Item 12 Staff Report Informational Report Responding to Concerns Raised Regarding Below Market Price Housing Unit ResaleDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 10-3-94
ITEM NO. /c
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 30, 1994
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
DAVID W. KNAPP),TOWMANAGER
INFORMATIONAL REPORT RESPONDING TO CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING
BELOW MARKET PRICE HOUSING UNIT RESALE
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
BACKGROUND:
At its September 6 meeting, Jamie Willmes and GreggAnn Herrern addressed the Council under the "Verbal
Communications" portion of the agenda regarding Ms. Willmes' sale of her Below Market Price (BMP)
Housing unit. Ms. Herrern is a real estate agent who represented the seller of the Mountain View home that
Ms. Willmes purchased. Both speakers voiced their frustration with the BMP resale process. Council
directed Staff to investigate the concerns and provide a report.
The BMP Program, established by Zoning Code Sections 29.10.3000 - 29.10.3040, assists low and moderate
income Los Gatos citizens to purchase homes. Through this program, homes are sold at prices below
market value. This ordinance helps meet State -mandated housing goals.
One Twenty-two Henning Court is one of six BMP units in the Courtside condominium complex. Ms.
Willmes purchased the unit December 1988 for $124,000. The seller notified the Town on December 27,
1993, of her intent to sell the unit. The Town had six months to exercise its first right of refusal to either
purchase the unit or find a buyer. The Town has always chosen to find a buyer. The Town contracts with
Community Housing Developers (CHD) to market and facilitate the sale of BMP units.
'PREPARED BY:
REGINA A. FALKNER
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RAF:dr
CSD05:A:\cnclrpts\willmes.ann
Revised: 9/30/94 12:28 pm
ATTACHMENTS: See page 3 for list of attachments.
DISTRIBUTION: Jamie Willmes, 342 Deerwood Court, Mountain View, CA 94040
GreggAnn Herrern, 535 Lasser Street. Los Altos, CA
♦
Reviewed by: /% Attorney Clerk Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT RESPONDING TO CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING BELOW
MARKET PRICE HOUSING UNIT RESALE
DATE: September 28, 1994
Applications were mailed to the 400 households on the waiting list; eight applications were received, and
six qualified. The first five applicants did not complete the process because they either chose not to
participate or were unable to obtain conventional financing.
The last qualified buyer for the unit obtained a first mortgage for eighty percent ($116,800) of the purchase
price ($146,000) and indicated she had funds to cover a five percent downpayment and closing costs. She
requested a second mortgage from the Town to complete the financing. At its June 13, 1994, meeting,
Council approved a $21,900 loan from the BMP fund to cover the fifteen percent balance.
The buyer was unable to provide the full downpayment and closing costs. She needed approximately
$7,500 to meet the obligation. Options were provided to complete the sale: decrease the sales price, or
the seller could provide a loan. The seller was not willing to reduce the sales price but was willing to provide
a loan to close the financing gap. At this point, the buyer had second thoughts and felt nervous about
committing to three loans. She did not feel comfortable that her income could support the various loan
payments and other housing costs.
Since the seller and buyer could not reach an agreement before the first right of refusal expiration on June
27, 1994, the sale failed to occur and the unit converted to a market rate unit. As a result, this unit is no
longer in the BMP Program.
At the $146,000 purchase price, the seller would have realized a $20,000 profit after paying $2,000 to CHD
as part of the closing costs.
DISCUSSION:
The issues raised are summarized below:
Appraisal
The formula for determining the resale price states that the price may not exceed the appraised price. The
program pays for the appraisal. If the seller wishes to have another appraisal performed they may do so
at their expense. The appraisals are then averaged to determine the maximum sales price.
Ms. Willmes alleges that "CHD asked the appraiser to adjust all comps by as much as $62K." CHD
responded that they did not make this request. Gardner Appraisal Service of San Jose performed the
appraisal. It is unclear whether or not Ms. Willmes had another appraisal performed; another appraisal was
not submitted to the Town.
