06/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that any interest will be accredited to wherever directed by the council, less any legal, administrative, or contingency funding. With the passage of the - proposed resolution on July 11, he said the refund could be completed by December 1984 barring any lawsuits. Regarding the commitment made by the previous council, Mr. Jewett said the commitment to rebate the net operating revenue was binding with respect to the revenue accrued to date but not to any future or unaccrued revenues. He felt that the City had no legal obligation to return the excess prepaid assessments and the interest allocated to those funds. Councilor Smith encouraged the council to adopt Option 5, stating that the comments presented to the council and the recommendation of the Downtown Commis- sion merited consideration. Councilor Hansen said he will support the recommen- dation of the Downtown Commission, stating that the council when the assessment district was established had made a commitment to refund the money and that the present council had the opportunity to do so. In response to a question regarding the net operating revenues and the excess prepaid assessments, Mr. Whitlow stated that the $150,000 to $500,000 was the interest on prepaid assessments. He stated that any interest accrued during the disposition of the funds would also be included in the rebate. He stated that it would be difficult to project the interest separate from the net operating revenues. Councilor Wooten stated that she would reluctantly support Option 5 because the funds could be used in the City's process of revitalizing the downtown. She suggested that any interest accrued from this date on be held for the Operation and Maintenance of the Overpark. Councilor Obie stated that the issue involved was from which date the prepaid assessments were to be returned. Mr. Whitlow e stated that Ms. Wooten's suggestion was possible in light of the June 30 audit to be performed. Councilor Ehrman commented that she was concerned that the interest was being accrued on a principal that technically belong to the property owners. She said she would support Option 5, stating that the council must support past commitments to the public. She felt that the ordinance was flawed in that interest was not addressed. Councilor Ball said he would support Option 5 because the Downtown Commission and a former council had given its word that the money was to be rebated although he personnaly felt that the City could use the money. He said he wished that the downtown leaders and the balance of the council were as concerned with the City's word with regard to the Hult Center funding mechanism as with this issue. Councilor Holmer stated that he would also support Option 5. Councilor Obie commented that the City could quickly generate enough revenue from the Overpark to complete the projects as recommended by the Downtown Commission. Councilor Ehrman commented that the City would face prolonged litigation if it did not return the money to the property owners. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the City of Eugene exercise Option 5 as presented in the June 20, 1984, memorandum from staff and return the excess prepaid assessments and net operating revenue to the 10th and Oak property owners and assess- ment payers. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 7