My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN071701
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN071701
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:34 AM
Creation date
8/23/2001 6:09:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/17/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN071701
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Tho roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembors - Ayala, Michelotti, and Mayor Pico <br />NOES: Councilmember Dennis <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Campbell <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6g <br />Al~roval of City Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds for the Bernal <br />Ai~'tments (SR 01:183) <br /> <br />Steven Bocian and Sue Rossi presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if building permits were required to be issued in order to have <br />the bonds purchased. <br /> <br /> Mr. Steven Melildan, Bond Counsel from Jones Hall, said generally speaking the <br />permits do not have to be issued. The credit enhancer in this case, Fannie Mae, does need <br />to understand what the issues are to make sure that they will be issued in a timely basis to <br />allow for the construction of the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked if they were feeling sure that this is okay? <br /> <br /> Mr. Melikian said they were working through the process fight now. The Fannie <br />Mae attorneys have been talking with the Pleasanton City Attorney's office trying to <br />understand what the issues are and what is outstanding. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked about the issue of the term of the affordability. She knows that <br />in Pleasanton we like to look at affordability "in perpetuity." She would be interested in <br />understanding what are the obstacles to making this term in perpetuity as opposed to 55 <br />years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Melikian said there are a couple of obstacles. One is that "in perpetuity" has <br />some legal eormotations in terms of this type of transaction where the land is privately <br />owned. Generally speaking, most people do not feel comfortable going past the term of <br />90 or 99 years. Filly-five years is what was presented to the state governing body that <br />gave the project an allocation. He did not recall what is in the City's affordable housing <br />agreement with the developer, but he knows that to date the only term he has heard is 55 <br />years. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis said the City does have agreements "in perpetuity." <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian said the City generally has used 55 years. Even though we have said <br />that it is "in perpetuity" for a number of our projects, they have been for 55 years. There <br />have been some projects the City has had to use less and there are some that we have <br />used more. There has been a combination of those. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 38 <br />Minutes <br /> <br />07/17/01 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.