Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, May 21, 2013 <br />Page 6 <br />1 <br />Ms. Bujold advised that renters were looking more for amenities within their individual units <br />2 <br />(e.g. stainless appliances in brand new kitchens, full kitchen appliance packages, in-unit <br />3 <br />washers/dryers, walk-in closets in bedrooms, or granite countertops) balanced with those <br />4 <br />common area amenities such as a community gathering space, exercise rooms, rooftop decks, <br />5 <br />or coffee bars . Ms. Bujold advised that architects had become very good with unit efficiencies <br />6 <br />in providing a lot of amenities within units, with some units even having decreased in square <br />7 <br />footages, but having a feeling of space through their design making that diminished footage <br />8 <br />less evident. <br />9 <br />10 <br />Member Quam noted that, based on materials presented, at one time the HRA was concerned <br />11 <br />with achieving more affordable units in Roseville; however, her concept now was that as <br />12 <br />higher end products were introduced, those affordable units with older housing stock may <br />13 <br />actually become the affordable option. However, Member Quam questioned if the affordable <br />14 <br />option was still being entirely addressed and if more of those units were needed. <br />15 <br />16 <br />Ms. Bujold advised that she didn’t disagree with that perception, observing that the recent CDI <br />17 <br />meeting, new housing developments would charge at 60% of median or qualify people at 50% <br />18 <br />or up to 60% of median income depending on the amount of tax credits they get, putting a <br />19 <br />minimum rent for a one-bedroom unit at approximately $850/month. If that new product was <br />20 <br />compared with older products/housing stocks, Ms. Bujold noted that this would make them <br />21 <br />affordable housing options, while still providing a higher level of amenities and new units <br />22 <br />versus existing units currently available. <br />23 <br />24 <br />Chair Maschka clarified that the goal was described as work force housing and meeting <br />25 <br />housing needs for teachers, and young people making around $35,000 per year, thus making <br />26 <br />those proposed units affordable for them. <br />27 <br />28 <br />Ms. Bujold reviewed an average wage earner at $30,000 to $35,000 annually, with available <br />29 <br />income of 30% of that income applicable for housing that would have them paying their <br />30 <br />maximum amount of rent, making it affordable to a certain group of people, specific rent to <br />31 <br />your level of income. Ms. Bujold advised that this provided specific rent for that income level, <br />32 <br />able to afford that rent as a minimum, and their maximum income ceiling could not exceed that <br />33 <br />to continue qualifying as affordable. <br />34 <br />35 <br />Chair Maschka concurred, noting that there was a significant distinction for affordable <br />36 <br />housing. <br />37 <br />38 <br />Ms. Bujold noted that it often created affordable housing rents in brand new market rates <br />39 <br />developments, due to the availability of tax credits, not requiring subsidies. <br />40 <br />41 <br />Chair Maschka thanked Ms. Bujold and Ms. Jansen for their presentation and discussion; and <br />42 <br />noted that HRA would continue to evaluate options. <br />43 <br />44 <br />Ms. Bujold offered their availability in the future for any assistance needed. <br />45 <br />46 <br />Motion: Member Majerus moved, seconded by Member Lee to accept Comprehensive <br />47 <br />Multifamily Housing Needs Analysis from Maxfield Research <br />48 <br />49 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />50 <br />Nays: 0 <br />51 <br />Motion carried. <br />52 <br />53 <br />10. Information Reports and Other Business (Verbal Reports by Staff and Board Members) <br />54 <br />55 <br />a. Business Expansion and Retention Program <br /> <br />