My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/16/1980 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1980
>
04/16/1980 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 6:01:30 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:39:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/16/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />If the recession deepens, there could be a problem of owners going <br />bankrupt and a need to foreclose on the property. If developers ~, . <br />cannot make the payments on the land they have required, the City .., <br />would acquire possession because of nonpayment of liens and need to <br />sell the property to recover costs. This could take three to five <br />years. There are a sizable number of new subdivisions involved which <br />is another category. The City is hard put to service the present <br />developed areas. This would add to the present operating burden <br />although presumably there would be additional income once the property <br />is developed. Mr. Henry suggested the City not proceed with these <br />new projects during this construction season or at least not before <br />June 10, 1980, when a bond sale is scheduled for current projects. <br />The City of Eugene contemplates selling approximately a $4-million <br />bond issue in June and an $8-million issue in the fall of this year. <br />It would be unwise to proceed with more liabilities and therefore he <br />is suggesting holding off on further Bancrofting. The Manager recom- <br />mended no new subdivisions be approved this construction year that <br />require Bancroft financing. He suggested the City confine its efforts <br />this year to the improvement of streets, arterials, and projects in <br />established neighborhoods. <br /> <br />The second issue was to determine when to increase the interest rates <br />and for which projects. The existing warrant group amounts to $12 <br />million and the Manager suggested applying the ten-percent interest <br />rate to some of those projects. An increase in the systems develop- <br />ment tax could make up the deficit. Manager introduced Mr. Long and <br />asked him to elaborate on the legal aspects of levying increased <br />interest rates. ~ <br /> <br />Mr. Long said he had been asked what the City can charge as an interest <br />rate to the property owners. He said that the City could raise the <br />interest rate to ten percent and sell the bond at nine percent. Or <br />the City can charge seven percent as they were doing and increase the <br />systems development tax to pay for the difference in interest or levy <br />it on the tax rolls. The memorandum from the City Attorney divides <br />the $12.6 million in projects into four categories. With respect to <br />the first category, the City is legally committed to a seven percent <br />interest rate. Categories 2, 3, and 4 involve various projects at <br />different stages of development. In the second category of projects, <br />those owners have been told that the interest rate would be seven <br />percent. Legally, it could be increased; however, that could meet <br />with substantial resistance. In considering the 1980-81 projects, <br />there is a lot of discretion and many alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws questioned the reason for stopping subdivision development <br />in the city if the developer had money to pay for the improvements <br />himself. He did not want the City to subsidize the projects. Neither <br />did he want to stop subdivision development. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4/16/80--4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.