Laserfiche WebLink
94 <br /> <br /> 11. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE REPORTS <br /> <br /> There were none. <br /> <br /> 12. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER <br /> <br /> Item 12a <br /> Analysis of Commissioner Absences for the Period January to June <br /> 1992 (SR92:399) <br /> <br /> No action was required or taken by the Council on this item. <br /> <br /> Item 12b <br /> Appointment of Audit Committee (SR92:390) <br /> <br /> After general discussion, it was determined that Mr. Tarver <br /> and Ms. Scribner were the only persons guaranteed to be on the <br /> Council after the election and they were appointed to serve on the <br /> Audit Committee. <br /> <br /> Item <br /> Notice of Termination of Agreement withE Hi for property Manaqement <br /> Services at Ridge View Commons (SR92:407) <br /> <br /> Peter Sopka, 3250 Laguna Street, #400, San Francisco, <br /> represented RVC Investments, Inc., the managing general partner of <br /> Ridge View Associates, owners of Ridge View Commons. Mr. Sopka <br /> indicated the recommendation before Council is to terminate the <br /> contract between the owner and its management agent and to select <br /> a new management agent. RVC Investments believes Ridge View is <br /> beautifully maintained and well managed. The majority of the <br /> tenants are happy with the management. It is the owner and not the <br /> City that has all the $20+ million liability; over $13 million in <br /> debt and $7.2 million in tax credits. The City's $1.7 million in <br /> contributions are entirely being repaid by the owner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sopka continued that it is important that the project be <br /> well managed, the tenants be well served, the physical plant be <br /> protected, and all regulatory and compliance committments be <br /> honored. RVC Investments believes that EHI Proprety Management <br /> Services has done a good job in doing that. In deference to the <br /> City, a second choice, Eugene Berger Company, was offered as an <br /> alternative to EHI. The issue here is not the qualifications of <br /> the management agents. In a letter to the Board of Commissioners, <br /> Mr. Bocian stated that all management companies seemed to be <br /> qualified agents. Nevertheless, the City has rejected both <br /> selections of the owner. This is an untenable position for the <br /> owner, who would be left with all the liability and no control. <br /> <br /> 10/6/92 20 <br /> <br /> <br />