2015-07-21_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Special Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, June 30, 2015 Page 20 1 2 Member Wall revised his original 70% to 50%. However, with the approximate 10,000 single-family 3 homes in Roseville, most built before 1950, and structurally aging, he opined that this could not be 4 neglected. Member Wall agreed with Ms. Kelsey that the HRA efforts should be 50/50. 5 6 As Member Lee originally brought up, Ms. Kelsey suggested the HRA prioritization of what sites they 7 wanted to assemble. From staff’s perspective, Ms. Kelsey suggested a policy developed by the HRA as 8 a guide for staff for what to get involved in and what not to get involved in for those areas not obviously 9 addressed under the HRA’s statutory authority. Ms. Kelsey opined that this would benefit staff even in 10 programs, such as the Housing Replacement Program. Ms. Kelsey opined that this would help staff to 11 respond to citizens, the City Council and others in the community who questioned the rationale behind 12 the HRA’s involvement, which had proven a challenge for staff in the past (e.g. the home on Hamline 13 Avenue that was demolished and reconstructed and the loss of $7,000 for demolition costs). 14 15 Member Lee opined that “but for” was part of that rationale or guiding principles. 16 17 Member Lee suggested the HRA consider a tour of the top six infill sites, or areas for parcel assembly, 18 in the near future, including a tour of SE Roseville, and other sites brought up to the HRA in 19 presentations several months ago. 20 21 The consensus of the body was enthusiastic for that idea. 22 23 Member Wall opined that second-guessing would continue no matter what the HRA undertook. 24 25 Member Etten opined that if the HRA had a clear, positive policy in place addressing those things 26 people were seeking, it would be less controversial. 27 28 Member Lee agreed with Member Etten, opining that it would also provide protection for staff when 29 making decisions on behalf of the HRA. 30 31 Ms. Kelsey noted that one part of that policy could address rationale for the HRA in subsidizing 32 projects to get a return on the dollar for the community quicker than the tax increment financing (TIF) 33 option would accomplish. 34 35 Ms. Raye concurred that metrics and timeline would be good to include as part of the analysis, and 36 allow more effective communication on impacts with various options, and fit into the “organizational 37 effectiveness” bucket well. 38 39 In addition to the hotel/motel study, Ms. Raye asked if there were any other studies that may be helpful 40 to the HRA over the next three years. 41 42 Ms. Kelsey noted internal staff discussions were underway specific to the Se Roseville situation to 43 address benefits to the City as a whole and in more detail; and criteria to determine a priority list that 44 addressed levels of impact, based on the location of a parcel or areas where there may be a larger impact 45 overall. Ms. Kelsey also noted a report on financing options and various opportunities to consider. 46 47 Chair Maschka agreed that from his perspective, assessing what is going on and available resources to 48 deal with the situation were the first step in the process for SE Roseville. 49 50 Member Wall referenced a great resources and informative presentation he recalled by the State 51 Demographer’s Office in addressing long-term populations and demographics, national origin and 52 population make-up. 53 54 Ms. Raye opined that such information would provide for anticipation versus reaction in long-term 55 planning.