Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, April 17, 2012 <br />Page 6 <br />1 <br />significant for them in attracting other adjacent homes in the neighborhood to invest in their <br />2 <br />properties and increase the overall value. Ironically, Ms. Raye advised that this had proven <br />3 <br />true for them with housing, as well as for commercial properties. <br />4 <br />5 <br />Members thanked Ms. Raye for the helpful and thorough information provided from these <br />6 <br />interviews. <br />7 <br />8 <br />Strategic Planning Survey Data Summary - Center for Policy, Planning and Performance <br />9 <br />Of the eleven (11) perspectives, roles in the community included City of Roseville Department <br />10 <br />Head, Housing Developers, Social/Human Service Providers, School/Educators, both through <br />11 <br />high school, and post high school; elected officials, realtors, HRA Board members, Ramsey <br />12 <br />County government representatives; housing advocates; and employers. <br />13 <br />14 <br />Ms. Raye reviewed the rankings and various filtering options used in evaluating the survey <br />15 <br />responses, filtered by stakeholder perspective. Ms. Raye noted that “neighborhood <br />16 <br />revitalization and maintenance” had more variables than the other categories depending on <br />17 <br />who was responding. Ms. Ray advised that linking housing development with economic <br />18 <br />development showed at the highest ranking across all perspectives. Some individual notes of <br />19 <br />interest included: <br />20 <br />“Housing for Specialized Needs” was only ranked in the top seven by developers, with <br />21 <br />other perspectives not ranking quite that high. <br />22 <br />The “Advocates: Education/Human Services” perspective put rental needs higher than in <br />23 <br />other perspectives. <br />24 <br />The Government perspective, both elected officials and department heads, appeared to be <br />25 <br />more intrigued by intergenerational connections than other groups. <br />26 <br />Realtors and Employers perspectives provided a more practical and business-oriented <br />27 <br />perspective and awareness of housing needs. <br />28 <br />29 <br />Barriers: <br /> (17-20 responses) costs related to upgrading current older housing stock; <br />30 <br />connectivity/walkability; high cost of new development; lack of availability and bias against <br />31 <br />rental housing, density; need for partnerships; demographic changes; upgrade infrastructure to <br />32 <br />support new density/housing; school responsiveness/quality. <br />33 <br />34 <br />Opportunities: <br /> continue loans/services to homeowners; select blighted residential and <br />35 <br />commercial sites and invest where families want to live; pursue more public/private <br />36 <br />partnerships; green revolution and infill renovation; market demand for rental housing; <br />37 <br />intergenerational housing and life cycle housing; affordable housing: strong partners, quality <br />38 <br />management. <br />39 <br />40 <br />Some Innovative Ideas/Areas of Interest: <br />41 <br />Low interest loans to purchase foreclosed homes – Woodbury, MN HRA <br />42 <br />Neighborhood level redevelopment <br />43 <br />Redevelopment for multi-family housings/strive for higher valued housing that exceeds <br />44 <br />average home value to provide options to single-family housing that could keep residents <br />45 <br />here, or attract new residents <br />46 <br />Create more multi-family housing around city hall campus area (e.g. where single families <br />47 <br />homes are on the east side of Lexington Avenue) would be great adjacent to the park; <br />48 <br />could be a nice HUB; build out County Road C in a more robust manner, treating it like a <br />49 <br />Main Street <br />50 <br />Communities are looking at energy improvements <br />51 <br />Expand role of HRA into EDA; staff and resources and expertise better utilized; develop <br />52 <br />new community center <br />53 <br />Sidewalks <br />54 <br />Intergeneration, mixed use development <br /> <br />