CC_Minutes_2009_0323 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting 8s Executive Session Monday, March 23, 2009 Page 18 to purchase, the owner had been led to believe that a large number of tenants were income-qualified, but that did not prove true, and that only 16 households actually met low-income qualifications. Public Comment Connie Wyland Ms. Wyland asked if Senator Marty's letter had been read into the record. Mayor Klausing confirmed that the letter was included in the Council packet for tonight's meeting, as well as public copies of the agenda packet. Mona Langston, Housing Preservation Project, 2004 Hamline Avenue N Ms. Langston spoke to whether or not the violation warranted being identified as substantial; and alleged that, without notification to the City from the HPP, the miscalculations would have continued without the City's knowledge or subsequent action. Ms. Langston encouraged the City to further clarify other inconsistencies in the number of people displaced; rent totals; how many vacant market rate or low-income eligible and unable to remain; how many low-income apartments were vacant; and other information that would help. Ms. Langston opined that it was important for the City Council not to only consider the dollar amount when considering whether the violation was substantial or not; but to look at the experience of the owner's attorneys and consultants, and whether there were other facilities being operated that were also out of compliance. Councilmember Ihlan referenced Senator Marty's letter and read a portion. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the motion and opined that the owners had received $12 million in public support through tax exempt bonding, with their promise to preserve affordable housing in Roseville, and further opined that they had failed to do that. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, based on the owner's inability to follow the law, and with established guidelines in place and evidence of demonstrated violations, the City Council could do nothing else than enforce that penalty. Councilmember Roe advised that he had carefully reviewed the situation, and information provided; and had performed his own calculations based on the information and Statutory provisions. Councilmember Roe's conclusions were that this law was indeed complicated; but based on his analysis he had come to his own conclusions. Councilmember Roe assured tenants that he didn't want to minimize repercussions to tenants; however, he opined that by this action tonight the Council couldn't punish the developer for things other than being in violation of fair market rents and income eligibility guidelines. Councilmember Roe detailed his analysis and conclusions, based on Section 8 amounts to consider, the state's own definition of rent and utilities, whether or not a unit is occupied and consideration of those vacant units in the calculations, and his conclusion that the complex was in compliance 99% of the time, allowing him to conclude that the