Communications
Ms. Willmes said that she only received updates when she called CHD and did not get the weekly updates
she requested. In discussions with CHD staff, they indicated that they did return phone calls and provided
updates as changes emerged.
In this case it seems that the seller wanted more frequent status reports. Although it is difficult to determine
which party initiated calls, it is agreed Ms. Willmes' calls were returned.
Town Purchase Unit
The deed restriction recorded on the property allows the Town to purchase the unit. This possibility was
discussed with Ms. Willmes. Although Council was not requested to consider purchasing the unit, it did
authorize a loan to the applicant to assist with the purchase.
Applicant
Despite loan offers from the Town and the seller, the applicant chose not to purchase the unit. Town staff
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT RESPONDING TO CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING BELOW
MARKET PRICE HOUSING UNIT RESALE
DATE: September 28, 1994
share the sellers and Ms. Herrern's frustrations. Unfortunately, the seller decided to not purchase the unit
at the end of the six month period making it impossible to process another buyer.
Sales Price Reduction
On at least two occasions, BMP owners have reduced the sales price to allow the unit to remain affordable.
This option was suggested to Ms. Willmes; she declined.
Deposit
CHD is paid for its services from fees charged to the buyer and seller whenever a unit is sold. Because the
unit was not sold to a Town selected buyer, CHD did not collect fees. Staff suggested that CHD inquire
about the status of the buyers deposit. CHD was informed that the purchase contract states that the deposit
is awarded to the seller. No further inquiry was made.
CHD's Qualifications
Based on her experience, Ms. Willmes feels that CHD is not qualified to sell housing units under the BMP
Housing Program. CHD has assisted with at least a dozen BMP sales. Although the project coordinator
at CHD, Ray Tovar, has a real estate license, the agency's role is simply to facilitate the sale. CHD is an
independent third party - they are not to act as real estate agents. It is the responsibility of the seller and
buyer to actively pursue the sale. It appears that Ms. Willmes expected CHD to represent the buyer.
CONCLUSION:
As Ms. Herrern points out, the sales and purchase of homes are often the most important purchases families
and individuals make. Families homes are usually their primary assets. BMP sales can be arduous to
administer because low and moderate income households have difficulty obtaining financing. Furthermore,
it is likely to be their first home purchase.
In regard to Ms. Willmes' unit, it is clear there was a gap between the sellers expectations of CHD and
CHD's contract obligations. CHD's contract requires it to market BMP units, identify eligible buyers, and
assist with facilitating a sale. CHD does not represent the buyer or the seller. Selling Ms. Willmes' unit was
made more difficult because the sales price and the appraised price were the same making the unit's
affordability questionable.
To address the issues raised Staff recommends:
After eligible applicants are chosen, a meeting should be held between the applicants, seller, CHD,
and Town Staff to explain the sales process and the responsibility of each party.
To keep the seller properly informed, general informational correspondences mailed to the
applicants will also be mailed to the seller.
CHD develop a "First -Time Home Buyers" information packet.
Staff is reviewing BMP guidelines and deed restrictions used by other municipalities with the intent of
revising current documents to assure lower unit prices and a smooth sales process.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
It is not a project as defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is flexibility within the BMP Program to use the in -lieu funds for the purchase of a unit. However, the
purchase of 122 Henning Court would have significantly depleted the cash balance in the BMP Fund, and
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT RESPONDING TO CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING BELOW
MARKET PRICE HOUSING UNIT RESALE
DATE: September 28, 1994
the lack of resources would have created difficulity in administering the program.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memo revised September 26, 1994 to BMP file
2. Letter dated September 20, 1994, to Regina Falkner from Ray Tovar, CHD
3. Notes presented by Jamie Willmes at Town Council meeting.
4. Notes presented by GreggAnn Herrern at September 6, 1994, Town Council meeting.
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 1994 Revised September 26, 1994
TO: BMP File
FROM: Regina A. Falkner, Director
Community Services Department
SUBJECT: BMP PROCESS
GENERAL:
Packet to potential owners contains:
• Application (Attachment 1)
• Deed Restrictions (Attachment 2)
• Guidelines Based on Ordinance (Attachment 3)
SALE:
Owner 1. Notifies Town of desire to sell unit.
