11/01/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Mr. Lieuallen felt the Council IS only concern should be whether or not e the City was going to sell the house. If Council were to add penalties for premature sale, and the buyer decided to sell, the City would then still hold a piece of the property. He could not understand the reason for. this. He said it seemed the question was either the City was going to sell or it wasn1t. In regard to Mr. Obiels concern of the $10,500 increase by market appraisal, Mr. Lieuallen said that is not money the City has paid out, and the CD Committee is not in the business of making money. He felt the rate of return on the $10,500 was not that critical. If the City were in the business of making profits, then that might be a major concern. Mr. Delay said the Westside neighborhood wanted to ensure recovering the money and recycling it back into the neighborhood. He said that could have been done without the $10,500. However, in that would have left the situation more in the line of Mr. Obiels concern that the buyer would have even more appreciation occurring. The proposal was to ensure the $10,500, which is not out of the City.s pocket, would not be an incentive for speculation. It was noted that the City does offer very low interest rates, such as on 312 loans and private rehabilitation loans (at zero, 3, 5-1/4, and 7-1/4 percent) . Staff will respond November 8 as to whether continued subsidies can be avoided and whether or not some protective device can e be set up to avoid speculative buying. Mr. Hamel also requested staff respond on whether or not it should develop the other property referred to by Mr. Osborn. Mr. Hamel felt the CD funds were not meant for moving houses. A short recess was taken. VI. Ballot Measures 6 and 11: Effects on Bonding Programs; memo distributed Paget Engen said the emphasis would be on the effects of Ballot Measure 6, since Ballot Measure 11 did not have direct effect on the bonding, programs. She was relying on Attorney General opinions and other experts such as Regan, Roberts, and O.Scanlin. She noted all conclusions could be subject tolitigation,and might be different than the Attorney opinions she was now presenting. She said the main concern was the ability of the City to pledge unlimited faith and credit of the community to pay back bonds. Presently, the com- munity1s full faith and credit is pledged to do so. If Ballot Measure 6 were to pass, any future bonds that the City wished to issue would be limited tax bonds. It is not known what would happen to the market. Under Ballot Measure 6, General Obligation bonds, Bancroft bonds, serial levies, street and sewer improvement bonds would have three hurdles to pass: , 1. Is it legal to levy the bonds at all? . 11/1/78--9 '71'