Laserfiche WebLink
187 <br /> <br /> MINUTES <br /> OF <br /> THE SPECIAL MEETING <br /> OF <br /> THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> MAY 22, 1989 <br /> <br />'D CALL TO ORDER <br />[] Mayor Kenneth R. Mercer called the Special Meeting of <br />~ the City Council to order at 4:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> ROLL CALL <br /> City Clerk James Walker called the roll which is re- <br /> corded as follows: Councilmembers Mohr, Tarver, and Mayor <br /> Mercer were present. Councilmember Brandes entered at 4:50 <br /> p.m. Councilmember Butler was absent. Mr. Walker, City <br /> Manager, Mr. Roush, City Attorney, and Mr. Bocian, Assistant <br /> City Manager were present. Also present was Tim Truesdale, <br /> Project Manager for Ridge View Commons. <br /> <br /> ITEM 1. <br /> CONTINUED DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE RIDGE VIEW COMMONS <br /> SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AND CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF THE <br /> MARKETING PLAN. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian presented City Council the revised (as of <br /> May 22, 1989) "Ridge View Commons Rent and Income Alterna- <br /> tives" setting forth three alternatives in terms of distrib- <br /> uting the 198 units among various income levels. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if anyone had any comments on the <br /> revisions. A couple members of the public made brief com- <br /> ments recommending that as many units as possible be placed <br /> in the "very low income" category. <br /> <br /> There was some discussion as to whether a person could <br /> have no income. Bruce Fielder, Administrator of the <br /> Pleasanton Gardens, stated that if a person is receiving <br /> Social Security, the person would receive a minimum of <br /> $7,464/year. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Tarver asked if the number of units in <br /> each category could be set after the applications were re- <br /> ceived. Mr. Truesdale explained why that was not practical. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Tarver and Mayor Mercer both expressed a <br /> desire for Alternative #2. <br /> <br /> The Council then discussed how income levels will be <br /> established and whether an "asset test" should be used. Also <br /> discussed was whether an applicant's family was expected to <br /> contribute to the applicant's income. <br /> <br /> Mr. Truesdale stated that he was not recommending an <br /> "asset test" because it was not required, and because it is <br /> somewhat difficult to administer. Concerning contributions <br /> by other family members, he felt that it should be left up to <br /> the individual applicant whether to show contributions as <br /> income. However, since there are more units in the higher <br /> <br /> <br />