06/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r unless it has a definite court ruling, adding that any interest earned during a . process delay would follow the direction preferred by the council. He said the directions made by the council will be presented as a resolution on July 11. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman regarding the interest amount, Mr. Wong stated that the property owners will not receive a dollar-for-dollar refund for what was invested in the Bancroft district; he stated that the difference would be approximately $1.3 million. Councilor asked if the minutes reviewed specified what excess funds would be returned to the property owners. Mr. Wong responded that the notes and minutes indicated that any excess funds in the operation of the district would be returned to the property owners. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Wong stated that the Eugene Development Department had prepared a list of capital projects amounting to $370,000 to maintain the Overpark facility. The public hearing was opened. Bob Loomis, 3540 Pearl, stated that he had been a chairperson of the Downtown Development Board and had followed the issue over the years. He stated that he was concerned with the final issue of rebating the funds. Referring to the options listed in Mr. Wong's June 20 memorandum, he stated that the property owners had assumed the voluntary assessment to provide the facility to Eugene, thus providing the security required to initiate the Urban Renewal Program. He felt that the recommendations listed in Options 3 and 4 would be met by the revenue realized by the City from the Overpark. With regard to Option 5, he felt that the 1966 council minutes were a verbal commitment by the City to repay the assessment. He stated that the repayment period was to have been 20 years, e not 50 years as stated in the memorandum. He stated that he had presented his major argument at the previous public hearing. Regarding the council's concern for the input from the Downtown Commission, Mr. Loomis stated that the commission had voted unanimously that the funds should be returned to the property owners. Neal Sande, 294 West 11th Avenue, stated that Dr. Loomis had addressed most of his concerns. Referring to the vote of the Downtown Commission, he stated that the commission had also discussed the need for obtaining some positive media coverage as would result from returning the funds to the property owners. Referring to a June 18, 1984, Retister-GUard article concerning a rebate of $2 million made by the Springfie d Utllity Board to 14,028 customers, he hoped that the City could refund the monies to the property owners in the same efficient manner. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman, Mr. Jewett stated that no prece- dent existed for the rebate of the funds. Stating that his staff had reviewed a substantial number of minutes concerning the issue, he explained that the adopted ordinances specified that the net operating revenues were to be returned but did not cover any prepaid assessments or interest accruals. In response to a question regarding the timeline for refunding the monies, Mr. Wong stated that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 6