My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0711_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0711_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:23:22 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:03:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting — d6/20/05 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 17 <br />ques�tioned if the developer was building in their prof i as part of <br />the requested publie subsidy. <br />Mr. Casserly, and his staf�', reviewed their detailed analysis af <br />the praject from pra forma infarmation that had been con�inually <br />updated during the process io-date; discussed revenue saurces <br />and p�rcentage of sales, noting that unti� all property had been <br />acquired, estimates had been cons�rvatively projected; and noted <br />that without assistanc�, the praject would have no income and <br />would not be feasible. Mr. Casseriy advised ihat pro formas <br />were continual�y being updated, and the one provided in the <br />Council packet had since been updated as more infarmation <br />became available, in an effort to mare accurately reflect actual <br />expenses and revenues. <br />Further discuss�on includ�d the current pra %rmas in tLe Iatest <br />draft of the proposed Deveiopment Agreement, with a proj�cted <br />9.15% rate of re�urn. Greg Johnson, af Krass Monroe, addressed <br />ihe format and informaiion contained in the financial portions of <br />the proposed Development Agreement, concurring with Mr. <br />Casserly that the develaper's projectians were conservative. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned Exhibit 17C, under sources and <br />uses of funds, what source represented the $4 Million listed as <br />"Other." <br />Mr. Johnson noted that this area was related to creation of the <br />hazardous substance subdistrict and had been separated on the <br />report for finaneial and aceounting purposes. <br />Councilmember Ihlan, noting thai housing developments <br />generaied more TIF and would represent a higher standard of <br />clean up, questioned the commercia� and "parking �oi" portions <br />of the d�velopinent and how environmental remediation would <br />be handled related ta TIF generation. <br />Mr. Ca�serly noted that there would be more value tied up in <br />housing than in commer�ial prope�ies; and levels of clean up <br />wau�d vary within ihe project, with MPCA approval af all clean <br />up and development response aciion plans appxoved as well for <br />all portions of the praject, depending on potential uses af each <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.