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

Home Browse Search

the City filed a petition with the Circuit Court requesting a judgment - confirming the legality and correctness of Ordinance 19253 and associated procedures. Objections to City procedures for rebate distribution were filed by ten out of more than 250 affected parties. Ms. James said a tentative settlement of the case was reached in August 1985. It involves the distribution of rebates in accordance with procedures outlined in the City's original petition and the distribution of remaining funds (i.e. the reduction of the assessments and return of the resulting overpayments, offset by the City of deficit assesments remaining outstanding against cash distributions otherwise due the objectors). The settlement required the distribution of all funds due the objectors on or before January 1,1986. Ms. James said staff and legal counsel had, since August, pursued tentative agreements in writing with both objecting and non-objecting property owners in the assessment district. She said more than 60 parties had signed agreements so far, and settlement now was contingent on both council and court approval. If the council approved the assessment adjustment ordinance tonight, the court hearing would be tomorrow. Ms. James said the proposed assessment adjustment before council this evening was required as part of the settlement and provided a means to return remaining cash to assessement district property owners while maintaining a constitutionally required equitable application of a tax. She said staff recommended approval of the ordinance, which provided a return of any overpayment resulting from the reduction in assessments to the persons e entitled cash upon application of the rebate. Ms. James said notice of this public hearing had appeared as required by code, in The Register-Guard for four successive days beginning November 5, 1985. She also said notice of the hearing was mailed on November 6, 1985, to 244 parties determined by the City to be current or previous property owners or persons with some interest in the matter. Ms. James said a hearing before the Administrative Hearings Officer was held on November 14. One objection was presented at that time, and the minutes of that hearing were included in the information packet, along with a staff response to those objections, She said two more objections to the proposed ordinance had been received since the hearing. The objection involved the Quackenbush Building and two of its former owners, the Salvation Army and St. Mary's Episcopal Church. Ms. James said development of the distribution procedures was a difficult, time-consuming undertaking, and no solution offered by staff satisfied all interests. She said staff felt the procedures were balanced and as equitable as possible. She said they also were administratively workable and consistent with code. Ms. Ehrman asked whether agreements with the ten objectors were needed. Dave Jewett, special legal counsel on this issue, said an attempt had been made to get as many agreements as possible. He said a proposed settlement had been e reached with respect to the rebated funds, but the proposal also involved MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 9