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

Home Browse Search

e e e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Gleason said he felt the issue was complex but that the council and staff will work to ensure that all monies are rebated. He reiterated that several steps will have to be taken in the rebate process. He said he will assume the responsibility for not calling the bonds until all can be called at one time. Councilor Smith said she felt that some misunderstanding still existed; she said that the City must clarify the process to the property owners. Ms. Wooten suggested that staff develop a more exact projection of the interest monies and research the pattern or model used by other cities in such assessment projects. Mr. Hansen temporarily left the meeting at this time. Mr. Wong stated that staff can recompute the amount of excess funds, but he felt that the calculation performed in April were the most accurate as of this date. He added that the 10th and Oak Assessment District program was perhaps the most complex process, stating that no precedent existed for the rebate of excess funds. Mr. Hansen rejoined the meeting at this time. B. Code Amendment to Merchant Police Business License (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Business License Supervisor Terry Grondona presented the staff report. Reviewing the June 8, 1984 memorandum from Finance Director Warren Wong to the City Council, Ms. Grondona stated that Police Chief James Packard was present to answer any questions of council. The public hearing was opened. Robert B. Thompson, 2108 Lincoln Street, operator of Oregon Event Enterprises, stated that he had previously testified at the November 21 public hearing on this issue. He felt that a breakdown in the process had occurred, stating that he had understood that staff would contact the involved parties for input into the code amendment. He stated that the only communication he received was the May 26 letter with the revised draft of the code amendment. He stated that he was concerned with the $3 worker fee, explaining that he foresaw employing 150 workers during the year and that $450 in licensing fees was excessive. He said he did not see the need for the Eugene Police Department to review each employee because he was bonded and had insurance for his workers. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Responding to the testimony, Ms. Grondona stated that staff had recommended a $6 fee for each worker at the November 21 public hearing but that staff had deter- mined that a $3 fee would cover the cost of reviewing each applicant. She said staff felt a responsibility to the citizens of Eugene to review the applicants. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 1984 Page 6