Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council forgives accrued interest on homeowner rehabilitation loan so borrower can refinance
Summary
The council approved a one-off forgiveness of accrued interest on a long-standing owner-occupied rehabilitation loan for Ms. Atkins after staff and the housing loan advisory committee recommended approval; one councilmember recused.
The Oroville City Council voted to forgive accrued interest on an owner-occupied rehabilitation loan held by a borrower identified in the meeting as Ms. Atkins, allowing her to refinance and pay off principal balances, according to staff presentation and a recorded motion.
Staff reported that Ms. Atkins holds a first-time homebuyer loan originally executed in February 2019 in the amount of $32,598 and additional advances dating to 2001 and a rehabilitation loan executed in February 2007 (the rehabilitation loan has accrued more than $30,000 in interest). The borrower contacted staff seeking a payoff in May to refinance, reduce high-interest consumer debt and complete home improvements; she believed earlier interest might have been forgiven after five years, but staff said the 2007 security documents specified interest would continue to accrue.
The Home Loan Advisory Committee recommended approval of the borrower’s request. Staff presented three options to the council: (1) make an exception to program guidelines and forgive accrued interest; (2) apply a different administrative remedy; or (3) decline the request. Staff noted that under current owner-occupied program guidelines instituted after the older loans, the city forgives interest after five years, but the older loans were under prior program rules.
Council discussion centered on precedent and the program’s funding: staff explained there are about 30 outstanding rehabilitation loans in the portfolio that continue to accrue interest under the older terms, and that repayments (principal and interest) feed back into the city’s program income (CDBG and other funds) for future lending. Councilmembers expressed concern about precedent but also noted that the borrower was proposing to pay the principal balances and would be released from the city’s loan programs into traditional lending.
A councilmember recused themself after noting an ownership connection to the address; the council then voted to approve the request. The meeting record shows the motion passed with a tally recorded as “4 yeses, 2 absent, and 1 recusal.” The council directed staff to proceed consistent with the approved action.
Staff noted the decision will accelerate repayment of principal into the city’s housing programs but that a wave of simultaneous forgiveness requests could have budgetary impacts if many loans sought interest forgiveness at once; staff characterized smaller, staggered requests as manageable.