Town 2. Sends letter to owner regarding approximate sales price; actual sales
price is contingent upon appraisal. (Attachment 4)
Owner 3. Sends letter notifying Town of intent to sell; letter is sent to Town
Manager with cc: to Community Services Director.
(Town has 6 months to sell unit from date of receipt of letter. Steps
4 - 6 must be completed expeditiously. If we don't meet 6 month first
right of refusal, we potentially lose unit.)
Town 4. CC:'s letter to CHD and requests a schedule.
CHD 5. Prepares schedule for Community Services Director's approval,
(Attachment 5) and sends it to client with cc to seller. CHD contacts
client to review schedule and determine open house date.
CHD 6. Implements schedule.
Town
7. Monitors schedule; and, reviews applications to determine client
eligibility. (Attachment 6A.)
CHD 8. Notifies Town if extension is necessary. (Attachment 6)
Notifies Town if loan is necessary. (Attachment 8)
csd17:A:\Memos\BMPProcs.CHD
Attachment 2
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS
255 NORTH MARKET STREET • SUITE 290 • SAN JOSE • CA • 95110
408 279-7676 FAX 408 292-1231
September 20, 1994
Regina Faulkner.
Community Services Director
Town of Los Gatos
208 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: Response to items listed by
Jamie Willmes and GreggAnn Herrern during the Town Council Meeting
HISTORY: Community Housing Developers, Inc. (CHD) has been administering the BMP
program for the Town of Los Gatos since 1980.The concept alone is wonderful. To be able to own real
estate in Santa Clara County and specifically in the Town of Los Gatos! In today's market no real estate sells
in a short time, with some exceptions, they normally take 3-5 months. Add to that the fact that we are
targeting a lower income population of the community and qualifying a buyer becomes even more
complicated. They must not only qualify because of the income limits set by the program, but
simultaneously be able to obtain conventional financing.
Jamie Willmes describes how frustrating it was for her to go through the process of selling her BMP unit.
When Jamie Willmes bought her unit five years ago, she had to deal with CHD as a buyer. Whether the
circumstances were different or not, I do not know, but it would be interesting to hear what it was like to be
on the other side of the negotiating table. From what she expressed to me, she came in to buy the unit at
the right time, because many prospective buyers had already fallen out of escrow or backed out of the deal.
THE PROCESS: The Town's approved process is very specific as to the logistics of selling the unit
within the allotted time. After the Seller and the Town agree on the selling price, the Town has six months
to exercise its first right of refusal, which basically means that within six months, the Town will attempt to
provide a qualified buyer for the unit.
Due to the lower prices of the units, it is almost sure that a buyer will perform within the time limit. In this
case, because the appraised value of the unit was the same as the below market price calculated by the Town,
based on the median income guidelines, the possibilities of getting a qualified buyer for a unit that was selling
at market value with resale deed restrictions were slim. CHD discussed this problem with Town staff from
the very beginning. CHD has no control at all on the way an appraiser does a comparison. We do not and
did not in this case direct an appraiser to modify his numbers. Besides, from what 1 understand the seller
did not agree with the appraised value of the unit when the Town ordered it the first time, and she went
ahead and ordered another appraisal on her own. We did not see a copy of the second appraisal.
CHD currently has a mailing list specific to this program with approximately 380 names on it. Farb person
on the list receives a package which includes a description of the BMP program, an application and a
description of the available unit. All interested applicants send their completed information and they are
rated and ranked, according to the program guidelines for family composition and incomes, they are then
approved by the Town.
