2013-05-21_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Page 2 1 Motion carried. 2 3 7.Public Hearings 4 None. 5 6 8.Presentations 7 None. 8 9 9.Action/Discussion Items 10 11 a.Housing Replacement Program (HRP) 12 Acting HRA Executive Director Jeanne Kelsey provided a brief overview of the modified HRP 13 for the City of Roseville; and noted that HRA Attorney Steve Bubul was present to answer any 14 questions or concerns of HRA members. 15 16 Mr. Bubul summarized the authority and rights of the HRA, given two (2) missions by State 17 Statute and authority for either or a combination of the two: to correct/prevent the emergence 18 of blight (e.g. properties found substandard and acquired for rehabilitation or demolished for 19 resale), and in those situations, there was no incoming qualifications required of potential 20 buyers, with the choice more focused on the City’s housing stock. Mr. Bubul advised that the 21 second authority was to promote vacant parcels and affordable housing, which may require 22 potential buyers to quality under income limits for first-time homebuyer status. Mr. Bubul 23 advised that the overarching goal of the HRA is to improve the City’s housing stock. 24 25 Mr. Bubul advised that the HRA’s legal requirements are minimal, other than for each sale to 26 be subject to a public hearing, with ten (10) days published notice, but not necessarily 27 requiring a bidding process, just for public information prior to selling a property. 28 29 Mr. Bubul reviewed the minimal requirements as stipulated by the City’s HRP, providing that 30 plans for future construction needed to be provided to the HRA for approval at a public hearing 31 prior to sale of the property. When the property is sold, Mr. Bubul advised that then those 32 stipulations according to the HRP were included with the deed, including a right of reverter 33 should the construction not be begun or completed within a timeframe set by the HRA, at 34 which time the HRA would have the right to repossess the property. Typically, Mr. Bubul 35 advised that the HRA would be selling to a builder or a homeowner in the proposed HRP, but 36 that someone would hold the first mortgage rights and want to be in that position, with the 37 HRA in a subordinate position, a reality in today’s financial market place. In situations where 38 the HRA sells the property and construction never ensues, Mr. Bubul advised that this would 39 put the HRA in a better position to get the property back. 40 41 Discussion among Mr. Bubul and members included scenarios if construction was stopped and 42 subsequent payments on a construction loan; results in the case of foreclosures; typical 43 language for lenders to require a first reverter clause unless an unusual circumstance; possible 44 land grants of $1.00 by the HRA, and if a project didn’t occur, they could then repossess the 45 property; process for the HRA acquiring a property and having a sale pending at which time 46 the public hearing would occur, with subsequent approval of the contract with a buyer/owner 47 immediately following the public hearing. 48 49 Mr. Bubul noted that a contract between the HRA and buyer/owner served more than as a 50 Purchase Agreement, but also as a Redevelopment contract, imposing specific requirements as 51 agreed to and approved by both parties, with those specifications provided for in the 52 Redevelopment contract, followed by a closing in due course, with the remainder of the 53 contract having the standard features of a Purchase Agreement. 54