02/14/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,....- li e 'I i I I I I I 1 i I I I 'I !I I, II I: >I i! I: II " 'I Ii I' II I: I' I; .' !l I' II I; II p I: I: 11 i! I' II Ii : ~ r Also in response t,o"the Medical Center letter, Manager said the Overpark is not provid- ing free parking, 'since net receipts are credited against the assessment payments. I In response to the Belson Corporation (Rubenstein) protest~ Manager said it is probably true that the lien on properties in the district has a dampening effect on the resale value; however., it is also true that net return from the facility will eventually re- imburse property owners for the entire principal and a portion of the interest, and the assessment should not be a burden over a long period of time in the same sense as sewers, sidewalks, street improvements. The original formula was set up after public hearings and supported by downtown property owners who were aware at that time there would be a deficit assessment., Councilman Mohr asked if the ordinance before the Council is for consideration of the one adjustment due to reassessment on the Fisk property or whether adjustments to assessments throughout the entire district are being considered. Manager explained that it is one adjustment as a result of decision after the original assessment ordinance was passed. An assessment erroneously made reduced the total assessment adopted. That assessment formula was challenged on the basis that that method of amendigg the original ordinance was inadequate and was held invalid in the courts. This ordinance attempts to correct the process and keep faith with Council's decision made at that time with prop- erty owners' understanding that there would be a final corrected ordinance. Other assess- ments made in the original ordinance are not now subject to challenge because bonds have been sold and lien placed on the properties as security for those bonds. e Mr. Mohr asked if that is specifically stated in this ordinance. Les Swanson, City At- torney's office, said it is not specifically stated but follows as a matter of law; the original assessment is not subject to change. I I: " I: I: ,I I: Ii I; I: I' I: 11 I' Ii II Ii i: ,I i; I' ,I I: II Ii I' I: Ii \: I: Ii I: I: II i! :1 I: Mr. Mohr asked if the Council should consider protests to other assessments than those which are the subject of this hearing. Manager said the deficit assessment only is the subject of this hearing, and that deficit assessment is distributed on the same formula as the original assessment. He said protests on costs assessed to that one parcel (Fisk property) would be appropriate. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council Bill No. 9561 be replaced with Council Bill No. 9581 - Declaring Deficit Assessment for 10th and Oak Overpar~~ declaring emergency, setting hear- ing date, and including the reassessment of the Fisk property. Motion carried unanimously. Mr~ Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council Bill No. 9581 be held and hearing continued to February 28, 1972 Council meeting. Clif Culp, 3615 Spring Boulevard~ protested on behalf of his wife the assessment of $11,930.00 against property at 976 Willamette Street (NeWBerry building) and the method of financing the Overpark. He said he feels the assessment although legal is unjust; that a few property owners should not pay for a structure owned by the City; that per- haps the money eventually would be reimbursed but to his heirs if no additional assess- ments are made and if the structure does pay for itself. He commented on additional parking spaces created downtown by the Renewal Agency which, he said, are in direct competition to the Overpark; and that revenues from off-street meters go into the general fund whereas that does not apply to the parking structure. He feels the assessment amounts to a double assessment for those who through taxes are paying for Renewal Agency lots, and questioned its legality if carried ~o the Supreme Court. He questioned the principle of creating a district assessing a few propaty owners then selling bonds to be paid over the entire City for other structures. He compared assessed values in the downtown area before and after the renewal project and mentioned the sale of property and reduction of square footage price in the parcel intended for the Broadway store~ saying the price was reduced to include the parking structure assessment. He proposed the entire assessment be cancelled~ or the sum reduced to $1.00, and monies paid on the entire cost be refunded to property owners, and the costs of the structure levied against the entire City. I e Manager said that on-street parking meter revenues and,revenues from meters on ground- level off-street lots go into the general fund after Bet operating cost of those lots and enforcement of on-street meters subtracted. Revenues derived from parking in the structure go toward the cost of that structure. He said of the 73 parcels being reassessed~ 13 are owned by the Renewal Agency. There is no indication of what effect the assessment has had on the sale prices of those properties; he said he does not believe the property owners were aware of any renewal project at the time the parking structure was decided upon. Councilman Mohr suggested that it would be helpful to have for the February 28, 1972 Council meeting a statement from the Renewal Agency of the relationship between the City and the Agency and the Agency's role in the assessment district, and the Director avail- able to answer questions. I A vote was taken on the motion to continue the hearing to February 28~ 1972, and motion carried unanimously. B. Street and Easement Vacations 1. Utility Easement Block 5, 1st Addition to Pine Ridge Park 2. Portion of unnamed street between Willamette Street and Donald Street south of Coachman Drive (See Council Bills 9582 and 9583 on page 34). ~ ~ 2/14/72 - 2