Ms. Regina Faulkner
September 20, 1994
Page 2.
When a buyer is selected, he/she is notified immediately, via telephone and followed up with a letter
explaining the next steps. Such letter is normally sent to the buyer only, but we are recommending a copy
be sent to the Seller as well, so they can get an idea of what the Buyer has to do.
Continuing with the process, we went through several buyers who did not perform, or did not qualify for
a conventional loan. When we finally got to the last prospective Buyer on the approved list of applicants,
she received the letter explaining the process and what she needed to do to complete the transaction. We
entered into a contract. An escrow was opened and a $2,000 deposit was placed in it. The buyer then has
10 days to qualify for a loan. As it turned out, although the buyer had good credit, she did not have enough
money for a down payment. We suggested the idea of having the Town of Los Gatos ldan the remaining
balance to the Buyer so she could close. In almost record time, staff prepared the request and report to
Town Council, and they approved the loan. Loan documents were placed in escrow just waiting to be
signed. Meanwhile, Buyer had been qualified for a conventional loan, and these loan documents were also
placed in escrow. At that time, we all thought that for sure this was a done deal, but then the Buyer decided
that she did not have enough income to support the loan payments and all the other expenses. She had been
given a breakdown of the costs in accordance with the Truth in Lending legal requirements by the both the
mortgage broker (her friend) and the escrow officer.
During May (our deadline to sell the unit was June 27, 1994), there was a discussion between the Town
of Los Gatos and CHD where we talked about the possibility of the Town purchasing the property. During
another meeting in June, it was decided that the Town would not buy the unit. All of this happened before
the end of the deadline, therefore, the Seller and everybody else knew that was the case. I told Jamie
Willmes that we did discuss it with the Town, but they would not purchase the unit. The town suggested that
the Seller lower the price of the unit, in order to make it easier to sell. Jamie Willmes did not accept this
recommendation, and she was under no obligation to do so.
CONCLUSION: The question is, how do we solve this problem? First, according to the contract
between CHD and the Town, CHD did everything we were supposed to do and more. The Buyer and I
were in constant contact, up to the last day, when she backed out of the deal and did not respond to any of
my phone calls.
The fact that CHD has been solicited to carry out this type of program in two other cities within the last two
years is a solid indication of CHD's reputation. CHD has a unique blend of experience that puts it in a good
position to market these services.
All three of the four staff members who work on BMP programs have real estate licenses, and have
experience in residential sales.
Ms. Regina Faulkner
September 20, 1994
Page 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
We do not recommend changing the relationship as consultants to one of broker, some changes can be
made, however, to ensure better communications.
We recommend a meeting with all the buyers selected and approved by the Town, maybe at the offices of
the Community Services Division in Los Gatos, or at CHD's office. The purpose of such meeting would
be to orient all of them at once of what the responsibilities of each party are, answer questions that they may
have about the program if they still have any, and perhaps, eliminate some of the prospective failures at the
beginning. We could also, in conjunction with the Town, invite some of the Community Lenders (Saratoga
National Bank, San Jose National Bank, etc) to come over and explain their process and requirements.
This not only could potentially shorten the time that it would take to close escrow but also it would educate
all of the prospective buyers at the same time.
CID also thinks that it would be a good idea send to Seller a copy of the correspondence sent to the Buyer,
so they can be informed as to what the other one is doing or supposed to do and when.
Respectfully submitted,
Ray Tour
Project lvlmaget
tachn ent 3
TOWN OF LOS GATOS -- TOWN MEETING
H:,2ecille.e
G Yx�b,J
WHY AM I HERE: I am here to get something off of my chest and
to express my concerns on how the town administers their Below
Market Priced Housing Program. Nobody should have to go
through what I experienced and am cor 'nuing to experience. I
apologize for reading from my notes but since I am still very
emotional from this -- I thought it best.
