Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Saturday, April 21, 2012 <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />1 <br />Further discussion included needs for young families and how to make a smaller home work for them <br />2 <br />now and for them to remain in that home as empty nesters and in their senior years; price ranges for <br />3 <br />typical housing stock; challenges of lot and/or home sizes depending on life style choices; how to <br />4 <br />encourage redefining a home to make remaining in it attractive versus moving as a family grows; and <br />5 <br />the need for move-up or mid-range homes to address those choosing not to remain in their current <br />6 <br />homes; as well as affordability issues for those families; and the current inventory shortage for homes in <br />7 <br />the $350,000 to $400,000 range. <br />8 <br /> <br />9 <br />Additional discussion included the role of the HRA for those choosing to demolish existing homes <br />10 <br />where possible and rebuilding more square footage on the same lot <br />11 <br />life styles and changes in those preferences from urban to suburban as they aged; economic viability of <br />12 <br />living in Roseville for starter families; price and inventory issues in Roseville for younger families; <br />13 <br />number of bedrooms in a home versus amenities for comparison with the ramblers of the past and <br />14 <br />15 <br />space, and attached two-car garage); and cautious nature of lenders in providing money today. <br />16 <br /> <br />17 <br />Continue to Market Community <br />It was HRA consensus to <br />18 <br /> <br />19 <br />Economic Development <br /> <br />20 <br />Members discussed examples of others (e.g. City of St. Paul, Dakota County) and their role in <br />21 <br />redevelopment <br />22 <br />programs in Ramsey County at this time; and recognizing the reality of costs to trigger redevelopment, <br />23 <br />whether as a lead or in partnership. <br />24 <br /> <br />25 <br />Discussion included the importance of economic development to a community; partnerships with <br />26 <br />private developers; use of bonding authority in those efforts; and the need for the HRA and City <br />27 <br />Council to be willing to move forward proactively. <br />28 <br /> <br />29 <br />Member Willmus reiterated his question of whether an EDA was needed, when the HRA had <br />30 <br />redevelopment opportunities; <br />31 <br />County Road C and Cleveland for the last thirty (30) years, with the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area <br />32 <br />less than half developed. <br />33 <br /> <br />34 <br />Member Quam moving forward, including for <br />35 <br />redevelopment efforts. <br />36 <br /> <br />37 <br />Member Willmus noted the need for buy-in from the City Council to successfully move ahead. <br />38 <br /> <br />39 <br />Member Masche opined that creation of an EDA would only slow that process down; as well as <br />40 <br />creating the need to build trust and convincing the City Council and community once again. <br />41 <br /> <br />42 <br />Member Willmus noted that the HRA would also lose some of their more successful marketing tools <br />43 <br />(e.g. sustainability and Living Smarter campaign) and lose their edge if transitioning to an EDA. <br />44 <br /> <br />45 <br />Chair Maschka concurred. <br />46 <br /> <br />47 <br />48 <br />had tools in place. <br />49 <br /> <br />50 <br />Economic Development <br />Specific areas identified under the category included: <br />51 <br /> Lexington Avenue and County Road B <br />52 <br /> County Road C and Cleveland Avenue <br />53 <br /> Background information <br />54 <br /> Revenue Bonds <br />55 <br /> Har Mar Mall <br /> <br />