03/12/1984 Meeting (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Gleason said that the council has not dealt with the pecuniary position. but has set certain actions in motion. He cautioned the councills moving in a pecuniary position because of determination of ownership and voting issues. The amount of $200,000 as well as reimbursements need to be addressed, and these issues will need to be dealt with sequentially. Staff are not attempting to remove anyonels rightful contribution. Also, there was no way to deal with calling the first bonds until both bonds were callable because of interwoven issues and risk of litigation. In response to Mr. Obie's question on timing for disposition of remalnlng funds, Mr. Wong said that under optimal conditions, the subject would be discussed again in November or December. Mr. Obie asked for a report in six-month increments to enable council to be apprised of the issues. Mr. Obie said that he was concerned about moving on the issue when the Downtown Commission has only two voting members. Being that the issue was created by City Council action, it should be resolved by the council. Mr. Ball agreed that the action to deal with the remaining funds, when the final amounts are known, is appropriate. e Mr. Holmer said he felt uneasy not taking some action on item 6. He wondered if the declaratory judgements, as approved by council in item 3. would give further guidance in regard to item 6. Mr. Wong said that it would not, because declaratory judgement would determine who gets credits for DDD ad valorem and professional and gross receipts tax credits. Mr. Holmer then suggested that council adopt by motion that remaining funds be made available for disposition, taking into consideration the original commitments made to the lOth and Oak Overpark, rather than leave it in the fund. Mr. Gleason said staff has not determined the pecuniary situation with regard to council; if they vote and violate that, it becomes part of the litigation. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said that there is a conflict-of-interest section of the charter that applies to councilors. Council members would need to sort out their own property interests, as well of those of members of their household, and give specific advice on whether or not conflicts of interest exist on this issue, before taking action on item 6. Unless all councilors are clear on the conf1ict-of-interest issue, Mr. Sercombe would advise waiting. Mr. Obie asked for staff to prepare a motion, as suggested by Mr. Holmer, with a background paper on the motion's impact. for a subsequent council meeting in 3-4 weeks. B. Abatement of Nuisance and Unsafe Buildings at 2051 and 2053 City View Street (units 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13) (memo attached; background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection, gave the staff report, as summarized in a memorandum to City Countil dated March 5, 1984. This matter has become before the council because one of the occupants, Ms. Cassassa of Unit 11, - MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 6