HISTORY: Five years ago I became a member of your
community by purchasing a Below Market Priced Townhome. In
October of 1993 I decided to sell my property. I expressed in my
October letter to the town that I had some concerns about the
process of selling. These concerns stemmed from a conversation I
had with my neighbors who purchased into the program the prior
year. I was assured at that time that measures had been
implemented into the program to deal with my concerns. These
concerns had to do with the amount of time it took to secure a
buyer and the lack of service from Community Housing
Developers, the company the town hires to administer the sale.
THE PROCESS: The first task on the sale of my house was to
price it. The pricing is something the town controls and is based on
the lower of a formula tied to the median salary range or the fair
market value (so I was told). I was very surprised to hear that my
unit had only appraised at $146K, which I was told was the Fair
Market Value. I later learned that Community Housing had asked
the buyers appraiser to adjust all comps by as much as $62K.
The next step in the process was to have an open
house and start the applicant screening (at this point 2 months
have already gone by). I believe we went through seven approved
applicants and 5 more months. The only updates I received in this
process were when I called Community Housing. This was even
after I asked them for weekly updates and had to speak to their
management about this.
.JA:))/E
017 V. V CA .
i .7a S-Cal tvber<
On May 17th I received a call from Community
Housing that they had good news. I was told it was a done deal,
they had a buyer that looked real good and if by chance she did
not work out the town would purchase the unit because they did
not want to loose it from their BMP Program (there is a clause in
the deed restrictions that the town must sell a unit within six
months).
Although the town is not required to buy the unit I
was told they would. With this news I adjusted my original plans
to not shop for a new home until my place had sold. Since I was
guaranteed a sale I started looking. I found a place that I almost
lost. I had to struggle to hold on to it and it cost me extra $1,500 to
do so.
On June 27th, the day of escrow signing the now X-
buyer backed out of the deal. I was told (after moving my
belongings over the weekend) that she had expressed some
reservations the week before. We then spent four days trying to
figure out what was going on. The X-buyer was going to sign then
she wouldn't, she would -- she wouldn't. No one seemed to be in
control. I spent the week sick to my stomach (literally throwing -
up) and had to take time off from work. We will probably never
really know what went on but the X-buyer indicated that she did
not have enough down -payment (and never did) and that she was
confused and did not feel like she was receiving the proper
guidance. The Realtor handling the sale of the place I was trying to
purchase along with the escrow officer tried to help the X-buyer
understand the process since no one had explained it to her. I then
offered her a cash loan to help with the amount of down payment
she indicated she was short and offered to give her my
washer/dryer and refrigerator. She walked away from the deal.
When it was clear that the X-buyer was out of the
picture I asked the town to switch to their plan of purchasing the
home. I was told that the town had no intention of buying the unit.
They also indicated that they could not believe that I was told that
they would purchase the unit. This information was not only told
to me it was told to my Realtor and the Realtor handling the sale of
the house I wanted to buy. Also, at this time the town manager
indicated that I should drop the price. I am still laughing at that
suggestion since I put my home on the open market for $20K more
and had a buyer within three days after it listed.
I think it is important to say at this point that this
poorly managed process had an impact on more than just my life.
Based on the purchase of the house I wanted to buy the sellers put
an offer on a home they wanted and the wife quit her job. They
did not get the home and the wife could not get her job back.
Realtors, escrow officers and bank officers took time away from
work and families to try to make this process work.
CONCLUSION: I have spent the last couple of months trying
to UN -do a situation that the town put me in. I have received no
help and now I hear from Community Housing that the town
thinks that the X-buyers deposit sitting in escrow is due to them.
The idea of the town thinking that something is owed to them is a
bit crazy. If anything, I would expect the town to assist me in
collecting the money that is due to me for liquidation damages due
to breach of contract.
