2013-10-15_HRA_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes –Tuesday, October 15, 2013 Page 4 1 through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and no high risk development loans needed and no 2 long-term mortgage on the property. 3 4 Member Elkins questioned if the GMHC had considered a Community Land Trust for this project; with 5 Mr. Buelow responding that they would be open to that and could further research that as a good idea 6 for the site. Mr. Buelow noted that the GMHC had also worked with the HRA in the past on incentive 7 programs for municipal employees and housing costs, which they remained very open to. 8 9 Ms. Olson noted that a portion of the senior regeneration program funding will come through Ramsey 10 County, who continues to express interest in participating. 11 12 At the request of Ms. Kelsey, Ms. Spencer advised thatthe industry standard of 3% paid as a closing 13 cost to buyers was included, and even though based on their experience with other projects, remained 14 flexible; with the 5% projected realtor fee also negotiable as realtor proposals come forward, with 15 current rending between 5% to 7%. 16 17 Mr. Buelow reviewed the timing schedule detailed in the cover letter of their proposal, and proposed 18 phasing depending on sales and marketing efforts; with their goal of having something available in the 19 Parade of Homes next fall, and some people moving in to completed units by then. 20 21 Chair Maschka opined that the units would sell quickly in Roseville; and Ms. Spencer suggested that a 22 local sales office be opened to allow prospective buyers to choose their personal design features. 23 24 Ms. Kelsey questioned existing tree preservation on site and how it would be incorporated into the 25 development; with Mr. Rhoades recognizing the existing mature trees, noting the need for a site tree 26 inventory. Mr. Rhoades stated that vegetation was important to the site, and keeping mature trees 27 would serve as a big bonus for the overall project. 28 29 At the request of Ms. Kelsey, Mr. Rhoades advised that their $14,500 estimate in their proforma 30 included Metropolitan Council sewer access charges (SAC), water access charges (WAC), as well as 31 park dedication fees, even though there were very preliminary at this point. 32 33 At the request of Member Quam, Ms. Olson confirmed that this was intended as a straight development 34 at this point, with no request for tax increment financing (TIF); and that soft costs (e.g. legal fees) were 35 still pending at this time. 36 37 At the request of Member Quam, Ms. Kelsey advised that a number of restrictions and/or expectations 38 would be negotiated through creation of a Development Agreement between both parties, and subject to 39 the advice of attorneys for both parties. 40 41 Mr. Buelow concurred; noting that the City would be a client of GMHC, and they were there to serve 42 the City and would work with them at a fee, with whatever equitable and reasonable arrangement was 43 preferred; understanding that the City needed to protect their interest. 44 45 At the request of Ms. Kelsey, Ms. Olson briefly reviewed their years of over 40 years of experience 46 with this type of development as detailed in their RFP; and provided examples of other projects. 47 48 Mr. Rhoades further noted that 20 properties had been restored or built in Roseville to-date. 49 50 Public Comment 51 ChrisSaar,840Grandview 52 Mr. Saar sought clarification on the height of the buildings on Dale Street. 53 54 Chair Maschka noted that there was no preference expressed, but based on the neighborhood 55 engagement process, concerns were how best to transition; reiterating his concern with the west end of