Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that if the council was interested in splitting the item into two parts, one that would be for $8 million related to planning and design for the new facility in west Eugene and the other for the refunding and electric system improvements, it could not do so at the present meeting. She said the resolution was “very well combined” and would require a return to EWEB’s bond counsel in order to turn it into two resolutions. Councilor Taylor asked if the refinancing portion of the resolution was time-sensitive. Ms. Cutsogeorge affirmed that it was, given the importance of capturing a favorable interest rate environment. She underscored that the longer it was delayed, the greater the uncertainty there would be in terms of whether EWEB would be able to capture those refunding savings or not. Councilor Taylor expressed concern that this was being done without a vote of the people. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to postpone the item until the reso- lution could be split as described above. Councilor Papé expressed concern that the resolution was mixing “apples with oranges.” He said the City was on the same charter as EWEB but the last time the two bodies convened a joint meeting was during Councilor Solomon’s predecessor’s tenure on the council, prior to 2002. He thought it was an item of some magnitude and that it had been rushed to the Consent Calendar. He agreed that the resolution should be split. Councilor Bettman expressed some shock that it would cost $8 million to plan and design a building. She also wondered why the word ‘surplus’ had been stricken from before the words ‘EWEB property located at the downtown Riverfront Site’ in the resolution. She wondered if this would affect how the property could be treated or sold. Treasurer and Finance Director for EWEB Jim Origliosso clarified that ‘surplus’ had been removed from the resolution because the board was not prepared to declare the property surplus at this point. He said the commissioners were reserving that decision for a later point at which the property would actually be put up for sale. Councilor Bettman asked what rationale lay behind not wanting to declare the land to be surplus. Mr. Origliosso replied that it was not surplus at this moment and would not be surplus until the new West Eugene site was completed and the operations facilities had been moved to that location. Councilor Bettman asked what was involved in $8 million of planning and design. Mr. Origliosso responded that the board wrestled with these issues and held similar concerns in terms of how to go forward with this project and how to approach the voters with it. He recalled that EWEB had come before the council the previous year asking for approval to move forward with the land purchase and time had been of the essence in that purchase. He said EWEB was successful in its acquisition and a general design process had been completed. He related that the commissioners also wrestled with whether to bring the bond before the voters and determined that they needed more answers first. He stated that the $8 million sought through the Uniform Revenue Bond Act (URBA) process would fund the planning project intended to provide the board with the information needed to approach the City Council about the larger project, roughly estimated at $85 million. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Origliosso explained that the URBA process provided an option in State law that allowed for bonds to be issued with the option for voters to call for an election within 60 days. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting