My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0620
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/20/2005
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 06/20/05 <br />Minutes - Page 29 <br /> <br />Considerable discussion ensued related to Section 4.5,a, 2, <br />"Determination of Land Prices," on page 18 and language <br />therein, and Mr. Casserly recommended deleting a portion <br />of the language as indicated below: <br /> <br />"(2) The cost of any Parcel acquired after December <br />31, 2001 by the Redeveloper or by any of its equity <br />owners from an unrelated party in an arm's length <br />transaction shall be the price paid for the Parcel, plus <br />reasonable carrying costs. Carrying costs are those <br />expenses directly related to the holding of the Parcel <br />and reduced by any revenues received on the Parcel. <br />Only actual cash expenses are allowed. No amounts <br />for depreciation, amortization or other non-cash <br />items are allowed. lJs€l, tR€l all€l'::€la tlarrying €l€lsts <br />aF€l t€l 1'Itl r€lolutl€la 1'1:" 35,(W" '::hitlR r€ltl€l€lts thtl <br />tlstimattla iRtl€lmtl ta;i 1'ItlR€ltit €lf tR€lStl €l€lsts t€l tRtl <br />Rtla€l':€ll€lfHlr. The cost of the parcel plus the net <br />allowed carrying costs cannot exceed the fair market <br />value of the property on the date of execution of this <br />Agreement. The Redeveloper will certify to the City <br />that such party would be considered unrelated to the <br />Redeveloper or to any of its equity owners under <br />applicable Code regulations." <br /> <br />Ms. Reiter continued her review of the proposed contract, <br />responding to Council comments and questions <br />accordingly. <br /> <br />Discussion included Certificates of Occupancy and <br />substantial completion language and meaning; land <br />designated for office space (Dorso site) to be reserved for <br />office use for up to three years if the office market hasn't <br />picked up; developer costs incurred and reimbursement <br />process; and additional Krass Monroe billings for <br />restatement of the City's TIF Policy that should not be <br />borne by the developer. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed strong opposition to the <br />City assuming costs that would eventually and ultimately <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.