Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> Ms. Kelley said the ordinance is only for this year and will be applied to the <br />second half of the year’s bill. She said Council will look at the program in every budget. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Schilling, Ms. Kelley said the household <br />income is counted for owners of the dwelling. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he sees a flaw in the ordinance that would allow parents of a <br />student to purchase the house, with the student owning only a 5% interest, and having the <br />student qualify for the program. Mr. Schilling asked about a married couple that file <br />separate tax returns. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kelley said the income of the applicant and spouse would be counted, and <br />would require a review of both tax returns. Ms. Kelley said that the situation with parents <br />owning the majority of the interest in the property may have to be clarified in the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling noted that the section restricting ownership of other property only <br />refers to property in the City, and Ms. Kelley said she thinks the definition addresses this, <br />but she will clarify it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said the restriction on participation in other tax relief programs does <br />not mention the abatement program, and Ms. Kelley said that was not discussed by <br />Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked how fines for willful and false statements are determined, and <br />by whom, and Ms. Kelley said by a judge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said the fine of $25 seems low, and Ms. Kelley said Council could <br />change that amount. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said that the requirement for a mortgage was not recommended by <br />the City Manager, but the City Attorney seemed to be concerned that it may be difficult <br />to defend the program or would make the program vulnerable since the Charter <br />amendment refers to assisting people with the purchase of a home. Mr. Schilling asked <br />who the City might have to defend against. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kelley said that theoretically a tax payer could demonstrate that their interest <br />has been damaged by the program and could challenge the legitimacy of the program. <br />She said Council should articulate how the program will promote the Charter. She said <br />Council discussed providing tax relief with a benefit to homeowners. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he personally does not see how it helps purchase a home if <br />someone does not have a mortgage. He asked that the following information from staff <br />to Council be entered verbatim in the minutes. <br /> <br />d. Other: At the staff level, there has been some discussion of how Council might tailor <br />the program to serve the purposes stated in the new charter provisions (i.e., the <br />establishment of a grant program to assist low- and moderate persons with the purchase <br />of a home). One way to accomplish this might be to include an eligibility criteria <br />requiring that the applicant have an ongoing mortgage obligation with respect to the <br />property that is the subject of the application. A mortgage requirement is not being <br />recommended by the City Manager. <br /> <br />This City Manager is recommending that homeowners with and without a mortgage be <br />eligible for the program. By not requiring a mortgage, those homeowners who are most <br />at need will be served by this tax grant. T hat includes those homeowners who are not <br />eligible for elderly or disabled tax relief, are on a fixed or limited income, have paid off <br />their homes and still have a tax bill to pay twice a year that causes undue stress on the <br />homeowner. <br /> <br />This another mode of thought on this, addressed by the City Attorney’s office, that a <br />mortgage requirement would tie the grants provided to homeowners to a specific expense <br /> <br />