CC_Minutes_2009_1116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 16, 2009 Page 22 Councilmember Ihlan noted Section 5.03 provided for a division of costs for im- provements that was narrower than State Statute, specifically as it related to the "shall" language, questioning whether it was in potential conflict with State Stat- utes. Councilmember Pust provided her perspective that this was an alternative deter- mined by the City Council, and was based on what was learned during the West- wood Village process and public testimony about giving due deference to deci- sions of the Association Board representing the association. Ms. Kelsey advised that the HRA's legal counsel had reviewed the policy, spe- cific to this section in particular, and made corrections where it did not follow State Statute and based on the new legislation. Councilmember Pust referenced portions of the 2009 legislative amendments pro- vided by Councilmember Ihlan. Further discussion included potential liability issues if association documents ad- dressed one division, and then it was different without a finding of fact required; whether guidelines were needed for prioritization if numerous applications for HIA's were received, currently not addressed in the policy, but determined by staff to not be necessary given a survey completed by staff of all associations in Roseville and any interest in seeking assistance from the City or indicating that their reserve funds were inadequate for future improvement needs; review of fi- nancials for any associations; and in hindsight, how Westwood Village may have chosen a different path based on the financial burden the HIA had placed on their association. Councilmember Pust, in consultation with City Attorney Squires, concurred that the language of Section 503 needed further clarification, and proceeded to coordi- nate drafting that revised language. Additional discussion included State law related to how associations were incor- porated and development of their bylaws; and whether it was prudent to address catastrophic hazards as they related to HIA's and whether adequate insurance was in place to address such a catastrophe, with staff recommending that the policy address adequate rather than extraordinary insurance coverage provisions; and other provisions related to pledged assets to be addressed in development agree- ments on an individual basis. By consensus, the following revised language was approved as drafted by City Attorney Squires and Councilmember Pust for Section 503 of the HIA Policy: "The division of the costs for the proposed improvements (i.e., how the fee is spread to unit owners), shall be imposed on the basis of tax capacity of the hous- ing unit, or the total amount of square footage of the housing unit, or an alterna-