|
<br />""'lII
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />23
<br />
<br />,(
<br />
<br />I'
<br />11
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />,
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />I
<br />
<br />Council Chamber
<br />Eugene, Oregon
<br />February 14, 1972
<br />
<br />Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor
<br />Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 14, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the following
<br />councilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs, Teague, McDonald, and Hershner, and Mrs.Campbell.
<br />Councilmen Gribskov and Williams were absent.
<br />
<br />Resignation, Gribskov ~ Mayor Anderson read a letter from Ivan Gribskov, councilman from
<br />Ward III, announcing his resignation from the Council effective immediately.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the resignation with regret.
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for Mr. Gribskov' s faithful and loyal work as a councilman,
<br />saying his services will be missed.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />A vote was taken on the motion, and motion carried, all counc~enpresent voting aye.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr said that in accordance with Council bylaws the Manager should be requested to estab-
<br />lish a time for an executive session of the Council for discussion of procedure to be followed in
<br />selecting a new Council member. It was agreed an executive session would be held at 11:00 a.m. on
<br />Wednesday, February 16, 1972, in the Mayor's conference room. Further dis cussion established the
<br />office is o~en to any registered voter living in Ward III.
<br />
<br />I - Public Hearings
<br />A. 10th and Oak Overpark Deficit Assessment
<br />Council Bill No. 9561 - Declaring Deficit Assessment for 10th and Oak Overpark, declaring
<br />emergency, and setting public hearing for February 14, 1972, submitted and read the first
<br />time by council bill number and title only on January 10, 1972, held over to this date to
<br />allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties, and brought
<br />back for consideration at this time.
<br />
<br />Manager explained that a portion of the deficit assessment include in C.B.9561 was the
<br />result of Council decision at the time of original assessment that the Fred Fisk prop-
<br />erty qualified for exemption. That assessment (some $86,000.00) was removed from the
<br />original assessment with the intent of including it in the deficit assessment when a
<br />corrected ordinance was presented. Subsequent litigation indicated that the process of
<br />cancelling that assessment was improper. Because notification of the deficit assessment
<br />to property owners did not clearly state that that portion is a reassessment rather than
<br />a deficit, the City Attorney recommended no action be taken at this time on the ordinance
<br />before the Council, but that the ordinance be corrected and carried over two weeks to
<br />allow further tearing before final action is taken.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Manager also explained that the original assessment was based on an estimated cost for
<br />the parking structure rather than awaiting completion of the project, since it was felt
<br />best to have the assessment procedure clarified and proven before buying the land and
<br />constructing. Subsequent litigation causing delay of the project adding to construction
<br />costs, and additional' costs because of negotiated settlements with the contractor, plus
<br />the reassessment of the Fisk property, resulted in the total deficit assessment of
<br />$555,508.78 covered by this ordinance. The first portion of the ordinance was read to
<br />ens ure clear understanding of the Council's part in the procedure, and for those people
<br />in attendan.ce.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Manager said the portion of the parking structure used for commercia.l':purP-pses was not
<br />assessed, that in order to finance that portion (ground floor area) the City segregated
<br />those costs and put that area up for bid on a lease basis. The bid was awarded to Nils
<br />Hult who advanced $250,000.00 in cash and later $100,000.00 to pay for that ground floor
<br />level. This resulted in a net 'assessed cost of $2,470,000.00.
<br />
<br />He further explained that this information went to the owners of properties assessed to-
<br />gether with a projection of net income which the facility is earning. The ordinance
<br />creating the district provided that net income, after operating costs and bond principal
<br />and interest payments as they become due have been paid, will be credited against the
<br />assessment billings sent to property owners. Net income projected to 1991-92 is esti-
<br />mated to be sufficient to relieve principal payments of owners of benefitted properties.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Letters of protest were read received from Bennett-Knox properties, Rubensteins, and
<br />Eugene Medical Center. The Bennett-Knox protest was that the use of their property has
<br />changed since the district was formed, the entire property is now used for parking.
<br />Manager said that under the original ordinance, the sale &f bonds created a lien against
<br />the property and there is no way to relieve the assessment if the use is changed. Whe-
<br />ther this correction of the original assessment would or would not apply to this protest
<br />needs research.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />The Eugene Medical Center objected to the method of proposed assess,ment. They feel the
<br />entire City should bear the deficit assessment. Manager said methods of providing off-
<br />street parking in the downtowH area are being considered whereby costs would be borne
<br />by all of the downtown area properties. Any such program, if fair, will have to pro-
<br />vide some way of relieving the costs to property owners assessed for the 10th and Oak
<br />structure.
<br />
<br />2(14/72 - 1 ~
<br />
|