My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016_1216_FC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Finance Commission
>
Packet
>
2016_1216_FC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2016 12:28:32 PM
Creation date
12/27/2016 12:28:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Finance Commission Minutes <br />November 9, 2016 – Draft Minutes <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br />Overview of the Roseville Economic Development Authority Programs 47 <br /> 48 <br />Ms. Jeanne Kelsey, Roseville Economic Development Authority Staff, provided background on 49 <br />the Roseville Housing Redevelopment Authority (RHRA) and the City’s transfer in 2016 from 50 <br />the RHRA to the Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA). She reviewed the list of 51 <br />programs currently in place including the program scope, activity level, and budget information 52 <br />for 2017. These programs included the Roseville Home Improvement Loan Program, Housing 53 <br />Replacement/Single Family Construction Program, Roseville Multi-Family Housing 54 <br />Loan/Acquisition Fund Program, Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG), 55 <br />Housing Resource Center Construction Consultation, Roseville Green Building/Remodeling 56 <br />Award, Roseville Energy Audit Program, Green Remodeling Plan Book (GRPB), Home 57 <br />Improvement Workshops, Neighborhood Enhancement Programs, Roseville Abatement 58 <br />Program, Marketing Studies, Economic Development, and general EDA expenditures. 59 <br /> 60 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber clarified when as part of the Housing Replacement Single/Family 61 <br />Construction Program after the EDA acquires a property and demos the home they put the 62 <br />property back on the market with restrictions on the value of the home that can be placed on the 63 <br />property. 64 <br /> 65 <br />Ms. Kelsey stated this was correct. The EDA would remove the home and place the property 66 <br />back on the market at the assessed value of the property. 67 <br /> 68 <br />Chair Schroeder asked if the cost to remove the home was factored into the sale price of the 69 <br />property. 70 <br /> 71 <br />Ms. Kelsey stated these costs were not factored in on the last property the City sold because the 72 <br />cost would be recouped in the increased taxes the City would receive from the increased property 73 <br />value. The Board has decided they would like to have these funds recouped upfront so they 74 <br />would be asking to have the costs covered as part of the sale. 75 <br /> 76 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber asked what the benefit would be to the developer or the homeowner to 77 <br />using the loans available through these programs. 78 <br /> 79 <br />Ms. Kelsey stated the Single Family Loan Program offers a 3% interest rate and the applicant 80 <br />pays the origination fee and underwriting costs for 10-years. The benefit for a rental property is 81 <br />for those properties that are affordable housing to remain affordable housing. 82 <br /> 83 <br />Commissioner Murray asked if these loans would be considered a second mortgage and what the 84 <br />loss risk would be. 85 <br /> 86 <br />Ms. Kelsey stated the City loans would be a second mortgage and over the time period that they 87 <br />have used Roseville funds for the Single Family loans there has not been any foreclosures or loss 88 <br />of a loan. The underwriting for these loans is the same as what other financial institutes would 89 <br />require. 90 <br /> 91 <br />Item 3: Attachment A
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.