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

Home Browse Search

the Band D property owners and the remalnlng $700,000 would be rebated to the 10th and Oak assessment payers. He added that the Eugene Code specified that a ~ priority should be given to these individuals. Councilor Obie commented that the controversy in the rebate issue was the interest earned by the assessment funds. Mr. Gleason explained that Section 5 of the proposed ordinance was designed to close out the fund so that it could be cancelled prior to June 30, 1985. Mr. Hansen said he did not want to close the issue of the interest until it was resolved. Mr. Gleason stated that Section 5 did not preclude the council from making any determinations regarding the fund. Mr. Ball said he did not see any need for further clarification, stating that the council would have the final determination regarding any rebates. Ms. Smith asked that staff present further clarification on Section 5 and the interest/ rebate issue to the council at its June 13 or 18 meeting. Mr. Gleason commented that any action on the rebates will still have to go through the Downtown Commission and the City Council. Ms. Smith suggested that action on Section 5 be delayed until it was further clarified, allowing the council to act on the rest of the ordinance. Mr. Gleason stated that any modification of Section 5 would not have any effect on the final determination. e Mr. Obie said he would be more comfortable with a clarified Section 5. He suggested that the council send the issue back to staff for a rewrite of that section. Mr. Ball stated that he saw no reason for any delay, stating that the assurances requested were included in the ordinance. He stressed that the council will take the final action on any rebates; therefore any delay or modifications will have no effect on the final action. Mr. Hansen said he was comfortable with the assurances made by Mr. Gleason, adding that he will support the ordinance as written. CB 2749--An ordinance regarding the Downtown Development District; authorizing a tax levy of $190,000; satis- fying debt due the Downtown Development District Fund (No. 113) from the 10th and Oak Overpark Fund (No. 521); adjusting the tax liability of individual property within the Downtown Development District for satis- faction of debt. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 2749 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1, Mr. Obie voting nay, and the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19253). Res. No. 3861--A resolution directing the City Manager to seek judicial review of Ordinance No. 19253 (CB 2749). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 5