pf_03551 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: 3 m--Original Messagemn From: Greg Johnson Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:57 PM To: , 'Stutz, Todd M.'; 'Noonan, J Michael'; 'Bob Brown , 'Robert J. Strachota Cc: Subject: James Casserly Roseville Twin Lakes - Financial Feasibility Thank you everyone for providing me with the updated cost and revenue information for Roseville Twin Lakes. We have entered everything in our current financial model and have attached seven summary pages. Please review this before our next meeting on Tuesday, February 17th. If you have any questions or can provide any better information on the assumptions used, please let me know. Here is a list of the major changes since our last analysis. 1. Increased market values on all housing and commercial development 2 Increased land sale amounts for all housing and commercial development 3 Updated Original Market Values to those as of 1-2-2003 (Pay 2004) 4. Updated estimated acquisition costs 5. Added public improvement costs for Langton Lake (1.0M) & TLP landscaping/lighting (.75M) 6. Allocated Street & Sidewalk costs of 6.2M only over areas 1-5 7. Allocated Site Prep costs of 172M only over areas 1-5 8. Added Site Prep costs of 21. 7M for areas 6-12 based on same per sq. ft. costs as areas 1-5 9. Changed development in areas 6&7 from housing to office/warehouse 10. The tax increment PV amount has been split to show a portion allocated to 5.0% bonds and the remainder to a 6.5% revenue note. 11. Area 5 has been split out from areas 8, 9 & 10. Unfortunately, these changes have not improved the financial feasibility of the project. The combined shortfall for areas 6- 10 is $42.0 million. The combined shortfall for areas 1-5 is $20.5 million. Areas 1-5 could still be feasible. Because of the high amount of uses, we have a $6.0 million contingency included. There could be significant savings in the site preparation costs if they could be done at the same time as the lot finishing costs. The City may be willing to reduce their admin fees. Special assessment bonds could be used to lower the interest costs on amounts used to finance any public improvements. If the housing ends up selling for higher values, the land may be worth more. Are the estimated acquisition costs all inclusive? Do we still need to include an amount for relocation (calculated at 5% of assessed value)? Can we create a Hazardous Substance Subdistrict to help cover the environmental cost? Are there state clean-up funds available? It will probably take all of these gap closing options plus reduced acquisition costs.