2012-04-17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, April 17, 2012 Page 3 1 Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the Roseville HRA currently served as a Local Development 2 Corporation for the purpose of the outstanding loan for Villa Housing. 3 At the request of Chair Maschka as to whether that LDC would cease to exist once the 4 outstanding loan was paid off, Mr. Bubal advised he would need to do further research in order 5 to respond to that question. 6 7 At the request of Chair Maschka as to whether the HRA could compile public/private 8 partnerships in the future with affordable and market-rate housing combined, Mr. Bubal 9 responded affirmatively. Mr. Bubal advised that the HRA could not pursue only market-rate 10 housing since that was not part of their mission; however, he advised that affordable housing 11 could be included as part of a project having market-rate housing as another component, based 12 on a certain percentage ratio for affordable housing; as well as owner-occupied projects with 13 an applicable ratio. 14 15 At the request of Member Masche as to how common it was for a City Council to serve as the 16 HRA, Mr. Bubal advised that it varied from city to city over time, and it had been more 17 common in the past two decades for the HRA to not be made up of City Councilmembers; but 18 over the last decade, was becoming more common to have the City Council serve as the HRA 19 Board. Mr. Bubal advised that it depended on individual city philosophies for the expenditure 20 of major public dollars versus City Council’s having so many other items already on their 21 plate, as well as seeking to have a broader community involvement for citizens outside of the 22 City Council and their areas of expertise to serve the community on an HRA. 23 24 Member Masche noted that the decision-making power really lied with an elected City 25 Council. 26 27 Mr. Bubal noted one difference between an HRA and an EDA was that the HRA was created 28 by resolution passed by the City Council, with some items needing City Council approval ,and 29 other things (e.g. purchasing land), that could be done independently. Mr. Bubal noted that an 30 EDA was created via enabling resolution of the City Council, under a “mini charter” or 31 “constitution,” perhaps with limits, but otherwise not requiring City Council approval and 32 having the potential to be tailor made for the City’s circumstances. 33 34 At the request of Chair Maschka, Mr. Bubal clarified that the City Council needed to approve 35 General Obligation bonds, but not Revenue Bonds issued through the HRA. 36 37 At the request of Member Willmus, Mr. Bubal clarified the definition of “blight” as it related 38 to financing tools for redevelopment, with no actual requirement in redevelopment for end use 39 significance, and could even accommodate inconsistent uses adjacent to each other; and/or 40 assemblage of land within a general area, with not all pieces having to comply as “blighted.” 41 42 Since the Statute was vague, Member Masche questioned if it made sense to make a list of 43 practical activities that the HRA could or should be involved in; and those requiring more 44 approvals through the City Council to avoid moving in one direction or another, and having 45 that checklist available. 46 47 Mr. Bubal opined that this may prove valuable; however, he advised that the list requiring City 48 Council action would be short, but may help the HRA understand their jurisdiction better. 49 50 At the request of Chair Maschka, Mr. Bubal clarified federal laws that may apply to low-cost 51 housing if Revenue Bonds were issued for an entire project combining market-rate and 52 income-limited units, specifically related to potential tax credits. 53