RECOMMENDATION: Although I can agree with the idea of a
town program that allows for affordable housing -- I can now say
that owning this home was not worth it. The amount of time and
energy I have spent and continue to spend on this is ridiculous. I
am glad that my unit is one less unit for the town to control. 90% of
my frustrations would not have existed if the town would hire
qualified Realtors to manage the process. Community Housing
Developers may be good at their normal line of business but they
are not informed nor qualified to sell property.
�'� e, C
Attachment- 4
GOOD E, CITY COUNCIL /2 /S6;�i
g I AM ALSO HERE TO T-44LieldrOe YOU ABOUT YOUR BELOW 535Lassr srt
MARKET RATE PROGRAM • Ab' qci Co
Lo fh, c � -,1
I AM A LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENT, WITH THE ABIGAIL
COMPANY I N LOS ALTOS CA. AND A SINGLE PARENT OF 3
KIDS.- --moo-� ���� %
THE REASON FOR MY REQUEST TO SPEAK IS TO TELL YOU
FROM AN AGENTS POINT OF VIEW -WHAT HAPPENED -THIS IS
ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN AGAIN -
THE QUESTION I PROPOSED TO YOU IS; WHO SUFFERED LOSSC
9WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ?
RECEIVED AN OFFER FROM JAIME WILLMES, BUYER" B" TO
PURCHASE MY SELLERS, SELLER "C" UNIT ON JUNE 1,1994.
I CALLED RAY TOBAR AT THE COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEVELOPEMENT AND WAS TOLD THAT YES , BUYER "B "UNIT
WAS SOLD AND NO PROBLEM AND THAT IF ANYTHING HAPPEN
THE CITY OF LOS GATOS WOULD PURCHASE THE UNIT.
-so ,?; L�-
MY CLIENT SELLER "C" WENT AHEAD AND AGREED UPON A
PRICE, AND TERMS, WITH SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS FOR A
30 DAY CLOSE OF ESCROW ( MY CLIENT WAS SELLING AT A
LOSS).
BUYER 416 SELLER "C"IMY CLIENT THEN PROCEEDED WITH A
PURCHASE OF THEIR OWN. 0NCE ALL CONTINGENCIES WERE
REMOVED FROM BUYER/SELLER "B" N,WC-
0,c _CONTINGENCIES, BASED ON BUYER 'A' AND
/aBUYER/SELLER B . ALL PAPERS, LOANS
AND DEPOSITS WERE SIGNED AND PLACED IN ESCROW ON "B"
AND "C", I N THE MEAN TIME I WAS TOLD BY RAY -NO PROBLEM
ON BUYER"A" LOAN IS APPROVED, SHE JUST HADN'T SIGNED
THEM YET.
WHEN A COUPLE DAYS WENT BY AND BUYER "A" HAD NOT
SIGNED TITLE AND LOAN DOCUMENTS, AND I KEPT ASKING
WHY, RAY DIDN'T KNOW, I ASKED COULD HE GO AND SPEAK TO
BUYER"A", HE DIDN'T ANSWER I N THE MEANTIME BUYER/
SELLER"B" AGENT 411rHArrA BABY AND -WT.-BABY s
Mk I N THE HOSP I TAL,BUYER/SELLER "C", WIFE -
QUIT HER JOB TO STAY AT HOME WITH 4 SMALL CHILDREN- dats
I FELT I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE
MATTERS INTO MY OWN HANDS, I ASKED FOR BUYER"A",
ADDRESS, RAY WOULDN'T GIVE IT TO ME, NOR RESOLVE THE
PROBLEM, AT THIS POINT BUYER "A" WASN'T RETURNING
NUMEROUS (I WAS TOLD) PHONE CALLS TO RAY OR TO
BUYER/SELLER "B", OR TO THE TITLE
COMPANY SO I LEARNED OF HER
ADDRESS AND HER PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, I WENT TO HER
EMPLOYER ON JUNE 30, 1994 WE WERE TO HAVE CLOSED
ESCROW, ON BUYER/SELLER"B" ON JUNE 29,1994.
