02/28/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 38 e " " I I: !: ji I' I' t: i' " i' I' I' I' i: r I' i! I, " I. I, !: i I, I, i' i,1 i ;: I: 'I I' " \'. l' , ~, is fair and equitable. If the boundary of the district is changed, it would be creating a new district which would have to stand the test of public hearings, remonstrance procedure, and remoBstrances exceeding 50% of area to be assessed would nullify the district and assess- ment could not be implemented. The City would be left with the possibility of not having a way of recouping finances to finish paying for the project. \\ II I Mr. Williams asked if remonstrances in excess of 50% are figured ona square-foot basis or the number of ownerships ,,:..and whether the present method of assessment would have to be aban- doned if a new method were 'pursued. Manager said the fa~or for assessment is square footage adjusted. He said ormband it is not known whether the City could retreat to the present method, but it would appear if another method were considered it would seem to create more doubts about the present one. Further discussion, reviewed history of the parking assessment district and petition for it, creation by owners of more than 50% of the properties in the district. Also, that the Re- newal Agency was not involved 'at that time, and that the original assessment was based on ~~ estimated cost of the project with that cost assessed to all properties within the district exeept those used for commercial off-street parking available to the public. e Manager ,said the contractor has been paid wi th money received by selling bonds and repaying from the first assessment plus short term borrowing to pay for the deficit. It is the short term borrowing ,which now needs funding over a twenty-year period. Answering Mrs. Beal, Manager said it is not a matter just of interest which would not be as great on short term borrowing, but a matter of two-year notes and no authority to extend them over a long period of time. I Mrs. Beal asked whether,a Bancrofted sale which has been'assessed could be adjusted to make a more equitable assessment at a later date. Manager replied that if another source of revenue is provided for ~arking and to assume obligations of the properties assessed for the Overpark, it could ,be crediped against those obligations, in place of the semiannual interest and payments but would not relieve the liens on those properties. However, another source of revenue could remove any need for payments. Liens cannot be removed because when Bancroft bonds are sold the property becomes security for those bonds. Mrs. Beal said it appears to be a case of assessing this deficit amount the same as the original assessment, or take a look at the entire cost of the project which would mean adjustment of the original assessment, or find another way of paying this indebtedness. Councilman Mohr asked what recourse bond holders will have if the City fails to act on this deficit ordinance, whether they would turn to the City for payment or collection or to the owners of affected properties. Manager said the deficit was covered by sale of short-term warrants and the City has no authority to levy a tax to retire those warrants. They were sold on the understanding bonds would be sold and money from that source would be used to retire the warrants. Mr. Hershner said if cost of the parking structure is assessed against the entire City , it would seem there would have to be an election to approve a bond issue. Manager replied not unless a district is created covering the entire City in which case the levy would presumably be based on footage, proximity, etc. If the cost is picked up as a generdl obligation it would require a bond issue or special serial levy outside the 6% limitation. I Councilman Hershner said it appears the alternative is to use the regular operating budget and cutting down on other services or making parking a ci ty;;;:wide function in which case there would be the question of benefit to properties farther away from the structure. He said it would seem at the time the district was created it was thoroughly investigated by that Council, that if anything is done to alter the Christian Church's assessment it would involve reassessing all of the properties again. Manager said the deficit assessment against the Church's property amounts to $6,621.00, the original assessment was $23,027.00, and there is nothing which can be done now to relieve the original assessment. He said if it is decided the deficit should not be levied against the Church, then that amount would have to be prorated to all other properties in the district, going through the hearing procedure again. He said even though the structure may not be considered of benefit to the Church now, it could at' a later date benefit that property. He called attention to the fact that at the time bids were let both the Council and property owners realized there would be a deficit. e At the request of Mrs. Campbell, David Hunt, executive director of the Eugene Renewal Agency, commented that the Renewal Agency is making interest and principal payments assessed against properties it has, bought within the assessment district just as other property owners. He discussed further the Agency's properties in the district and the difficulty of estimating effect on property values because of the renewal project. " " ': In answer to a question from Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Hunt said the ERA envisions three additional parking facilities of approximately the same size as the Overpark but it is not expected they will be financed through an assessment district. He also mentioned that funds from ERA prop- erties used for parking until redeveloped do not go into the general City fund but are credited as income to the renewal project. I Mr. Culp said he feels the land values were lowered enough to warrant lowering the assessments, and that conditions in the downtown area have changed since the renewal project was started. Mr. McDonald asked if the Christian Church assessment is eliminated whether it would change the formula. Manager answered that the only exemptions allowed now are commercial off-street e 2/28/72 ~ 2