My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/28/1972 Meeting (2)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1972
>
02/28/1972 Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 4:08:25 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:09:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/28/1972
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />is fair and equitable. If the boundary of the district is changedt it would be creating a <br />new district which would have to stand the test of public hearings, remonstrance proceduret <br />and remonstrances exceeding 50% of area to be assessed would nullify the district and assess- <br />ment could not be implemented. The City would be left with the possibility of not having a <br />way of recouping finances to finish paying for the project. <br /> <br />Mr. wiil~ams asked if remonstrances in exces~ of 50% are figured on a~_quare-~r <br />the number of ownershipst and whether the present method of assessment wOUlcrnave to be aban- <br />doned if a new method were pursued. Manager said the faator for assessment is square footage <br />adjusted. He said offhand it is not known whether the City could retreat to the present <br />methodt hut it would appear if another method were considered it would seem to create more <br />doubts about the present one. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Further discussion reviewed history of the parking assessment district and petition for it <br />creation by owners of more than 50% of the properties in the district. Also. that the Re- <br />newal Agency was not involved at that time. and that the original assessment was based on <br />estimated cost of the project with that cost assessed to all properties within the district <br />except those used for commercial off-street parking available to the public. <br /> <br />Manager said the contractor has been paid with money received by selling bonds and repaying <br />from ~he first assessment plus short term borrowing to pay for the deficit. It is the short <br />term borrowing which now needs funding over a twenty-year period. <br /> <br />Answering Mrs. Beal. Manager said it is not a matter just of interest which would not be as <br />great on short term borrowing. but a matter of two-year notes and no authority to extend <br />them over a long period of time. <br /> <br />Mrs. Beal asked whether a Bancrofted sale which has been assessed CQuld be adjusted to make <br />a more equitable assessment at a later date. Manager replied that if another source of revenue <br />is provided for parking and to assume obligations of the properties assessed for the Overpark, <br />it could be credited against those obligations in place of the semiannual interest and payments <br />but would not relieve the liens on those properties. However. another source of revenue <br />could remove any need for ,payments. Liens cannot be removed because when Bancroft bonds are <br />sold the property becomes security for those bonds. Mrs. Beal said it appears to be a case <br />of assessing this deficit amount the same as the original assessment. or take a look at the <br />entire cost of the project which would mean adjustment of the original assessment, or find <br />another way of paying this indebtedness. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Councilman Mohr asked what recourse bond holders will have if the City fails to act on this <br />deficit ordinance. whether they would turn to the City for payment or collection or to the <br />owners of affected properties. Manager said the deficit was covered by sale of short-term <br />warrants and the City has no authority to levy a tax to retire those warrants. They were sold <br />on the understanding bonds would be sold and money from that source would be used to retire <br />the warrants. <br /> <br />Mr. Hershner said if cost of the parking structure is assessed against the entire City. it <br />would seem there would have to be an election to approve a bond issue. Manager replied not <br />unless a district is created covering the entire City in which case the levy would presumably <br />be based on footage. proximity. etc. If the cost is picked up as a general obligation it <br />would require a bond issue or special serial levy outside the 6% limitation. <br /> <br />Councilman Hershner said it appears the alternative is to use the regular operating budget <br />and cutting down on other services or making parking a city-wide function in which case <br />there would be the question of benefit to properties farther away from the structure. He <br />said it would seem at the time the district was created it was thoroughly investigated by <br />that Council. that if anything is done to alter the Christian Church's assessment it would <br />involve reassessing all of the properties again. Manager said the deficit assessment against <br />the Church's property amounts to $6.621.00. the original assessment was $23,027.00, and there <br />is nothing which can be done now to relieve the original assessment. He said if it is decided <br />the deficit should not be levied against the Church, then that amount would have to be prorated <br />to all other properties in the district. going through the hearing procedure again. He said <br />even though the structure may not be considered of benefit to the Church now. it could at a <br />later date benefit that property. He called attention to the fact that at the time bids were <br />let both the Council and property owners realized there would be a deficit. <br /> <br />~ <br />.. <br /> <br />At the request of Mrs. Campbell, David Hunt. executive director of the Eugene Renewal Agency, <br />commented that the Renewal Agency is making interest and principal payments assessed against <br />properties it has bought within the assessment district just as other property owners. He <br />discussed further the Agency's properties in the district and the difficulty of estimating <br />effect on property values because of the renewal project. <br /> <br />In answer to a question from Mrs. Campbell, MJ'. Hunt said the ERA enns~ons three additional <br />parking facilities of approximately the sam~ size as the Overpark but it is not expected they <br />will be financed through an assessment distri~t. He also mentioned that funds ~rom ERA prop- <br />erties used for parking until redeveloped do not go into the general City fund bu1; are credited <br />as income to the renewal project. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Culp said he feels the land values were lowered enough to w,arrant lowering the assessments, <br />and that conditions in the downtown area have changed since the renewal project was started. <br /> <br />Mr. McDonald asked if the Christian Church assessment is 'eliminated whether it would change <br />the formula. Manager answered that the on1y exemptions a110wed now are commercia1' off-street <br /> <br />Jd <br /> <br />2/2 '9.L72 ~ 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.