My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1009
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:41:05 AM
Creation date
10/24/2006 12:29:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/9/2006
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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 - 10/09/06 <br />Minutes - Page 25 <br /> <br />suggested several items for Council consideration: does such a <br />financing program provide a public purpose in preserving housing <br />stock; and if Council-supported, would the Council develop an <br />investment policy and determine a cap on the percentage of the <br />investment portfolio that should be invested in this type of <br />security. <br /> <br />Discussion included the association's lack of forethought in <br />building capital improvement reserves into their association dues <br />over the past years, thus creating this financing dilemma; the need <br />for the associations to build reserves for future capital <br />improvements; availability of this program for multi-unit <br />facilities, not individual homeowners and statutory requirements; <br />difficulty for associations to obtain favorable financing due to <br />lack of collateral, given ownership of units by homeowners, not <br />the association; and availability offunding sources. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that this appeared to be <br />rewarding bad management practices for homeowner associations, <br />and provided an option not available to other homeowners. <br />Councilmember Ihlan requested more information on standards <br />for financing and assurances that no other financing methods were <br />available; proof that the homeowner's association tried to get <br />financing and was turned down; and if financing such a program <br />with taxpayer monies was the best use of public funds. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust sought additional information regarding <br />other communities use of such a financing tool; and rationale for <br />involvement or refusal for involvement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke in support of the financing as a way <br />to put the City's reserves to a good use. <br /> <br />Discussion included a higher return on the investment for <br />financing than being realized for the City's reserve funds; costs <br />incurred to be passed along to the homeowners as administrative <br />fees, with the City Councilor HRA monitoring the financing on a <br />long-term basis; and ability to renovate deteriorating multi-unit <br />housing within the City for the benefit of neighborhoods and the <br />City as a whole. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.