2017-04-18_EDA_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment C. Option 2 April 11, 2017 Ms. Kari Collins, Community Development Director City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 RE: Edison Multifamily Development. Dear Ms. Collins, On April 4, 2017, we provided a development summary for the Edison multifamily community to the City of Roseville. Since that time, we received some feedback from the development summary, which is appreciated as we are in the concept stage and want to develop a project in Roseville that will be well received by the City and successful in the marketplace. Based on some feedback, we wanted to provide follow-up on one of the topics that has been brought forward which is incorporating the affordable units within all the buildings versus having it stand alone. The concept in the development summary proposed to have a 60 unit building with 100% of the units affordable while the other two buildings (149 units) would be market rate. An alternative option that can be explored would be to mix the affordable units within all 209 units. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to each of these options, which we wanted to point out th for further discussion at the EDA meeting on April 18. For discussion purposes, Option #1 is referred to as the stand alone affordable option and Option #2 is referred to as the affordable mixed throughout all the buildings option. Financing. Lending tends to be very specific to the type of market a development is proposing to market to. Financing for affordable projects is unique in nature and requires certain financing sources that tend not to mix well with other traditional financing sources. Option #1 allows for separate mortgages and funding sources that better match each of the intended developments. Number of Affordable Units. Option #1 would propose to have 60 units of affordable housing. Option #2 would propose to have 20% or 42 units affordable to meet the state requirement for tax increment financing. Affordability Term. Option #1 would have an affordable term of not less than 30 years. Option #2 would have an affordable term only for a period the tax increment financing is in place.