2014-11-18_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, November 18, 2014 Page 5 1 Member Etten suggested that staff layout options for zones community-wide, perhaps using 2 different criteria or parameters depending on the zone and its needs; and providing different 3 ways to slice up investments to address those issues by zone. 4 5 Member Lee noted the other programs available to the City of Roseville through the Housing 6 Resource Center; and asked that staff provide a recap and reminder of those programs for HRA 7 review and to make residents aware of options, including deferred options for very-low- 8 income restrictions. 9 10 Member Etten concurred that the information should definitely be part of the broader 11 discussion. 12 13 Ms. Kelsey noted that when she and Mr. Koepp had initially reviewed the data, they had been 14 looking for a “silver bullet” that would conclusively provide direction. However, Ms. Kelsey 15 noted that unfortunately there was no consistency in the needs, and noted the inconsistencies in 16 the economy over the last ten years moving from free money to current lending industry 17 constraints. Ms. Kelsey asked the HRA for some time to review how lending institutions are 18 addressing the “new normal” and areas not being funded in the community. If the HRA only 19 ended up waiving income restrictions, Ms. Kelsey expressed concern that the marketplace 20 could take care of things on its own without participation by the HRA. Ms. Kelsey suggested 21 that the HRA needed to address market areas where the private marketplace was not taking 22 care of things, and reinvest as they say the need in the community and incentivize those 23 specific areas. Ms. Kelsey noted that the programs addressed by Member Lee would only 24 allow for maintenance items, not rehabilitation of housing stock. 25 26 Member Lee noted that some of those items (e.g. furnace replacement and other energy 27 efficiencies) were critical. Member Lee opined that that many properties may still be 28 underwater even if their owners now had income, but a high mortgage to address and 29 significantly straining their income. 30 31 Ms. Kelsey noted that staff was unable to access recorded mortgages on property to compare 32 them to assessed values for comparison purposes. 33 34 Member Lee noted that sales prices to assessed values should be available publically. Member 35 Lee noted that sales prices were originally at market, but if purchasing in 2005 and compared 36 with today’s value, there remained a lot of property sitting in that murky territory. 37 38 Ms. Kelsey advised that she would consult with the Ramsey County Assessor to glean 39 additional information to assist this discussion. 40 41 If properties were sold within the last five years, Mr. Koepp advised that staff should have that 42 sales data available, and could pull the value in the year it sold to perform further analysis. 43 44 Ms. Kelsey concurred; and asked that staff be given time to dig into the data further. 45 46 Speaking from personal experience, Member Etten noted that some homeowners, in light 47 collar jobs, may make too much money to qualify for some lending programs; and even though 48 they’re ready to invest, the private market was not interested in providing that financing. 49 Member Etten suggested that may be one avenue to pursue. 50 51 From her experience in the private banking marketplace, Member Elkins noted the difference 52 in today’s banking and mortgage lending industry compared to that four years ago; and the 53 restrictions they now have to comply with and tight underwriting guidelines. However, 54 Member Elkins concurred that the HRA could find the void to fill for qualified homeowners to 55 fund reinvestment in areas they could not achieve from private lenders.