Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Saturday, April 21, 2012 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1 <br />place within the next 3-4 years, the HRA would have failed in their goal. Chair Maschka further <br />2 <br />opined that the Target location on County Road B would be a prime candidate for a housing and <br />3 <br />commercial development, allowing the HRA to address the Economic Development goal as well; <br />4 <br />and would provide the greatest opportunity to meet housing, economic development and area <br />5 <br />needs. <br />6 <br /> <br />7 <br />Redevelopment of the Southeast/East Section of Roseville <br /> <br />8 <br />9 <br />was further threatened with decay, impacting the entire community. As an example, Chair <br />10 <br />11 <br />address that decay before it resulted in its current state. Chair Maschka cautioned the HRA to <br />12 <br />avoid similar concentrated housing efforts that could become a cancer on the community; opining <br />13 <br />that this section of Roseville was the potential cancer in Roseville. <br />14 <br /> <br />15 <br />Economic Development / Redevelopment - Commercial Businesses <br /> <br />16 <br />Chair Maschka suggested the HRA consider gap financing to facilitate a good office project in the <br />17 <br />18 <br />could possibley find a way to jump-start redevelopment in that area. <br />19 <br /> <br />20 <br />Chair Maschka opined that the HRA needed to support staff with resources dedicated to work <br />21 <br />cooperatively with business leaders to find out how the HRA could help them most effectively. <br />22 <br /> <br />23 <br />Member Willmus concurred. <br />24 <br /> <br />25 <br />Member Majerus noted the value of the data derived from interviews with other communities; and <br />26 <br />suggested that more detailed information be sought (e.g. pros/cons and their experiences whether <br />27 <br />28 <br />Member Majerus opined that if the HRA was to strike, they needed to ensure the City was well- <br />29 <br />positioned to do so. <br />30 <br /> <br />31 <br />Chair Maschka concurred; however, he observed that leadership was not without risk, and the HRA <br />32 <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br />34 <br />also <br />35 <br />possible to minimize those risks. <br />36 <br /> <br />37 <br />Single-family Housing Stock / Market <br /> <br />38 <br />39 <br />Maschka noted that the price of Roseville single-family homes allowed for reinvestment, and cited <br />40 <br />four (4) homes in his neighborhood that had been sold recently, and rehabilitated; with each having <br />41 <br />received multiple bids and good interest. <br />42 <br /> <br />43 <br />Ms. Kelsey noted that the housing market had come back. <br />44 <br /> <br />45 <br />Chair Maschka opined that this area would work itself out, without assistance from the HRA; <br />46 <br />however, his concern was how to monitor the redevelopment to make sure the rehabilitated single- <br />47 <br />family homes were well done and up to community standards . <br />48 <br /> <br />49 <br />Chair Maschka opined that another consideration was how to impact new housing styles, citing the <br />50 <br />IKEA home selling for $80,000, consisting of panel construction, as an example; opining that the <br />51 <br />Mounds View School District site set up an excellent opportunity for that type or similar affordable <br />52 <br />housing. <br />53 <br /> <br />54 <br />Member Majerus questioned if and how the rental licensure issue impacted housing rehabilitation. <br />55 <br /> <br /> <br />