My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2016 07 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2016 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2016 07 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:13:39 PM
Creation date
8/3/2016 11:29:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2016 07 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />July 19, 2016 <br />Page 10 of 15 <br />Council member Stolzmann stated there are a great many complications in this project <br />and noted the site includes the rest of the property which is generating rent. She is <br />concerned the matching funds are not included. She stated she doesn't see it qualifying <br />for this source of funding at this time. <br />Council member Loo noted her appreciation for the applicant to do the project but has <br />concerns with this funding. She noted to date, the City has already provided <br />approximately $1.5 million in funding and this grant would bring that to $2 million. She <br />stated the cost of the immediate need is about $200,000 and that would still not make <br />the site usable. She wondered if Council members were interested in funding the <br />Priority 1 items. <br />Mayor Muckle stated he shared the concem of the fund's long -term viability, but the City <br />needs to see it through to at least full complete restoration (Priority 1) and he would <br />probably support Priority 2 as well. He noted the Council probably shouldn't do <br />something against the resolution rules but might be able to invest in the building while <br />we still own it. <br />Council member Maloney noted funding for the project is already higher than $2 million <br />when everything is included. He was surprised the protection items were not included <br />as part of the stabilization. He stated it is very complicated to make the building usable, <br />but higher matching funds really must be a part of the request. <br />Mayor Muckle asked if the Council would be willing to have staff bring back to the <br />Council a suggested solution that would not be against the existing ordinance. <br />Council member Leh stated he agrees with the concerns of others. The grant program <br />has rules and he doesn't feel comfortable going against that. The 12% match seems <br />significantly low. <br />Mayor Muckle suggested the City could put money towards the building at this time <br />while we still own it. Deputy City Manager Balser asked if he wanted to give HPF funds <br />or general fund money. He stated HPF. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated the HPC did exactly what they were supposed to do under <br />their rules. He is concerned the $1.5 million invested is already a huge amount. The City <br />is taking all the financial risk without a high enough return. He stated he doesn't see an <br />end to the requests for money for the project. <br />Council member Stolzmann asked when the City will actually close on the property so it <br />is owned by the applicant. <br />City Manager Fleming stated there are a couple of outstanding items including the <br />grading around the site before closing can happen. Erik Hartronft added there are a few <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.