My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_0608
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_0608
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2009 9:40:26 AM
Creation date
6/19/2009 9:40:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/8/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, June 08, 2009 <br />Page 8 <br />Agreement included submission to the City of annual audited financial statements <br />for the Association; documentation of fund disbursement of funds; and final in- <br />spections before full disbursement of those funds, in addition to other protections <br />for the City and Association. <br />Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and Mr. Bubul included preference in <br />and benefits of using Housing General Obligation Bonds versus Revenue Bonds; <br />costs for each requested cash draw (i.e., $250.00); temporarily deposited funds <br />held by the City; and written notice requirements from the City to the Association <br />(pages 7 and 8 of the Development Agreement) in case additional funds are re- <br />quired, based on protections for the City and realities and flexibility for actual no- <br />tice. <br />Acting City Manager/Finance Director Chris Miller advised that, while the lan- <br />guage suggested a ten day notification period, the City would know one year in <br />advance or more of any shortcomings, based on the City's continual monitoring <br />of bonds and cash flow projections. <br />Further discussion included .provision in the Development Agreement of any po- <br />tential and unexpected possibilities to protect both parties; in addition to including <br />an extra cushion through the designated interest rate to provide for unforeseen <br />contingencies. <br />[Resolution -Attachment A] <br />Pust moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10712 entitled, "A Reso- <br />lution Imposing Improvement Fees in the Housing Improvement Area and Provid- <br />ing for the Collection of the Fees." <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that the fee allo- <br />cation was unfair to smaller units and that it was the City Council's job to make <br />sure the allocation was fair and not to defer to the Board or Association. Coun- <br />cilmember Ihlan further opined that the proposed fee structure did not appear to <br />follow exactly the declarations; and. advised that she would not be voting in sup- <br />port of the amended resolution. Councilmember Ihlan opined that she could not <br />support prohibition for prepayment of fees from the perspective of individual unit <br />owners who may be unable to prepay at this time, requiring them to pay 15 years <br />of interest and potentially get caught in a default situation, causing harm to that <br />owner and potentially to the Association with unsold properties. Councilmember <br />Ihlan further opined that the City did not have a legal basis for this provision, <br />based on her interpretation of State Statute, and her lack of support for this restric- <br />tion for the HIA. Councilmember Ihlan expressed further concern in issuing <br />General Obligation Bonds, potentially putting taxpayers at risk; and not providing <br />adequate protection for spiraling defaults of individual unit owners. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.