11/25/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

additional revenue that was not part of the original court petition, and as - such the default judgment available in the court case did not apply to these additional funds. Written agreements were therefore being sought with all affected parties for all amounts involved. Ms. Ehrman asked how that would affect tomorrow's hearing, and Mr. Jewett said tomorrow's hearing was to get judicial approval of the final judgment proposed and of the settlement involving contested claims, adding that Circuit Court approval was required for settlement amounts greater than $5,000. Ms. Ehrman said she saw the issue for Schaefers Bros. to be who made the last payment, while the Salvation Army and the Episcopal Church issue was the appropriateness of looking at the last payment. Mr. Jewett agreed. Ms. Erhman said the language dealing with the last payment was in the prior ordinance and could not be changed. Mr. Jewett said that was true for the excess net operating revenue subject to rebate. However, with the remaining funds, which did not constitute operating revenue from the facility, Mr. Jewett said the council did have discretion over the manner of the return. He said after consideration, staff had determined the most fair, equitable, and feasible manner would be consistent with the code's intent with respect to operating revenue rebates, which unfortunately did not satisfy all parties. Responding to Ms. Bascom's question, Mr. Jewett said the adoption of the ordinance and the court decision tomorrow would resolve the issues raised in the recent letters. Mr. Hansen opened the public hearing. - Jack Gardner, 725 Country Club Road, an attorney representing five of the parties involved in the lawsuit and 13 other property owners in the Downtown Development District, said all his clients had signed agreements and approved of the settlement. He also said all ten parties in the lawsuit agreed to the settlement, and he added that a need existed to approve the settlement, and not for the council to be concerned with who pays. Richard Bryson, 1565 Oak, an attorney representing Schaefers Bros., said notice of the hearing had been too short to allow an opportunity to appear before the Hearings Officer on the question of who made the last payment before June 30, 1982, on the Schaefers Bros. property at the southeast corner of 10th and Wi11amette. Mr. Bryson said he had filed final written testimony, including an affidavit from the managing agent for Schaefers Bros. He said he understood that Mr. Cornacchia had appeared before the Hearings Officer and contended that the joint venture, as successive owner, should have the rebate and refund because it had provided the funds with which Schaefers Bros. made the payment which triggered the cash rebate. Mr. Bryson said sale of the property was closed on July 2, 1981, and the payment in question was made June 2, 1981. At that time, he said a payment of earnest money was made on the sale. Mr. Bryson said it was his contention that the money belonged to Schaefers Bros. as soon as it was received, and the assessment paid with that money was their own. He said Schaefers Bros. had paid $61,731 in principal on the building, and were entitled to a cash refund of about $41,0000. He also said the joint venture had paid $14,824 and was getting a $30,000 decrease in its assessment. With the $12,000 deficit assessment payment, total join venture payments would be about $27,000, $3,000 less than the reduction in e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 10