12/10/1980 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" Mr. Lieuallen asked what price range the units would be in when they went on the market. Mr. Croteau noted that the Oak Park owner is present. Mr. Lieuallen . stated that one main argument against dealing with this would be that it would dampen the market. He asked if that is realistic. Mr. Croteau responded that many PUD's are subdivided at the onset and then rented out. The council will face these concerns at a later date. Mr. Delay stated that the staff report was good. He had received a memo from Donald Murphy, the developer, and a copy of a November 20 letter to the resi- dents which was given to the council. The developer indicates he will make a special offer at a lower price to current teDants. They also will work with families to help on an individual basis. They also considered a rent reduction during the sales period. He hopes this information will be communicated to the tenants. He does not feel any sales will take place until April 1981. It would help if notice was given at the time the initial application was made so that people could make decisions about moving, or they could decide about potential ownership. This would include a two-tiered notice, one at the time the process is initiated and a 90-day notice, and a general estimate of unit prices. Ms. Schue stated that people still could move into some complexes without knowing that they were about to be sold. In a situation like this, the owner should be required to make tenants aware that it would only be a temporary rental situation. Mayor Keller recommended conti~uing to work to develop an adequate notice program. Mr. Croteau stated that this could be done with administrative rules. He would like to think about the 90-day notice, however. It would be nice if it would be possible to incorporate this, but he would like to study it and re-evaluate. Mr. Delay noted that he would like the staff . to consider this. Most fear comes from uncertainty and lack of information. Staff could talk with the developer and see what kinds of problems that would cause for them. VI. CONSIDERATION OF DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE SERVICE--STAFF RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the staff presentation is to answer questions raised in a previous council meeting regarding whether or not the shuttle should continue. He introduced Duane Bischoff and Elaine Stewart, Paratransit; Navarre Davis and Chuck Wickizer, Downtown Development Board; Ray McIver, Eugene Downtown Association; and Ed Bergeron, Lane Transit District, to provide additional information. Mr. Bischoff stated that the information in tOday.s packet is in response to questions raised at the last council meeting. The council wanted information on the following: why there is a shortfall of revenue this year, what the prior history of expenditures of the district has been, the financial relationship between the parking revenues and the shuttle, the recent ad valorem tax rate, and the result of the ad valorem tax rates applied to individual property over the years. He stated that the largest amount of revenue drop is in parking. This accounts for 73 percent of their projected shortfall. They over-projected the number of spaces they could sell and it did not work out according to the . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 7