CC_Minutes_2009_0608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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