06/11/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e In response to questions raised in the public testimony, Mr. Wong stated that the $190,000 ad valorem tax levy to support the downtown parking program was approved by the Downtown Commission and by the voters in the May 15 primary election. He stated that it was a separate levy imposed only on the DDD property owners. With respect to the comment on the legal owners of the property, he said the property price incorporated any liens on the properties, such liens to stay with the property. David Jewett, acting as the council's attorney on this issue, explained that the property owners were given credit for the taxes paid prior to the annual assessment date. He said he understood that the balance of the liens against the property was all that remained in the fund. Mr. Wong stated that any rebate would be made to the present district property owners. Mr. Jewett stated that that the process of determining who will receive the rebate will be a lengthy issue, adding that ~he calculations will be made on a . year-to-year basis. Mr. Gl eason added that' staff will attempt to provide equity to.all concerned. Regarding the comment addressing Section 5 of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Wong stated that the section did not preclude the council from declaring any rebates. He explained that either of staff recommen- dations 2 or 3 as listed in his June 7 memorandum could be applied to this issue and that rebates could be performed during the first quarter of 1985. He added that the City Council could also change the intent of the ordinance. In response to a question on the net operating revenues, Mr. Wong explained that approximately $1,600,000 remained, of which approximately $785,000 would be rebated to the Band D property owners for assessments paid and approximately $700,000 was the difference between the the net operating revenues and expendi- tures. Councilor Wooten said she understood that the potential rebate amount would be approximately $700,000. Councilor Smith said she felt that the Finance staff were not working well with the DDD in this issue and that further discus- sion and clarification was needed. Mr. Wong responded that he had worked through the Downtown Commission in notifying all the affected property owners. He also stated that he had discussed the issue with some of the individuals who testified. He said that he had no disagreement with the 1966 and 1972 council minutes on the intent of the City to return the funds, but added that the Eugene Code contained no explicit expression of that intent. In response to a question, Mr. Wong stated that the amount in excess of the $700,000 was derived from interest earnings. He said the difference between $150,000 and $500,000 to be rebated would be determined by the exact amount of those earnings less legal and administrative costs. Mr. Gleason stated that several steps were involved in making any rebates and that the steps would involve some time. I~ response to a question by Mr. Hansen regarding the rebate amount, Mr. Wong stated that staff had presented five options to the council for the excess funds, to include returning the funds to the property owners, rolling over the funds from the Bancroft bonds to the most recent series of bonds, or leaving the funds in the 10th and Oak District for maintenance purposes or for capital improvement or renovation. Mr. Hansen suggested that Section 5 of the proposed ordinance be deleted because he felt that the action as specified in the language was presently bei ng performed. In response to a request for clarification regarding the net operating revenue balance, Mr. Wong stated that $100,000 would be given to the DDD, $800,000 to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 4