My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2002_0617
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2002
>
CC_Minutes_2002_0617
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:41:17 AM
Creation date
10/31/2006 9:15:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/17/2002
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />, b <br /> <br /> <br />. City of Roseville <br />Community Deve'opment Dept <br /> <br />Memo <br /> <br />To: Neal Beets, City Manager (revised 06/14/02) <br />From: Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director <br />Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Specialist <br />Date: 06/14/2002; Revised 06/14/02 (clarity on syndications) by Dennis <br />Re: Response to Councilmember Klausing's memo dated June 12, 2002 <br /> <br />Genesis of an HRA? <br /> <br />According to the City Council's 2002 goal-setting session, housing was the #1 priority unanimously <br />agreed upon by the entire City Council. <br /> <br />The Community Development Staff has been very successful over the years in providing a variety of <br />housing programs and services to meet the needs of the community within the City's financial means. <br />However, as long term planners, staff observed that the use of existing funds is exceeding new funding. <br />A declining balance is occurring with estimated depletion, based on past usage, in 3-4 years. <br /> <br />This situation was touched upon this Spring at a City Council Work Session where the City's housing <br />programs were discussed. It was mentioned at that time that staff should research and review how a <br />Housing and Redevelopment Authority could benefit the City of Roseville. <br /> <br />Alternatives Considered and Rejected: <br /> <br />Staff has not rejected any option but is merely suggested an option over others. The Council, as the <br />only public policy decision-makers of the City, has the ability to accept or reject options provided by staff <br />and others. <br /> <br />.. Continue to use the City and its Port Authority powers to manage the housing programs with <br />the understanding that additional funding will be needed to maintain the same level of service. <br />This additional funding will need to compete with other general fund departments and activities <br />as a separate line item budget request. Based on past city fiscal policies not to increase <br />general fund levies with projects that have been initiated with enterprise funds or grants, staff <br />felt that to rely on this option would be unrealistic; prior Community Development requests for <br />additional housing resources have been rejected over the past several years. <br /> <br />.. Establish an Economic Development Authority. An EDA does not have the same sharp focus <br />on housing as an HRA. An EDA's focus is on broader development and redevelopment <br />issues. An EDA does have separate levy authority. However, the levy must be within the City <br />levy limits. Staff did not recommend this option since the focus was much broader than <br />housing and the funding restrictions would come up against the same limited fiscal policy that <br />exists currently. <br /> <br />. Page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.