Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Glenn Klein noted the implications of Ballot Measure 5 on Mr. Rayor's motion. He <br />believed that the motion could and should be revised to accomplish Mr. Rayor's intent. He <br />recommended the use of the word "equip" rather than "furnish" in the motion. Mr. Rayor <br />indicated acceptance of the recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said one of his constituents, Carol Berg, asked him to distribute written comments she <br />had prepared because she had been unable to attend the public information session. Staff <br />distributed copies of Ms. Berg's comments. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wong clarified the project costs and financing <br />costs, noting the project costs were approximately $36.62 million, and issuance and interim <br />financing costs were roughly $600,000. He said that the source of the financing was not <br />determined; the City could be issuing construction warrants depending on the cost of money at <br />the time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated support for Mr. Rayor's motion if it could be reworded to satisfy the concerns <br />of legal counsel and Finance staff. He noted Mr. Wong's identification of two strategies on page <br />19 of the meeting packet that could potentially do what Mr. Rayor was attempting to accomplish, <br />reduce the bond size. He suggested that language such as that could replace the phrase "use to <br />reduce the property taxes used to pay for bonds." <br /> <br />Mr. Wong said that there were two opportunities to reduce the taxpayer support; if resources <br />became available prior to issuance, such as from the sale of assets, the City could reduce the <br />bond amount. If, when the project was completed, there were excess proceeds from bond issue, <br />the City would, at that time, determine whether to defease some or all of the bonds or reduce the <br />debt service levy for that year. He said that the City would want to pay the bonds with the <br />longest life to reduce interest payments and maximize the benefit to property tax payers. At this <br />time, he could not say what option would be selected because the bond had not been structured, <br />and it was premature to structure the bond without knowing market conditions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly wanted to ensure the phrasing in Mr. Rayor's amendment regarding the reduction in <br />property taxes allowed or required the City to use the strategies Mr. Wong described. Mr. Wong <br />said that the amendment would allow any of the options he cited. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brown reported a total of 14 people attended the <br />public information sessions. Ms. Taylor said she had talked to more people than that about the <br />subject, and she believed the measure would lose if it included both the fire and police stations. <br />She asked if anyone mentioned the need for two measures instead of one. Mr. Brown said one <br />person at the sessions mentioned that option. Task force members response was that even if <br />police moved out and the fire function remained, or vice versa, City Hall would still have to be <br />upgraded to seismic standards for essential services, which was a less cost-effective option. <br />Mayor Torrey wanted to ensure that if the council was going to move the question forward with <br />the ballot measure, the article in The Register-Guard the next day spoke to Mr. Rayor's question. <br />He clarified that Mr. Rayor's intention was that all money in the measure be dedicated only to <br />new downtown fire and police stations, and any savings would be directed to the public. Mr. <br />Rayor concurred with Mayor Torrey's summation of his intent. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Rayor if his motion would preclude the construction of a water rescue <br />facility near the river. Mr. Rayor said yes, adding that the task force had not identified that as a <br />need. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />