03/12/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e II. FINANCING RECOMMENDATION Mr. Smith said the grant was the real bridge between River Road/Santa Clara and Eugene. People are committed to finding a solution. They have discussed the need to soften the blow. He reviewed the recommendations. The first recommen- dation was to do self-financing. It may be necessary to borrow $1.75 million for three years to be paid back by a $.90 per month portion of the sewer user fee. It will not affect property taxes. The second recommendation is to develop financing that is appropriate to the citizens of the area. Mr. Smith referred to Chapter 3 of the document. The average median income for River Road/Santa Clara is higher than the average median income of Eugene. River Road/Santa Clara has a higher proportion of elderly poor than Eugene. The focus to soften the blow is targeted at the elderly poor. They recommend a family of two making $9,500 would be eligible for the assessment deferral program if they are over 62 years old. Mr. Smith referred to page 12-13-14 of Chapter 8 and discussed the cost of connection to a house. He said the homeowner will have to pay the cost of connection and the cost of decommissioning the septic system ($1,100). These costs are not Bancrofted because they are outside the public right-of-way. The third recommendation is to change State law on Bancrofting, or to use CDBG funds for a revolving loan fund, or sell revenue bonds for a revolving loan fund. Mr. Hansen asked if Eugene was creating an opportunity for River Road/Santa Clara greater than for the citizens of Eugene. Mr. Smith said no. He said the folks have to pay $4,000. The only difference is the way it is paid. Ms. Wooten said she was concerned about the low-income family not over 62 years. She also asked about the annexation issue. She asked about the subsidy for the River Road/Santa Clara residents by the residents of Eugene. Mr. Smith referred to Chapter 7, page 7-2. Mr. Obie suggested staff report on parity. Ms Nichols asked if the property values would be raised. Mr. Smith said they had asked for an assessment. Mr. Smith referred to Chapter 9. He reviewed the schedule for construction, the planning process, and the issues. He said the residents want a balance between volunteerism and expediting the process. Eugene would like to install 80 percent by 1990. More practical limits would be 1995 or 850 hookups a year. Mr. Smith showed a minimum schedule for construction--a rate of 420 houses a year for the first ten years then 850 for the last five years. Everything would be sewered by the year 2000 (see table 9-1). If annexation is not progressing by 1986, Lane County would start a mandatory inspection of septic systems. If in 1988 the schedule is behind, health hazard annexations could occur. By 1990 if behind schedule, Eugene would use all of its annexation tools. The last alternative is for Eugene to hook up houses beyond the city limits. Mr. Smith covered three processes that could take place: large annexation happening within the next years, incremental annexations, and a new city. He referred to Chapter 9 on incorportation of a new city. Mr. Keller complimented staff on the excellent work they had done. p.m. BC:db/CM23b10 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Meeting March 12, 1984 Page 2