Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />At the request of Member Wall, Ms. McDonald advised that ECHO attempted to create <br />2 <br />“evergreen” products that were relevant long-term (e.g. weather or flue related) and able to be <br />3 <br />re-used over time, accomplished by not getting too specific, but addressing challenges for <br />4 <br />immigrants and residents, such as meeting their basic needs and where to go if something <br />5 <br />didn’t seem right. <br />6 <br />7 <br />Ms. McDonald advised that, specific to grants and foundations, it was not typical that they <br />8 <br />participated in the original kick-off and message, since those partners wanted tomake sure the <br />9 <br />non-profit was meeting its objectives before committinggrant funds. <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />Chair Maschka opined this will address some of the problems in evidence in SE Roseville. <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />Ms. Kelsey distributed an additional exhibit not included in the agenda packet materials, a site <br />23 <br />plan dated March 31, 2014, attached hereto and made a part hereof.Ms. Kelsey summarized <br />24 <br />the subsequent actions taken by BMHC since the previous meeting, advising that they had met <br />25 <br />the deadlines outlined by the HRA at that meeting. <br />26 <br />27 <br />At the request of MemberMajerus, Ms. Kelsey confirmed that Western Bank had agreed to <br />28 <br />supply adequate financing for Phase I of the project, and then would make a future <br />29 <br />determination about Phases II and III. Ms. Kelsey advised that representatives of Western <br />30 <br />Bank were present in tonight’s audience to address any questions of the HRA. <br />31 <br />32 <br />Given the weightiness of the issues before the HRA, Member Wall specifically asked Ms. <br />33 <br />Kelsey and Community Development Director Bilotta to provide their recommendation on <br />34 <br />which of the three options were best based on their opinion. <br />35 <br />36 <br />Member Majerus asked that the HRA hear from Western Bank prior to staff’s <br />37 <br />recommendation. <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />Mr. McNamara summarized the position of Western Bank at this point. As pointed out by Ms. <br />41 <br />Kelsey during her summary, Mr. McNamara advised that the townhome portion of the <br />42 <br />appraisal came back quite well. However, since Western Bank first began working with <br />43 <br />GMHC in September of 2014, they had anticipated that the vacant land appraisal would come <br />44 <br />back higher than it did in reality, and due to the difficulty in finding comparable appraisal <br />45 <br />properties in Roseville, other communities were used for those comparables. Mr. McNamara <br />46 <br />noted that the ten single-family home appraisals came in much lower than envisioned by <br />47 <br />Western Bank, since part of the challenge in Roseville was finding middle-ground comparably <br />48 <br />valued single-family homes like those proposed, since those being built had higher housing <br />49 <br />values (e.g. Pulte Homes/Josephine Lakes and Lexington/Victoria). While there were plenty <br />50 <br />of ramblers in Roseville built in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Mr. McNamara noted that they were <br />51 <br />not of similar type to the proposed housing product. Mr. McNamara advised that Western <br />52 <br />could clearly look at the six homes along Cope, and with the fire station razed at that point, the <br />53 <br />townhomes were anticipated to lead into Phases II and III. However, having to work under <br />54 <br />banking guidelines for lending, Mr. McNamara noted that the appraisals had not come in as <br /> <br />