CC_Minutes_2008_0908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 08, 2008 Page 19 Councilmember Ihlan referenced and interpreted specific provisions of the regula- tory agreement, that appeared to allow or require the City as issuer of the bonds to monitor documents (pages 3 and 4); and further referenced State Statute 474A.07, Subd. 3, addressing statutory responsibility for the City to monitor compliance. Councilmember Ihlan opined her interest in obtaining additional information to investigate the situation and determine if monitoring requirements were being met. Councilmember Ihlan noted the net developer fee estimated to be over $1.2 million; and opined that had she known that information when the City authorized the bond issue, she would have certainly questioned that fee. Mr. Cann noted that, under IRS Code, when tax credits were issues in conjunction with issuance of tax exempt bonds, it was up to the issuer not to exceed more tax credits than necessary for long-term viability of the project. Mr. Cann further noted that, on July 15, 2007, City staff had issues a preliminary determination to that effect, based on information provided by the developer that very day, includ- ing the tax credit application, with the developer's attorney confirming that the document had been submitted to the City. However, Mr. Cann noted that when he had repeatedly asked for this information from the City as a public information request, he had been told by the City Manager that the information was not avail- able. Mr. Cann questioned if staff had shared that information with the City Council, noting that the information included proposed rents, percentage of units covered by tax credit low income, the amount of rehabilitation proposed, and the developer fee proposed to betaken from the project. Councilmember Pust questioned how and if other cities were aware of this infor- mation; opining that clearly the City of Roseville had been unaware until tonight. Mr. Cann opined that it was dependent upon the experience and sophistication of the City's Community Development staff; and could be used as a tool to preserve a supply of affordable housing in a city. However, Mr. Cann opined that in this case, it appeared that issuance of debt and tax credits only served to provide the owner with a huge developer fee. Mayor Klausing, from his personal observations and perspective, opined that in- teresting issues had been raised on how the City uses these tools to produce de- sired goals for affordable housing; and noted the need for further broad discus- sions for future applications. However, Mayor Klausing opined that in this case, he was concerned that this was not a regulatory function that the City was em- powered to monitor; nor did the City have the expertise or resources to respond. Mayor Klausing suggested that those issues raised in Mr. Cann's letter seemed better left to the court system; and expressed his discomfort in the City acting in a judicial role to interpret ongoing disputes; noting Mr. Cann's response to Coun- cilmember Pust's question regarding potential litigation.