2015-03-31_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 high as anticipated; therefore WesternBank could not commit to any further financing until 2 sales of the townhomes were initiated. 3 4 5 Ms. Olson advised that the prices for Phase II and III were something GMHC felt it could 6 achieve; and once the townhomes were under construction and pre-marketing was underway, 7 they anticipated once five were sold, the bank would be willing to move onto the next phase. 8 Ms. Olson opined that the appraisal comparables were good and they could build to meet that 9 market. 10 11 Mr. McNamara concurred with that scenario. 12 13 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Olson advised that GMHC had not done any pre- 14 marketing to-date as they did not yet have control of the site. 15 16 At the request of Member Wall, Mr. McNamara confirmed that he had read Attachment B 17 entitled “Garden Station Design Proposal” to the staff report and that he was familiar with two 18 GMHC projects done to-date. Mr. McNamara noted that the proposed rowhomes along Dale 19 Street were similar to a project GHMC had done in the Riverside area, and provided 20 comparable sales information, as well as another project they’d done along Theodore Wirth 21 Parkway. Mr. McNamara advised that he was familiar with the numbers being used by 22 GMHC, however, he noted that he needed to base his underwriting on appraisal standards, 23 even though he felt the numbers were solid. 24 25 Member Wall opined that this appeared to him a rosy analysis, but in order to follow it, the 26 HRA needed assurance that if the project went forward, Western Bank would also provide 27 some assurances about their financial participation and commitment. 28 29 Mr. McNamara noted that everyone had considerable time and effort in this project, and if only 30 looking at the six townhomes, there would be no problem. However, Mr. McNamara noted the 31 uniqueness of this overall project, with nothing having been done like it in Roseville or other 32 inner-ring suburbs, creating a challenge, even though her personally thought the single-family 33 rambler market was strong enough, as well as previous rowhome successes, indicating a 34 demand in the metropolitan area for such housing types. 35 36 At the request of Member Wall, Ms. Olson confirmed that the authors of the report were not 37 present in tonight’s audience. 38 39 Member Elkins thanked GMHC for the comprehensive presentation included in the packets, 40 which she found very enlightening. 41 42 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey addressed proposed property ownership of 43 Phases II and III at this point, with the northern half of that parcel left over, and only the 44 demolition of the fire station included in Phase I. 45 46 47 Chair Maschka requested that staff provide their recommendations based on negotiations with 48 GMHC to-date; and their estimation of the three options outlined in the staff report, as phased. 49 50 Mr. Bilotta advised that this is a tough decision, and in addition to ownership issues between 51 the City and HRA, forethought was needed to determination the results if the project failed. 52 53 On the positive side, Mr. Bilotta noted that the buildings on Cope Avenue were relatively 54 contained from an infrastructure perspective, other than some shared storm water amenities 55 crossing lot lines. Mr. Bilotta advised that, of a bigger concern was, if Phases II and III were