survey; and how and through what methods/opportunities can Roseville 5 housing stakeholders be encouraged to participate? 6 Who are those stakeholders? 7 What other data would be important to the HRA Board to be included in this 8 analysis? 9 10 Chair Maschka opined that it was the consensus of the HRA Board that it was moving toward 11 a pivotal partnership point for a bricks and mortar process. Chair Maschka noted the Board’s 12 initial participation with the Sienna Green apartment complex; and spoke in support of the 13 HRA’s current or updated role for the City of Roseville, such as whether an Economic 14 Development Authority (EDA) role may be indicated with or in addition to housing issues. 15 While the HRA had developed a good organ structure, Chair Maschka opined that it may be 16 time for the body to become more proactive. Chair Maschka noted the HRA’s bonding 17 authority as an option; as well as his enthusiasm of public/private partnership opportunities 18 depending on the project/private developer and/or market. Chair Maschka noted, as an 19 example, one of the City’s fire stations soon to be abandoned and adjoining property that was 20 currently available as a potential housing development. 21 22 Member Majerus sought additional financial options that could be available for the HRA; and 23 how private/public participation or partnerships could be structured. 24 25 Member Pust asked that, among stakeholders in the discussion, AEON be included, with HRA 26 Board consensus based on their positive reputation in the housing field. Member Pust asked 27 that other cities be consulted to see the options and tools they’ve used and their rational in 28 doing so, as well as their rationale in not choosing some of those options, including cities other 29 than Roseville’s immediately adjacent neighbors. 30 31 In giving consideration to the other side of the argument and those not in agreement with the 32 role of the HRA, Member Pust suggested that they be included as a stakeholder as well to 33 effectively provide that perspective and allow for vetting those issues (e.g. single-family 34 housing developers). 35 36 While Chair Maschka opined that those developers could still partner with the HRA serving as 37 a facilitator or through providing seed money, Member Pust noted the need to be able to 38 answer those issues and concerns, specifically at the City Council level, and defend the HRA’s 39 role and the public versus private roles. 40 41 Member Pust noted the sophisticated level of financial options often discussed at the HRA 42 Board, and the need to flesh that out, specifically as it related to how and why the HRA would 43 become involved rather than letting the private market move forward without a government 44 role. Member Pust noted the need to defend the HRA’s position, at the City Council level, to 45 avoid assertions that the HRA was treading on the turf of the private market place. 46 47 Chair Maschka opined that this was perfect timing for this discussion since it fell into the 48 entire economic development issue; with private developers now having more confidence to 49 begin doing projects again. However, Chair Maschka noted that financing remained a 50 detriment for private developers, while recognizing that the HRA had financing tools available 51 to partner with them or facilitate those projects. 52 53 Chair Maschka noted that the Cities of St. Louis Park and Richfield had served as leaders for 54 aggressive housing ideas in the metropolitan area; and expressed interest in researching those 55 ideas further.