Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />City Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 15, 1982 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Dick Enstead indicated, that as a developer interested in seeing the industrial <br />park develop, he felt the project was well-needed in the community and that the <br />community needs housing for industry. Mr. Enstead further indicated that he <br />felt it was an innovative way of creating financing and that the developer should <br />not be penalized because other developers did not have the foresight to get money <br />for financing. <br /> <br />Mr. Haggerty indicated that the interest rate would be approximately 13 percent <br />for a long-term mortgage and further indicated that buyers could qualify at a <br />lower down payment. Mr. Haggerty indicated that the borrower would pay approxi- <br />mately one point and the lender-developer would pay the other fees. <br /> <br />Councilman Duitsman questioned the one-sixteenth of one percent available to the <br />City for the issue. Mr. Haggerty explained that the one-sixteenth of one percent <br />could be for administrative fees and that a reserve would be set aside for the <br />possibility of default which would be invested in government securities to <br />generate interest income, which the City might be able to utilize. <br /> <br />Mr. Jim Smith questioned the restrictions in order to qualify for the purchase <br />of a home under the industrial revenue bond financing procedure. Mr. Casserly <br />indicated that the maximum approximate home price would be $80,000. with a maximum <br />family income of approximately $26,000, but further indicated that these figures <br />would be adjusted. <br /> <br />Mr. Ken Barthel indicated that he felt thei City should put this tool to work to <br />provide housing in the community. I <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle asked Mr. Carson and his othe representatives if they had any <br />further information to provide to the City Council regarding the industrial <br />revenue bond financing project for Tamarac Subdivision. Mayor Hinkle suggested <br />that the issue of the industrial revenue b nd financing for Tamarack Subdivision <br />could be tabled if Mr. Carson wished to de elop additional information, or if <br />more time was necessary to obtain informat"on. <br /> <br />Mr. Dick Carson indicated that there wasn additional information they wished <br />to present and asked that the City Cou~cil not table the decision of the approval <br />or disapproval of industrial revenue bond inancing for the Tamarack Subdivision, <br />as a lot of work has already been put into the project. Mr. Carson indicated <br />that the City Council could always say no t a later date in the process of the <br />financing project. Mr. Carson further ind"cated that he was interested in a <br />decision from the City Council as the rate and bond market could change. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle again asked if anyone wished <br />subject to the council. Mayor Hinkle proc <br />Dave Sellergren, for comments. Mr. Seller <br />issue as the state law has changed over th <br />posal could probably be legally accomplish <br />there was no further information that. the <br />City Council, there was no point in delayi <br />that he felt the Council could make a deci <br />have received. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that Mr. <br /> <br />o present more information on the <br />eded to ask the City's attorney, <br />ren indicated that it was a complex <br />past three years, but that the pro- <br />d. Mr. Sellergren indicated that if <br />pplicant wished to present for the <br />g the decision. He further indicated <br />ion based on the information they <br /> <br />arsons reference to the Councils <br />