pages: CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-03-01 | 6 | In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated that she is referring to the tenant's option to return to the renovated unit; relocation assistance is also included in the proposal. Councilmember Oddie stated there is a precedence that the tenant should be compensated for loss of use of their unit during a temporary relocation as in situations like mold remediation where the tenant is not at fault. The Community Development Director stated if no temporary relocation is available, permanent relocation is provided. Mayor Spencer stated that she prefers to have the ability for the tenant to return regardless of the relocation situation; the caveat being the repairs should be done in a timely manner. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated every situation is different; she favors the proposal in cases where the tenant may want to return; depending on the circumstance, a negotiation could be done with a mediator; cautioned about limiting the length of repairs, especially on older homes that need special supplies; stated property owner's hands should not be tied inordinately; rather than a set formula for the interest rate, the policy should not penalize building owners for improving old and decaying buildings, which might require a loan with an unfavorable interest rate; a set formula is too cookie-cutter. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like two things: 1) termination of tenancy and evictions should be subject to mediation; 2) property owner must prove any renovation; he strongly supports mediation, which the ordinance does not contemplate; a CIP should be subject to proof; no landlord wants their building empty during renovations; the proposal seems impossible to administrate. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to treat all parties equally; the tenant would be penalized if the landlord has bad credit and can only get unfavorable financing rates; perhaps there is a middle ground; he does not like using the word "penalty." In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he thinks the interest rate should be the real rate; banks will not lend at a favorable rate if a building is dilapidated. Mayor Spencer stated Council would have to agree on principles and have the matter brought back; inquired whether there is consensus on imposing actual interest rate. Councilmember Daysog stated the interest rate formula by which all possible reimbursements would be done is hard and fast at prime rate plus 1; there are many different property types; the ultimate rate is subject to a variety of conditions and market factors such that instead of 7% plus 1, the real rate turns out to be 8.5%, which is not captured; the formula was created based on the situation related to the 470 Central Avenue property; he is looking for more flexibility regarding the interest rate. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 16, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf |