|
<br />E. Abatement ~ 2420 University Street (Brandt)
<br />
<br />Copies of report from the building division of Public Works Department were previously
<br />distributed to Council members. Manager reviewed the report indicating the deteriorated
<br />condition of the building at 2420 University Street in the ownership of John Brandt.
<br />Notices were given Mr. Brandt whose written response was read indicating no objection
<br />to proceeding with the abatement.
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
<br />
<br />Resolution No. 2277 - Authorizing abatement, 2420 University Street, was submitted
<br />and read by number and title.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Motion
<br />carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. .
<br />Previously discussed in committee on April 24, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councll
<br />members Williams, Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and on May 1, 1974
<br />(Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Williams, Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Keller,
<br />Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are printed below in italics.
<br />
<br />- '-.. -.'~.---- ... '. -"
<br />Mass" Transi t Bill - Mayor Anderson pointed out th~-'C'O~n'cil
<br />A.
<br />,providing for highway revenues to be used for mass transit
<br />helpful, he added, since the campaign is moving forward at
<br />would endorse ballot measure No.2. He thinks the Council
<br />:as supporting legislation enabling it to be on the ballot.
<br />
<br />has endorsed the program
<br />purposes. It would be
<br />this time, if the Council
<br />members are all on record
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council endorse
<br />Ballot Measure No. 2 and recommend to the citizens of Eugene that they
<br />affirmatively support it at the election. Motion carried, all council
<br />members present voting aye.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />4/24/74
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />\,
<br />
<br />'---
<br />
<br />_ _.___~....-'_~ .,.,.':~"j.i,.;
<br />B.!Assessment Deferral Policy in Hardship Cases. ReportoT"Co'uncilSubcommittee"'; This
<br />:report was presented a month or so ago. Questions were raised then, and a subcommittee
<br />,was appointed to revie~ the questions and come back with a report. , Mr. Murray was
<br />~chairman of that subcommittee~ He said that Page 16 contains a list of recommendations
<br />imade by staff. Nos. 1 and 5 were particularly discussed~ He said he met with Mr. Keller:
<br />and McDonald and determined that the recommendations, with the exception of 1 and 5, were'
<br />satisfactory as printed. On recommendation 1, a change was suggested that the
<br />applicability should begin at 62 and older rather than not having any age restriction.
<br />The reason was that it was the opinion of the majority of. the committee that, when this
<br />iprogram was originally discussed and the fund set aside, it was the intention of the
<br />'Budget Committee and City Council to create it for the advantage of senior citizens,
<br />(that it should continue that way, at least in the initial stages. tit
<br />
<br />On Recommendation 5, 5% was changed to 3% as an interest rate on the deferred principal.
<br />:As an example, starting with an assessment of $1,333 at 5%, it would !:JUild up to $2,338
<br />,after 15 years. At 3%., in the same period of time, it would amount to $1-,933, so there
<br />would be a savings to the individual taxpayer of roughly $400 over that period of time.
<br />The intent was to allow the city a chance to recapture some of its costs and yet not
<br />create such an interest rate that it would work against the intent of the program.
<br />
<br />Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the Council adopt the Finance
<br />Department recommendations as listed on Page 16 with the changes outlined.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />4/24/74,
<br />Approvei
<br />
<br />,Mr. Williams wondered what rate of interest the city now has to pay on tax-exempt
<br />: warrants. Finance Director answered 6.25. Mr. Williams said his concern was that he
<br />;did not want to see Eugene make money on the assessment deferral program. At the 3%
<br />:interest level, the city would appear to "be losing money because money is being loaned
<br />:to people at half of what the money costs t~~.City. He was concerned with the intent
<br />;of the d~ferral program and the impact of city subsidization of interest. The intent
<br />from the Joint Housing Committee was that the Committee did not want to drive the elderly
<br />:from their homes because of the costs of assessment; as long as interest is deferred~ it
<br />would not have the impact of driving anyone away. Saying the city is going to subsidize
<br />the interest rate is saying the people of Eugene as a whole have an obligation to 411
<br />,subsidize the estate of the elderly. He is not sure that is the purpose of the program. -v
<br />;It might also change what is available to be left to the heirs. Mi. Hershner said he
<br />,-._-.'.'-' ...--".... "_. '. '0__'-' _ ." ....._.... _ .___~-.~_ _ ___~---.._.~ ,
<br />shared these feelings. He stated it is a benefit to the property owner and that the \
<br />interest rate should not be a service charge but rather a true cost of money. Mr.
<br />:Murray said this program has been set up in other cities and has been laudable. It
<br />seems that, when a significant interest rate is attached, the program does not work
<br />; too well. It should encourage people to make use of it: by providing the right ki,nd
<br />
<br />\"35
<br />
<br />5/6/74 - 8
<br />
|