Laserfiche WebLink
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, May 19, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />1 <br />Member Wall suggested this could and should be a bigger topic at the upcoming planning <br />2 <br />session. <br />3 <br />4 <br />With further consensus by Members Lee, Elkins, and Masche, Chair Maschka questioned the <br />5 <br />validity of a subcommittee to negotiate a contract depending on the end results of discussions <br />6 <br />of the full Board. <br />7 <br />8 <br />In his agreement with the plan suggested by Member Wall, Member Masche noted this was <br />9 <br />part of the evolution of the HRA over the years and their changing role. <br />10 <br />11 <br />Motion: Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Lee to TABLE action approving a <br />12 <br />service contract with the City of Roseville for support services for the calendar year 2015. <br />13 <br />14 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />15 <br />Nays: 0 <br />16 <br />Motion carried. <br />17 <br />18 <br />Motion: Member Masche moved, seconded by Member Etten to direct staff to approve <br />19 <br />and authorize payment to the City of Roseville first quarter HRA bills in an amount not <br />20 <br />to exceed $50,917.50. <br />21 <br />22 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />23 <br />Nays: 0 <br />24 <br />Motion carried. <br />25 <br />26 <br />c.Redevelopment (Infill) Sites – Paul Bilotta <br />27 <br />With the addition of two additional bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, <br />28 <br />Mr. Bilotta highlighted several sites identified by staff from an estimated 100 similar infill <br />29 <br />development sites throughout the community, that could be of interest to the HRA. <br />30 <br />31 <br />Mr. Bilotta and HRA Board members reviewed property details provided via Ramsey County <br />32 <br />data, and maps of some of those properties; their specific nature, current uses and zoning and <br />33 <br />potential uses; those properties that could be considered for potential park or open space use <br />34 <br />and those previously considered but subsequently eliminated for such a purpose; involvement <br />35 <br />of other jurisdictions (e.g. Ramsey County, and/or Cities of St. Paul, Maplewood and <br />36 <br />Roseville) in some of those redevelopment efforts; and areas needing due diligence (e.g. soil <br />37 <br />contamination issues) if the HRA considered involvement with those properties for <br />38 <br />redevelopment. <br />39 <br />40 <br />Further discussion included jurisdictional issues with Ramsey County HRA powers <br />41 <br />superseding those of local municipality HRA powers; potential grant funds available for some <br />42 <br />redevelopment prospects; and the need for sensitivity to neighborhoods for some of the <br />43 <br />development sites, creating a role for the HRA rather than private high density development <br />44 <br />efforts. <br />45 <br />46 <br />Mr. Bilotta provided a general map of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment sites as well to provide <br />47 <br />a broader understanding of opportunities in that area that may be of interest to the HRA, <br />48 <br />depending on their interest in limiting their redevelopment efforts to housing or expanding into <br />49 <br />commercial or mixed use aspects as well, and perhaps a part of their upcoming joint meeting <br />50 <br />with the City Council. <br />51 <br />52 <br />Member Etten noted that many of the available sites definitely needed a governing body to <br />53 <br />assemble lots, which may be a future role for the HRA depending on the results of their <br />54 <br />planning session discussions and reviewing priorities. Member Etten opined that the HRA <br />55 <br />needed to determine how to focus their work, recognizing the HRA’s unique ability to deal <br /> <br />