CC_Minutes_2015_0209 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 9,2015 Page 12 ture taxes, but essentially taxpayer money being used to subsidize a development project. Mayor Roe echoed the comments of Councilmembers Etten and McGehee regard- ing qualifications for "affordable" versus "market rate" housing, using his own previous experience as a recent college graduate as a Professional Engineer whose school debt and beginning salary qualified him for affordable housing rates. Mayor Roe noted that one of the problems the City of Roseville was attempting to address was some of those existing multi-family older buildings that were classi- fied as affordable due to their age and maintenance/upkeep issues making them less desirable for market rate rental fees. Mayor Roe opined that if the result of using taxpayer monies to assist with getting new, high-quality construction of multi-family housing in Roseville as a currently missing option, he was support- ive of such an improvement in making Roseville a better community. Mayor Roe noted that this would provide a broader range of affordable housing types to meet market needs beyond the single-family housing option. To seek to keep a portion of the units affordable by qualifying for tax credits, Mayor Roe opined made sense, and therefore he had no problem using TIF to gain workforce housing in Roseville, and in applying the number of units needed to get the project viable and to change use of the project site. Mayor Roe noted that, with funding provid- ed through grants and TIF, they only represented 22% of the total $40 million projected cost of the project, and only 9% to 10% funding from the City when grants were excluded from that total amount. Mayor Roe opined that this was what TIF was intended to be used for; and while understanding the concerns ex- pressed by the adjacent neighborhood, opined that they could be addressed, and noted the developer's willingness to further review or adapt their plans as much as possible to address the concerns expressed. Mr. Sherman confirmed that they were interested in making this a successful pro- ject for the City as well as for their development team, and even though there were a lot of moving parts, expressed his willingness to look at both buildings for consideration of an equal percentage of affordable units. Mr. Sherman offered, once further refinement was completed by his team, to return to the City Council with a number that worked. However, Mr. Sherman stated that he didn't think the assistance level from the City would change; and whether or not the Twin Lakes Parkway extension was approved or not, it made no significant impact for their project and was a decision for the City Council alone. Mr. Sherman reiterated his firm's long-term ownership commitment of the build- ing; and their typical high-quality construction materials. Mr. Sherman recog- nized that there was a strong possibility that they would lose a portion of their funding in mixing the affordable and market rate units in each building or by changing the percentage; however, he opined that they would attempt to meet the test and find other ways to address that. Mr. Sherman noted that the financing gap was larger than the TIF request, and since the project had been awarded sig-