2012-05-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Page 4 1 Discussion ensued regarding the intent of this terminology; whether “social blight” was within 2 the role of the HRA; and the original intent of the term to capture or minimize crime in specific 3 areas where problems may be evident or where there was under-maximized use of 4 opportunities (e.g. SE portion of Roseville). 5 6 Member Majerus opined that the HRA was not the “social” element for the City, but the 7 “housing” element; and suggested removal of “social” and physical” from the title, leaving 8 only “blight” without further specificity. 9 10 Member Quam questioned how the HRA addressed Objective b, and what options were 11 currently available to the HRA. 12 13 Chair Maschka noted that pass-through financing was considered conduit financing; as well as 14 the HRA’s bonding authority; both currently available as HRA tools. 15 16 Mr. Trudgeon clarified that the intent of staff was for a review of current or creation of new 17 policies that provided straightforward methods for using those specific tools; whether the tools 18 were useful to the HRA’s goals and mission; and what types of projects to invest in; as well as 19 what parameters the HRA wanted to establish for particular projects. 20 21 Member Majerus questioned if this item wouldn’t be more applicable in the Action Plan rather 22 than in the Strategic Plan. 23 24 After further discussion, Member Quam suggested revising the language of Objective B to 25 [Utilizing] “funding tools, rather than “Create policies that allow funding tools…” 26 27 Ms. Raye referenced Objective E under Goal IV and how best to write this with the HRA 28 Board’s discussion and intent to address neighborhoods with multi-jurisdictions at the edges of 29 the cities, but crossing jurisdictions while remaining a neighborhood. Ms. Raye suggested 30 “Identify neighborhoods that need partnerships to make neighborhood- language that would 31 wide improvements.” 32 33 Chair Maschka questioned if that addressed Member Quam’s issue of underutilized corners. 34 35 Mr. Trudgeon stated that her concern was raised under Objective A, with this Objective 36 intended to be about neighborhoods, not specific properties. 37 38 Member Quam concurred with Mr. Trudgeon’s comments. 39 40 Since a lot of those multi-jurisdictional areas were zoned commercial, Chair Maschka 41 questioned how staff saw the structure of those neighborhoods. 42 43 Ms. Kelsey responded that this issue needed to be further addressed, since it was intended to be 44 unique under Goal II and included under “,” identifying redevelopment sites. Therefore, Ms. 45 unique Kelsey questioned if the HRA Board wanted to specifically call out “.” 46 47 Chair Maschka suggested that the HRA Board think of developments to foster through “good 48 design,” not necessarily “unique. 49 50 Member Lee concurred, suggesting more creativity in pocket neighborhoods. 51 52 Member Majerus suggested language somewhere that addressed “… investigating 53 opportunities or potential for pocket neighborhoods in the community.” 54 55