My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0611
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0611
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2007 8:25:06 AM
Creation date
6/21/2007 11:30:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/11/2007
Meeting Type
Continued
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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 />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, June 11, 2007 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />Ms. Bolton responded that there was no reason this property should be <br />property tax exempt, as it was not being operated as such. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan requested guarantees for the City that the prop- <br />erty would remain low-income rent eligible; and what restrictions <br />were attached to the bond issue and specific uses of the property. <br /> <br />Ms. Bolton advised that restrictions remained in place, pursuant to the <br />agreement recorded in the title record and remaining in place for the <br />longer of the bond term or fifteen years; and that agreement was that <br />40% of the units be set aside for families whose income didn't exceed <br />the established area median income. Ms. Bolton noted that, in order <br />to qualify for those units, people would have to provide income <br />documentation; and advised that the units were not intended for stu- <br />dent or transient housing, but for residential, multi-family housing. <br />Ms. Bolton further noted that, if the properties were sold in the future, <br />the new owner would also have to comply with those restrictions, as <br />outlined in the agreements. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller noted that the bond issue was anticipated at 30 years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan clarified that the new owners would have to <br />comply with those restrictions, and that the property couldn't be used <br />for any other purpose. <br /> <br />Ms. Bolton reiterated that new owners would be subject to the same <br />restrictions as the current applicant. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned who would enforce those restric- <br />tions, and what provisions were in place for monitoring at the city <br />level. <br /> <br />Ms. Bolton advised that the City is party to receipt of annual docu- <br />mentation; however, noted that the Bond Trustee involved in financ- <br />ing would be responsible for collecting, reviewing and monitoring the <br />borrower, and verifying their adherence to ongoing covenants. Ms. <br />Bolton noted that the borrower was required to file an annual report <br />with the Trustee and the City, but advised that the Trustee would be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.