Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment B <br />additional conversation. At this point, Councilmember Willmus stated that he <br />would not support the City Manager’s recommendation to terminate. <br /> <br />Mayor Roe stated that he needed to understand better from GMHC representatives <br />and City staff how the City’s interests would best be protected if units moved <br />quicker in the market place that indicated by the appraisal; and if entering into a <br />Development Agreement resulting in all three phases being completed, what <br />recourse would be available if not accomplished, and that would be clear to all <br />parties. Mayor Roe stated that this was a key aspect for him in his decision-making. <br />Mayor Roe noted this may relate to figuring out the market after Phase I and if a <br />better appraisal became available as a result of that phase. <br /> <br />Ms. Olson advised that, while constructing Phase I, GMHC intended to be <br />marketing Phase II and would be able to get an appraisal based on that one project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Laliberte asked Re/Max representatives asked if they had seen the <br />eighteen unit proposal provided by GMHC. <br /> <br />Mr. Stockwell confirmed that they had seen the same one-page site plan provided <br />to the City Council. <br />While lacking variety, Councilmember Laliberte asked if they had any concerns in <br />marketing these units, or if they would be less desirable and salable; and asked at <br />what rates they felt they could be moved. <br /> <br />Ms. Reuter stated that, while the original proposal provided great and unique <br />options that would appeal to multi-property neighborhoods, based on their sales <br />experience around the metropolitan area and demand for one-level townhomes; she <br />found no reason to doubt their marketability. Ms. Reuter noted that, with any new <br />construction, she saw no problem selling the first phase of the project and selling it <br />out quickly, and that the only concern appeared to be in financing the phases <br />without more concrete and comparable appraisals in Roseville. <br /> <br />Mr. Stockwell concurred with Ms. Reuter’s comments; and based on inquiries to- <br />date as previously noted, he anticipated ongoing demand for one-level units based <br />on current demographics, but also seeing no decline in the demand for multi-level <br />units either. <br /> <br />Ms. Reuter stated that she had full confidence in either project option, but for it to <br />develop quicker with the more conservative approach that would be safer for the <br />City if that was of great importance to them. Either way, Ms. Reuter advised that <br />she saw no problem in selling them, but anticipated the one-level units would sell <br />more quickly based on current demand. Ms. Reuter noted that any new construction <br />in Roseville, as a fully developed community with limited housing stock options, <br />attracted a lot of attention. <br /> <br /> <br />