My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0728_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0728_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2011 10:27:15 AM
Creation date
10/21/2011 10:14:47 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
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
Regular City MM'utes r <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 3 <br />Partners, the development arm of Presbyterian Homes. <br />Mr. VanSlyke reviewed concerns of current tenants at <br />Hamline Shopping Center, with 4-5 current tenants <br />expressing interest in relocating in the new retail space at <br />the proposed rental rate. Mr. VanSlyke addressed the <br />number of tenants desiring to relocate from the shopping <br />center, due to the incompatibility of their business in the <br />new facility or ability to pay the increased lease fees. <br />Mr. Dan Wilson addressed the associated costs for <br />relocation of current tenants, with Presbyterian Homes <br />responsible up front for those costs, and seeking <br />reimbursement under tax increment financing on a pay -as- <br />you -go basis for those costs of relocation. <br />Mr. Wilson briefly reviewed the project financing and the <br />short and long -term costs anticipated to be incurred by <br />Presbyterian Homes between the relocation of current <br />tenants and future realization of revenue- generating retail <br />leasing fees. Mr. Wilson further reviewed the anticipated <br />number of years of increment to the developer (8 -9 years) <br />and options available for the City to use excess increment. <br />Discussion items included the rationale for requesting TIF <br />for this project and State Statute requirements; the public <br />benefit of the project and ramifications of relocation of <br />tenants at their discretion,, whether within our outside of <br />Roseville; the acceleration of the project if developers <br />didn't need to await lease expirations of current tenants; <br />why the developer didn't incorporate relocation costs into <br />their project financials to avoid cash shortfalls; passibility <br />of using revenue bonds and restrictions that would be <br />incorporated for the residential portion of the project; <br />difficulty over the last few years in leasing retail space in <br />the existing building given the pending demolition and <br />reconstruction; current lease rates and project lease rates <br />(currently $8 -9 and proposed $15 per square foot); and <br />uniformity of the formula used for relocation costs or <br />payment in lieu of relocation and applicable caps. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.