SHE WASN'T AT WORK, SO I WENT TO HER HOME, AT HER HOME
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD FIND. WHEN I APPROACHED
BUYER"A", WHY I WAS THEIR, SHE INVITED ME INSIDE AND
STARTED TO CRY, SHE EXCLAIMED THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW
WHAT HER PAYMENT WAS OR WHAT HER DOWNPAYMENT
WAS.
PROCEEDED BY CALLING HER LENDER WHO WAS OUT, TO TRY
AND FIND OUT, AS WELL AS GET COPIES OF HER CLOSING
PAPERS SO THAT I COULD TELL HER WHAT HER FEES WERE
AND HER LOAN AMOUNT. THAT EVENING I MET WITH
BUYER"A" AGAIN TO DISCUSS COSTS, SHE CLAIMED SHE
DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY (ALTHOUGH SAID SHE DID TO
BUYER/SELLER "B" THE WEEK BEFORE. THE DAUGHTER WAS
HOME THAT EVENING AND THANKED ME, OVER AND OVER FOR
BEING THERE, SHE FELT HER MOM (BUYER "A") WAS LEFT
ALONE AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS D0I NGA I LEFT THAT
EVENING, SHE WAS GOING TO TAKE THE DAUGHTER TO A
FRIENDS HOUSE, ANErv'AS GOING TO FAX ME HER TAX
RETURNS IN THE MORNING TO SEE IF SHE COULD GET ANY TAX
BENEFITS BY COMPLETING THE PURCHASE WHICH WOULD
GIVE HER MORE MONEY, . I WOULD SHARE THEM WITH
AN ACCOUNTANT (FREE OF CHARGE). THE NEXT DAY I
RECEIVED BUYER "A" RETURNS, 7ND MET WITH AN
ACCOUNTANT, BUT WHEN I TRIED TO SHARE WITH BUYER"A"
WHAT I HAD LEARNED FROM THE ACCOUNTANT BUYER "A"
WOULDN'T RETURN MY CA . SO I THEN WENT TO SEE BUYER
"A" AT WORK\A " " WAS FINISHING HER LUNCH, HER
CLOSING PAPERS IN FRONT OF HER. SHE SAID
HER ATTORNEY WAS REVIEWING THEM BUT SHE WOULD SIGN
PAPERS THAT AFTERNOON, I CALLED THE TITLE CO. TO SET
APPOINTMENT FOR 4:30, I WOULD MEET BUYER "A", AT HER
HOME TO GO WITH HER, SO SHE WASN'T ALONE, SHE DIDN'T
SHOW AT 4:30,5:30,OR 6:30, I KEPT CALLING THE TITLE
AGENT WHO SAID THAT SHE WOULD STAY UNTIL 5:30, BUT
KEPT STAYING LATER, BUT FINALLY I CALLED IT QUITS, IT
WAS THE WEEKEND ..MY FAMILY WAS WAITING ONE MORE
EVENING FOR ME, FOR D I NNER, ETC. AND AFTER SPENDING
UNTOLD HOURS TRY TO FIX SOMETHING I CLEARLY Wasn't
RESPONSIBLE FOR, I THEN CALLED BUYER/SELLER "B", HER
AGENT, AND MY BUYER/SELLER "C". ,
(DURING THE PROCESS WE FELT SO CONFIDENT THAT RAY
KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING THAT BUYER/SELLER "C"
ALLOWED BUYER/SELLER "B" EARLY OCCUPANCY OF THEIR
HOME, SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY MADE THEIR MOVE UP
NORTH, SACRAMENTO AREA PENDING THE SALE OF THEIR
UNIT.
WE NOW KNOW THAT BUYER/SELLER"B" SOLD HER HOME ON
THE OPEN MARKET, AND SOLD QUICKLY, DUE TO TIME AND
COMMITMENT BY HER AGENT"B".
