My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-28-2004 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
04-28-2004 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2012 2:50:44 PM
Creation date
4/25/2012 2:43:19 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
August 14, 2002 <br />BUSINESS The City Administrator reviewed draft guidelines for the Business <br />REVOLVING Revolving Loan Program. He noted that the Planning Commission has <br />LOAN reviewed these guidelines and has recommended approval. <br />FUND <br />The Council discussed the fact that the special assessment process cannot <br />be used to recover loans that go into default. Therefore, there is a risk to <br />the City. However, the valuation of the property should be sufficient to <br />cover both the bank's position and the City's subordinate position. <br />Council discussed the use of the loan program for exterior maintenance <br />items, and Fahey expressed concern with including such items as roof <br />replacement. The City Administrator noted that in reviewing a request <br />for a building permit for exterior improvements, the Building Official <br />may require a code compliance improvement as part of the building <br />permit. Fahey suggested that maintenance items add no value to the <br />project, and felt that the loan program should limit funding for <br />improvements that fall into the maintenance category. <br />Anderson suggested that the guidelines include a basic total discretion <br />clause in the eligibility criteria which would allow loan applications to be <br />accepted or rejected for any reason at all. Fahey agreed that loan <br />application approval of disapproval should be at the sole discretion of the <br />EDA. <br />The Administrator pointed out that some applicants may ask for the <br />maximum loan amount while putting additional private money into the <br />project. That scenario was acceptable to the Council. <br />Anderson suggested some wording changes relative to Item 3.H. and <br />increasing the review period to 30 days. The rest of the Council found <br />these suggested changes acceptable. Council also felt that exterior <br />maintenance items such as roofing should remain in the guidelines at this <br />point given the addition of a total discretionary clause. <br />The City Administrator indicated that he would put the guidelines into <br />final form and review them with local banks to determine their interest in <br />participating. Once that input is obtained, he will bring the guidelines <br />back to the Council for adoption. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.