My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1120
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1120
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:43:07 AM
Creation date
12/6/2006 5:31:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/27/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 Study Session - 11/20/06 <br />Minutes - Page 5 <br /> <br />well-spent. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing noted that such a process would guarantee that <br />common areas were being maintained, but questioned how the <br />City was guaranteed that interior and private areas of the facility <br />were also being maintained. <br /> <br />Ms. Bennett noted that the financial plan could address that <br />concern. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that upkeep for multi-family units was <br />good for the City and neighborhood's economic health; but <br />questioned how to prioritize this complex versus other multi- <br />family units and the need to inventory and assess those <br />complexes as well; and questioned whether a larger bond issue <br />was warranted to provide a pool for this type of improvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller advised that the City should have $3 Million worth of <br />uses and be prepared to do all improvements by determining <br />multi-housing priorities prior to the bond issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing questioned whether the City needed to <br />systematically review and inventory multi-unit housing in the <br />City to determine if a broader problem was evident. <br /> <br />Further discussion included market rate for resale of units; <br />assessment obligation pay-off for the City; stipulations of title <br />companies and existing by-law language; potential use of non- <br />obligated funds from other tax increment districts in the City and <br />need to analyze and evaluate other funding opportunities; need to <br />keep up economic health of neighborhoods; proceeds to ensure <br />bond payments; and the difference in reserve funds used for park <br />improvements that would impact quality oflife and use issues for <br />the community as a one-time expenditure versus reserves being <br />paid back while improving housing stock and providing a type of <br />revolving loan fund. <br /> <br />Ms. Bennett advised that she had requested Council <br />consideration of this proposal prior to consideration and <br />recommendation by the HRA due to the amount of funding and <br />sources to determine Council interest. Ms. Bennett advised that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.