MY FIRST QUESTION WHO SUSTAIN LOSSES?,
BUYER"A" MAYBE A 2,000.00 DEPOSIT?
E3l1Yf / 1 I rr `, ' ALl' IUD I LOSS LU HEIR PUKLI-IAJt, LULL.)
HER LOAN, LOSS'ED TIME AT WORK, UNACCOUNTABLE
STRESS???HER FURNITURE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME.
BUYER/SELLER"C"-LOSS'ED HOME THEY WERE PURCHASING,
LOAN, QUIT JOB TO EARLY, JUNE 30,1994, STRESS,
FINANCIAL LOSS, DUE TO DELAYED CLOSING
AGENT "B"-WORK HOURS LOSS'ED
AGENT"C"-WORK HOURS LOSS'ED, PHONE CALLS, GAS, AND
„alp' vim leel• /�� _� •1104.
ifs ,y�T +r—.,ram��i�•
i/
TONS OF UNDUE STRESS,..
THE CITY-LOSS'ED A UNIT WHO KNOWS WHEN THEY CAN
REPLACE?
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT-LOSS'ED HOME THAT
THEY CAN(SELL? UNTOLD HOURS.. - O
TITLE COMPANY-LOSS'ED EXCESSIVE HOURS.
LENDERS-LOSS'ED TIME,
THEIR WERE 32 PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THIS
TRANSACTION -NOT COUNTING THE CITY.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, WILL YOU DO THIS AGAIN, AT WHAT
PRICE-
LEAVE YOU WITH THIS THOUGHT -EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE
A HOUSE , WETHER A CASTLE OR A COTTAGE, WETHER BLACK
OR WHITE, MAYBE RICH OR POOR, MAYBE IT'S NEW OR ITS
OLD, AS AGENT WE MAKE A HOUSE, BECOME SOMEONE'S HOME,
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO IT ALONE.. PLEASE, PLEASE
LOOK INTO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, FOR COMPLETING THE MOST
IMPORTANT PURCHASE OF SOMEONE LIFE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
October 3, 1994
Los Gatos, California
BOARD OF APPEALS/APPOINTMENTS (11.20)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council accept report correcting
Council appointment of Board of Appeals Building Regulations member. Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
HENNING COURT 122/BELOW MARKET PRICE HOUSING/BMP/RESALE (12.19)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council accept and file informational
report regarding BMP unit. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICES/RENT MEDIATION/ANNUAL REPORT (13.16)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council accept and file annual report
from Information and Referral Services regarding the rent mediation program. Carried by a
vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE/ERIC CARLSON/RESIGNATION (14.20)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council accept the resignation of Eric
D. Carlson from the General Plan Committee and authorize the Town Clerk to advertise a
vacancy on the General Plan Committee and schedule interviews with the Town Council for the
vacancy. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS/ABAG/STATE CONSTITUTION (15.17)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council accept report on Association
of Bay Area Government's draft recommended revisions to the California State Constitution.
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
DUMP TRUCK/MISSION VALLEY FORD/BID AWARD/RESOLUTION 1994-137 (16.28)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council adopt Resolution 1994-137
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH MISSION VALLEY FORD TRUCK SALES. FOR
PURCHASE OF ONE NEW 1995 CAB CHASSIS WITH DUMP BODY. Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL/COUNTY AGREEMENT #1/RESOLUTION 1994-138 (17A.24)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council adopt Resolution 1994-138
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT #1 WITH THE COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA FOR PARK PROJECT (LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL). Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL/COUNTY AGREEMENT #2/RESOLUTION 1994-139 (17B.24)
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mrs. Benjamin, that Council adopt Resolution 1994-139
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT #2 WITH THE COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA FOR PARK PROJECT (LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL). Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. Blanton was absent.
TC: D6: MM 100394
4