2010-01-19_ HRA_packet_LDC_packet

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, November 17, 2009 Page 3 some property owners without on-site management staff in place for those reporting requirements. Discussion included the need to rehabilitate these older buildings with smaller units and lacking amenities of newer construction; how to make it more user-friendly, and further promote the program and educate owners of the advantages; hesitation to make aggressive changes in the program unless feedback was solicited from property owners as to their hesitancy in utilizing the assistance; staff’s experience, based on their phone inquiries, of property owners doing minor rehabilitation with little assistance versus those not doing any rehabilitation and how the HRA can provide incentives to make it advantageous to use the program. Further discussion included how to better market the program (i.e., City newsletters) to those property owners needing the assistance; additional staff outreach to owners; customary program guidelines in place and similar to other assistance programs; whether privacy was an issue with income requirements or whether it was the perception that certifying income qualifications was a daunting task for property owners to consider; and advantages of having a focus group come before the HRA to discuss how the program could assist them; assistance requests under $50,000 approved by staff based on program guidelines, with those over $50,000 coming before the HRA for consideration; whether the income guideline language was being confused with Section 8 housing terminology; and intent in getting the program to be self-sustaining as a revolving loan fund. Additional discussion included the substantial rehabilitation and HRA assistance of $350,000 in the Har Mar Apartment project; perceptions that property owners and their tenants didn’t want to be strapped to a government program; the advantages to property owners in this loan program; whether the current economy is a determining factor for property owners; interest rates for the loan program of 0-3% to provide incentive for people to reinvest in their property’ and how the program impacts the overall community housing situation. Members concurred that identifying owners willing to serve on a focus group and meet with the HRA would be helpful;; and further marketing of the program and available funds. Further discussion included the ability to reapply income guidelines if there was a glut of interested from property owners once those guidelines were removed; and the HRA’s ability to allocate funds elsewhere if there is apparently no interest in this type of assistance. Chair Maschka noted the recent quarterly report to the City Council and presentation of the housing study summary, identifying missing housing in the community of reasonable senior housing and top level senior housing. Member Majerus opined that, without the rental licensing inspection program in place, there wasn’t much incentive for property owners to rehabilitate their rental properties. Motion: Member Masche moved, seconded by Member Majerus, to modify the Roseville Multi-Family Loan Program to remove tenant income restrictions; with a friendly amendment offered by Chair Maschka and accepted by the makers of the motion to remove terminology related to Section 8 income guidelines, with more generic reference to language related to Metropolitan Area Housing Standards. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried.