My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0913
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0913
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2010 1:02:00 PM
Creation date
10/1/2010 1:01:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/13/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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, September 13, 2010 <br />Page 9 <br />guage changes, even though staff understood the purpose of the hardship lan- <br />guage; and opined that the changes represented instances with minor technicali- <br />ties. Mayor Klausing further opined that the proposed changes were not substan- <br />tive, but brought statutory language in line with practice and simplified the <br />process. Mayor Klausing opined that the often-expressed concern of the public <br />was in making government processes more complicated and costlier, forcing ap- <br />plicants to realize unnecessary costs, including that of staff time. <br />Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that the revisions <br />would treat land use issues consistently, and was not making them easier to re- <br />ceive approval. Councilmember Roe noted that the pending subdivision applica- <br />tions currently in the review process would still go to the City Council for ap- <br />proval as with current processes, and that the practice would still apply with staff <br />approval for those items meeting the applicable criteria. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Johnson; Pust; and Klausing. <br />Nays: Ihlan. <br />Motion Carried. <br />b. Consider a Resolution to approve Modification to the Development Program <br />for Municipal Development District No. 1 and to establish Tax Increment Fi- <br />nancing District NO. 19 (Applewood Pointe) within Development District No. <br />1. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if the developers had applied for any other pub- <br />lic subsidies or other government support programs, noting that since this was a <br />HUD project, it appeared that other monies were coming toward this project, and <br />questioned their source and the amount. <br />Ms. Radel clarified that HUD was a mortgage financing tool used by the develop- <br />er; and that she was unaware of any other type of governmental assistance. <br />Councilmember Ihlan clarified that HUD financing allowed purchases to purchase <br />units more easily, but served as a federal benefit source for the developer. <br />Mr. Carey clarified that this Applewood project, as with all their other projects, <br />had a Master Mortgage guaranteed by HUD, but that the loan was not directly <br />from HUD but guaranteed by them, allowing for more advantageous interest rates <br />for resident participation and providing significant protections for residents, re- <br />quiring the developer's establishment of sufficient reserves .and adhering to cer- <br />tain operating practices. Mr. Carey advised that residents make mortgage pay- <br />ments directly to the bank and that those interest rates were currently good and <br />residents received all the benefits of a HUD interest rate. Mr. Carey noted that for <br />the project to be HUD-qualified, it required the pre-sale of 60% of the units. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.