My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0711_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0711_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:23:22 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:03:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
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
City Council Regular Meeting — 06/20/05 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 29 <br />"Determination of Land Prices," on page I8 and language <br />th�rein, and Mx. Casserly recommended deleting a portion <br />a� the Ianguage as indicated belaw: <br />"(2) The cost of any Parcel acquired after December <br />31, 20fl1 by the Redeveloper or by any of it� equity <br />owners from an unreiated party in an arm's length <br />transaction shall be the price paid for fhe Parcel, plus <br />reasonable carrying cos�s. Carrying costs are those <br />expenses directly related ta the holding of the Parcei <br />and r�duced by any revenues received on the Parcel. <br />On1y actual cash expenses are allowed. No amounts <br />for depreciation, amortization or other non-cash <br />items are allowed. , <br />. , <br />„+;,....�+,.a +,,,. �...r,.�:, �� 4�.,..,.. �+., ,�,. +�..,. <br />��� The cost of the parcel p�us the net <br />allowed carrying costs cannot exceed the �'air market <br />value of �he property on the daie of executian of �his <br />Agreement. The Redevelaper will certify to th� City <br />that such party would be considered unrelated to the <br />Redeveloper or to any o:F its equity awners under <br />applicable Code regulations." <br />Ms. Reiter continued her review of the proposed contract, <br />responding to Council comments and questions <br />accordingiy. <br />Discussion included Certif cates of Occupancy and <br />substantial completion language and ineaning; �and <br />designaied for office space (Dorso site) tc� be reserved for <br />office use for up to three years if ih� office market hasn't <br />picked up; developer costs incurred and reimbursement <br />process; and additiona� Krass Monroe billings for <br />restatement of the City's TIF Policy that should not be <br />borne by the develaper. <br />Councilmember Ihlan expressed strong apposition to the <br />City a�su�ning costs that would �ventually and ultimately <br />benefit a develaper and TIF applicant, and opined that such <br />cansidezation was nat applicable with current City policy. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.