CC_Minutes_2013_1021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 21, 2013 Page 16 not something the market could do on its own without financial assistance from the City. Even though these are not affordable housing units, Member Lee noted that they are affordable in Roseville; and that was part of the bigger picture that needed to be vetted; and a determination of what the City was receiving for their investment for a product that would not otherwise happen in the community. Chair Maschka noted that the return on investment (ROI) was very important, in- cluding getting homes updated that needed to be updated and relocate people into a new type of housing; as well as considering the impact on the property tax base aspect as well. Member Elkins stated that, obviously the GMHC has a great reputation, and with her institutional knowledge of their organization, thought they would be very flex- ible in negotiating a final product and agreement. Member Elkins noted that she was not familiar with the Sand Company; and opined that she found the Corn- monBond proposal way off base even though she had found them flexible in the past. Member Elkins noted that the GMHC also had many avenues to pursue for federal and state money; and opined that with fine-tuning, they could come up with some creative financing options. Councilmember Willmus echoed Chair Maschka's comment regarding ROI, since that had a major component of the proposals, with the rehabilitation of additional homes within the community being a major financial component not fully ad- dressed in the revised Attachment B. Councilmember Willmus noted that there was also intrinsic value in creating a much more stable neighborhood with lower density, of value to the City and immediate neighborhood. While there remained substantial gaps in all three proposals as presented, at this point, Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in working with and exploring how to make a pro- ject work with the GMHC. Specific to rehabilitation of existing homes in Roseville as mentioned by Coun- cilmember Willmus, Member Elkins advised that GMHC indicated that Ramsey County strongly encouraged the use of senior money to rehabilitate them, provid- ing a great aspect not addressed in the other two proposals. While such a program already exists in Roseville through the HRA, Member Elkins opined that this would be using Ramsey County money set aside for that purpose; and was en- couraged if they were to invest in it at all. Member Elkins advised that she would also ask GMHC to consider use of a Community Land Trust (CLT) option, where a homeowner would own the house, but not the property that would be on a 99 year lease; which she found to be a program that really worked well in places. Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for Member Quam's comments; having her own concerns with the accuracy of the numbers and financial aspects. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the GMHC proposal had twice the funding potential of the Sand Company, made very clear from their presentation. Howev-