My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2006
>
CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:27:38 AM
Creation date
6/1/2006 2:02:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/10/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilor Taylor wondered if Item E could be split so that the part for refinancing could be passed but the <br />part for financing the capital improvements could be put to a vote. She felt the reason the City Council <br />was passing the bond was so that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) did not have to ask for a <br />vote of the citizens of Eugene. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor asked Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department Finance <br />Division Sue Cutsogeorge to respond to the question. <br /> <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that if the council was interested in splitting the item into two parts, one that <br />would be for $8 million related to planning and design for the new facility in west Eugene and the other for <br />the refunding and electric system improvements, it could not do so at the present meeting. She said the <br />resolution was “very well combined” and would require a return to EWEB’s bond counsel in order to turn <br />it into two resolutions. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor asked if the refinancing portion of the resolution was time-sensitive. Ms. Cutsogeorge <br />affirmed that it was, given the importance of capturing a favorable interest rate environment. She <br />underscored that the longer it was delayed, the greater the uncertainty there would be in terms of whether <br />EWEB would be able to capture those refunding savings or not. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor expressed concern that this was being done without a vote of the people. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to postpone the item until the reso- <br />lution could be split as described above. <br /> <br />Councilor Papé expressed concern that the resolution was mixing “apples with oranges.” He said the City <br />was on the same charter as EWEB but the last time the two bodies convened a joint meeting was during <br />Councilor Solomon’s predecessor’s tenure on the council, prior to 2002. He thought it was an item of <br />some magnitude and that it had been rushed to the Consent Calendar. He agreed that the resolution should <br />be split. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman expressed some shock that it would cost $8 million to plan and design a building. She <br />also wondered why the word ‘surplus’ had been stricken from before the words ‘EWEB property located at <br />the downtown Riverfront Site’ in the resolution. She wondered if this would affect how the property could <br />be treated or sold. <br /> <br />Treasurer and Finance Director for EWEB Jim Origliosso clarified that ‘surplus’ had been removed from <br />the resolution because the board was not prepared to declare the property surplus at this point. He said the <br />commissioners were reserving that decision for a later point at which the property would actually be put up <br />for sale. Councilor Bettman asked what rationale lay behind not wanting to declare the land to be surplus. <br />Mr. Origliosso replied that it was not surplus at this moment and would not be surplus until the new West <br />Eugene site was completed and the operations facilities had been moved to that location. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked what was involved in $8 million of planning and design. Mr. Origliosso <br />responded that the board wrestled with these issues and held similar concerns in terms of how to go forward <br />with this project and how to approach the voters with it. He recalled that EWEB had come before the <br />council the previous year asking for approval to move forward with the land purchase and time had been of <br />the essence in that purchase. He said EWEB was successful in its acquisition and a general design process <br />had been completed. He related that the commissioners also wrestled with whether to bring the bond before <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 13 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.