My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0922_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0922_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2011 11:38:49 AM
Creation date
12/29/2011 11:03:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
167
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
Attachment A <br />in effect become an investment of the City funds. From an investment <br />standpoint, the council should consider: <br />All of the City's existing investments are federally guaranteed or <br />insured against the loss of principle. A cash loan to a town home <br />association would not carry this type of protection. <br />However, the assessment would become a lien against the property; <br />and would be collected just like ad valoram taxes which are not <br />subordinate debt. <br />In addition, the Council could apply a higher interest rate than they <br />are currently collecting on their typical public investments to receive a <br />higher return for the small risk incurred as part of the project. <br />c. Private Bank Financing — HRA staff is currenny exploring the option to <br />assist Westwood Village I with a more favorable bank financing. <br />Typically, banks are reluctant to loan funds to an association as the <br />collateral (real estate) is not owned by the association but rather the <br />individual homeowners. However, with the aging of townhomes and <br />condominiums, banks are beginning to reexamine their position. <br />However, this may not be apparent yet in Minnesota. <br />Option —Meet with area banks to determine their openness to <br />provide favorable financing using other national models. The private <br />lending risk could be reduced with a type of government guarantee. <br />This option should be explore over the next several months. <br />4.1 Are the Improvements Needed? —City building staff have conducted an external <br />inspection of the property and have the following recommendations: (full report attached) <br />a. The lifecycle of cedar and ma unite siding can be extended through maintenance <br />such as patching, caulking and repainting, however, many of the siding and fascia <br />materials on this project appear to now require excessive repair efforts. These <br />types of repairs have short life-spans as they often do not keep storm water out. <br />This then accelerates deterioration by allowing storm water penetration which can <br />cause more extensive and expensive repairs in the future. Also, allowing areas of <br />rot to remain can attract pests, such as carpenter ants, which can cause additional <br />damage. It is the opinion of staff that the cedar siding and fascia on this <br />project have reached the end of their useful life-cycle and should be replaced. <br />b. Roofing materials on these roofs appear to be of the 15-25 year shingles. Many <br />have reached the end of their life-cycle and should be replaced. Any roofing over <br />5 years old should be replaced at the same time any siding is replaced (no re- <br />roofing permits were found in a search of City permit records). A more durable <br />30-35 year shingle is recommended. <br />BHA Public Hearing (12-18-06) -Page 4 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.