My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032090
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN032090
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:16:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
125 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes expressed concern regarding the proceeds that the <br />County will get. He stated that in 1994, there would be a major <br />problem regarding the gravel trucks on E1 Charro Road and that he <br />would like to see as much of the money from this project as <br />possible go to that project. He asked if conditions can be put <br />specifying where the proceeds from the development should go. <br /> <br /> Mr. Martinelli indicated that the County is obligated for <br />one-half of the cost of the E1 Charro Road correction. He said <br />that the philosophy of the transaction is to have the proceeds go <br />back to the asset directly or indirectly. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr mentioned that in the past, when the affordable <br />units hit the resale market, the units went on the market rate and <br />the first buyers realized a windfall. She requested Mr. <br />Martinelli to elaborate on the co-equity position mentioned in the <br />staff report as a tool for controlling prices and inquired if the <br />City shares in this co-equity. <br /> <br /> Mr. Martinelli explained that the County has not established <br />the structure of the co-equity program, but it has committed to <br />have the City oversee the program as co-administrator, if it <br />wishes. The program features a silent second, representing a <br />proportion of a subsidy of about 30%, which is reflected in the <br />selling price. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the County would realize the 30% value <br />of the appreciation if the units were sold at some time in the <br />future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Martinelli stated that the intent is to make the units <br />available permanently to first-time homebuyers. The program is <br />structured so that County or the agency responsible for the <br />program would have the first right of refusal when there is a <br />sale. There is a policy that the units will be re-sold to first- <br />time homebuyers; otherwise, the agency can acquire the units back <br />and resell them. An administrative cost would be included for <br />holding the unit during the market transaction for the re-sale. <br />To be legal, the agency holding the interest would have to be the <br />lender rather than the equity owner, and the position will be a <br />second deed of trust with a restriction that the interest rate <br />will be paid by the buyer. Interest payments will not actually be <br />made on it, but this will accrue and essentially build an <br />equivalent amount of equity. When the unit is sold, the buyer <br />will have his share of the equity. The program will also have its <br />share, which will be put back into the subsidy for the second <br />sale. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired what would motivate a person to leave a <br /> house that he is able to purchase for $140,000. <br /> <br /> - 17 - <br /> 3-20-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.