My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 02 18
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 02 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:21 PM
Creation date
6/13/2019 1:04:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 14, 2018 <br />Page3of6 <br />Thomas stated that it seemed reasonable to discount that rate by a percentage point for <br />the fund renewal, but they did not have that option in this case. He suggested that they <br />might be able to make a specific rate recommendation for Council to approve. <br />Haley added that it felt strange for the Commission to decide a specific percentage rate, <br />but she felt the fund percentage should be competitive so that people would come to the <br />City for loans. <br />Klemme asked for clarification on the prime rate percentage issue. <br />Haley responded that the current resolution was written as prime, but last month the <br />Commission had discussed other options to change the resolution itself. <br />Klemme stated that the rate should be competitive. <br />Dunlap noted that the issues of changing the resolution and considering the application <br />at hand were different issues. <br />Ulm asked if the Commission was tied to what was already written. <br />Selvoski replied that the Commission could make a different recommendation based on <br />extraordinary circumstances or some similar language. <br />Thomas suggested going with the percentage rate as written. <br />Haley noted that if the Commission later went with a different, higher rate for the fund <br />renewal, it might seem like the Commission was being subjective and unfair. <br />Thomas and Ulm asked if the applicant could appeal or refinance later on if the policy <br />changed to a lower rate. <br />Zuccaro stated that there might be opportunities for refinancing if the City changes its <br />policy significantly, but he was not sure if there would be fees attached or if it would be <br />possible. <br />Ulm asked if the applicant knew the circumstances as they stand. <br />Zuccaro and Selvoski confirmed. <br />Ulm noted that he thought the criterion to look for other funding options should be <br />rigorous from the applicant in the future. There were other options besides the City for <br />preservation funding, especially for bigger loan requests. <br />Dunlap asked if anyone knew the prime rate for a residential loan like this. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.