My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-11-19_agenda_packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2013
>
2013-11-19_agenda_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2013 8:20:46 AM
Creation date
11/20/2013 8:20:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/19/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
HRA Meeting <br />Minutes – Tuesday, October 15, 2013 <br />Page 3 <br />1 <br />2 <br />Ms. Eden Spencer, Project Manager with GMHC <br />3 <br />Ms. Spencer reviewed marketing efforts proposed; and estimated preliminary pricing for units in the <br />4 <br />range of $225,000 to $295,000, depending on their type. Ms. Spencer also noted the goal to use senior <br />5 <br />regeneration funds to rehabilitate existing properties in Roseville that may be affected as part of this <br />6 <br />project and relocation of existing residents. <br />7 <br />8 <br />Ms. Spencer reviewed the GMHC’s marketing options, with the intent of seeking competitive proposals <br />9 <br />from a realtor marketing team, with no one currently identified, but seeking competition with the <br />10 <br />overall goal of benefiting the community and based on a realtor’s familiarity with the Roseville <br />11 <br />community. <br />12 <br />13 <br />Mr. Buelow opined that there were many exciting marketing options available with the various housing <br />14 <br />types anticipated, expecting that they would generate significant interest. <br />15 <br />16 <br />Regarding financing for the project, Mr. Buelow referenced the detailed proforma included in their <br />17 <br />proposal, and while not based on actual bids, providing an educated guess based on their other projects. <br />18 <br />Mr. Buelow noted that this was very preliminary with many moving parts yet, including more realistic <br />19 <br />cost projections and cost for demolition of existing structures. However, even with the total project cost <br />20 <br />breakdowns not yet finalized, Mr. Buelow noted that there would be a financing gap. <br />21 <br />22 <br />Chair Maschka opined that he liked the transition on the senior homes and Dale Street; however, he <br />23 <br />expressed concern with the intensity of the single-family and large homes on the western part of the <br />24 <br />middle of the site, and questioned if economics would allow single-story homes to make a better <br />25 <br />transition on those homes on the west. Chair Maschka questioned the financial impacts and <br />26 <br />implications in removing one home from each of those areas. <br />27 <br />28 <br />Mr. Rhoades advised that, at this point, everything remained flexible; noting that they had originally <br />29 <br />started with thirty-five units, but since this was a joint effort, the GHMC remained receptive to the HRA <br />30 <br />and neighborhood at this time in the concept development stage. Mr. Rhoades advised that they were <br />31 <br />open to discussing all areas of the project throughout the process including amenities for the site. <br />32 <br />33 <br />Chair Maschka expressed his personal interest in more creativity in the middle of the site, allowing <br />34 <br />fewer units (e.g. two less) and the negative/positive impacts to the overall financial aspect for the <br />35 <br />project. <br />36 <br />37 <br />Member Willmus noted proposed soft costs including association costs, and the GHMC’s estimate of at <br />38 <br />$1,000 per unit, seeking clarification of the variables included in that calculation (e.g. roof replacement <br />39 <br />or just yard maintenance). <br />40 <br />41 <br />Mr. Buelow advised that it was intended as seed money to start, and as a work in progress, initially he <br />42 <br />anticipated one association owner operating with a management company, then taken over by a <br />43 <br />homeowners association; with the townhomes and single-family homes having different fees based on <br />44 <br />common areas and spaces. <br />45 <br />46 <br />Regarding lawn and snow maintenance, Ms. Spencer suggested that may be addressed for the entire <br />47 <br />site; however, there would need to be the creation of reserves for townhomes sharing areas needing <br />48 <br />replacement and/or structural maintenance, but the detached, single-family homes would be treated <br />49 <br />differently, as well as the Dale Street townhomes; with multi-layers, but allowing for corporate bidding <br />50 <br />on certain items. <br />51 <br />52 <br />At the request of Member Quam, Mr. Buelow addressed construction financing in place, with a working <br />53 <br />capital line of credit in set up with several banks, and $11 million in place right now to be used as <br />54 <br />working capital; with another $10 million line of credit available specific for the Roseville project <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.