My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0721
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0721
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2014 3:24:45 PM
Creation date
8/12/2014 9:59:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/21/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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 Council Meeting <br /> Monday,July 21, 2014 <br /> Page 14 <br /> Redevelopment project, as detailed in the RCA. Ms. Kelsey advised that, while <br /> final project costs and development agreement have yet to be finalized, Ms. Kel- <br /> sey advised that the projected financing gap had already been reduced some (At- <br /> tachment B); and the attempt was to cover all costs incurred by the RHRA associ- <br /> ated with carrying the property, including paying the City for the fire station site, <br /> demolition of the building and any additional miscellaneous land costs. Ms. Kel- <br /> sey reported that the final development agreement would include a "look back" <br /> clause to revise cost-share allocations, if homes sell higher than projected. Ms. <br /> Kelsey further noted that the property transfer would not occur until after devel- <br /> opment and approval of the development agreement and any further reductions in <br /> financial assistance for the project; with some additional gaps still being deter- <br /> mined and their actual impacts. <br /> At the discretion of the City Council, Ms. Kelsey sought their support for reim- <br /> bursing the RHRA for these expenses from pooled tax increments, through adop- <br /> tion of the resolution as drafted and included as Attachment C to the RCA. <br /> Councilmember McGehee noted that these two tax increment financing (TIF) dis- <br /> tricts were about to expire anyway, and since older districts allowed funds to be <br /> used in other development areas, while newer districts did not, based on her un- <br /> derstanding if the City didn't use these funds within 1-2 years as applicable, tax- <br /> ing jurisdictions would get money back but the City would actually lose funds. <br /> Therefore, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important to understand <br /> why these two districts and pooled increments were being considered in particu- <br /> lar. <br /> If the "look back" clause came forward in the future, Councilmember McGehee <br /> stated that she would like to see the RHRA and City paid first; and further stated <br /> that she would encourage the developer to build higher quality homes to increase <br /> their market value and sales prices to increase that profit if possible; and ex- <br /> pressed her support in any excess funds coming the RHRA and City first. <br /> In an effort to clarify the developer fee at $618,000, Mayor Roe sought infor- <br /> mation from Ms. Kelsey on how much of that was attributed to gap financing. <br /> Ms. Kelsey responded that calculations were not done that way, and gap funding <br /> of the developer fee was nil, and only addressing the price of the land and price <br /> point, with a portion of the gap due to the City's and RHRA's preference for less <br /> density and therefore facilitating that preference in assisting with the financing; <br /> but only using reimbursement of land costs from TIF pools. <br /> As mentioned by Councilmember McGehee, and for the benefit of the public, <br /> Mayor Roe noted that if TIF balances remaining in these districts were not used <br /> for this purpose, any remaining balances would be roughly allocated with 1/3 of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.