Laserfiche WebLink
7.Public Hearing <br />None. <br />8.Action Items: <br />a.Discuss HRA Program Evaluation <br />Michael Darrow, consultant for Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc., indicated that the program evaluation was <br />discussed during the HRA Strategic Plan process. Mr. Darrow noted that the HRA had discussed the <br />possibility of combining the Revolving Loan Program and Family Affordable Loan Program. Mr. <br />Darrow noted that the HRA wished to ensure that a new program would remain a revolving loan program <br />and wished to also encourage green building improvements. Member Kelsey inquired as to the payment <br />schedule on existing outstanding loans and the amount of the income stream from the two loan programs. <br />Mr. Darrow indicated that the programs haven’t been performing well and speculated that combining the <br />two programs may remedy the situation by streamlining the loan application and administration process. <br />Member Kelsey noted that funds had been set aside in the HRA budget to address code issues and <br />wondered if non-compliance is due mainly to economic difficulties or some other reasons. Mr. Trudgeon <br />indicated that it is usually a combination of a lack of financial resources and other factors that ultimately <br />result in non-compliance. <br />Member Pust opined that she would like to have further discussion of the rationale for setting aside funds <br />in the HRA budget to address code enforcement issues. Member Pust asked Mr. Darrow for clarification <br />of his comment that the Revolving Loan Program and Family Affordable Loan Program weren’t <br />performing well. Mr. Darrow indicated that his comment was meant to express the fact that the loan <br />programs hadn’t been fully utilized and not to imply that payments aren’t being made by the loan <br />recipients. Mr. Trudgeon apprised the board of current balances in the two loan programs. <br />Member Pust requested that the Revolving Loan Program goal language pertaining to “…a reasonable <br />rate” be amended so that the HRA board does not become the arbiter of what is considered a “good” rate <br />from a lending institution. Chair Majerus reminded the board to clarify to staff any questions that they <br />would like to have answered at the next meeting. <br />Member Kelsey noted that it was her understanding the Revolving Loan Program and Family Affordable <br />Loan Program weren’t performing well due to some of the criteria placed on those programs which <br />limited eligibility. Member Kelsey opined that the board needs a clear understanding of the advantages of <br />combining the two loan programs. The board had a brief discussion of the possibility of providing funds <br />for a temporary, seasonal code enforcement staff person. Member Pust requested that staff bring to the <br />next meeting a clarification of income limitations placed on the existing loan programs. <br />Mr. Darrow introduced a discussion of multi-family housing renovation. The board discussed the <br />possibility of evaluating these types of projects on a case-by-case basis or creating criteria for a broader <br />program. Member Pust directed staff to update the existing housing program matrix to reflect the multi- <br />family housing component of HRA programming. Member Maschka opined that the HRA may have a <br />greater impact on housing by leveraging funds to update Roseville’s deteriorating multi-family housing <br />stock versus concentrating on renovating individual single-family homes. Member Kelsey noted that the <br />board may want to explore including affordability criteria in the discussion of multi-family housing <br />renovation. Member Pust wondered if the market would take care of that concern. <br /> <br />