Laserfiche WebLink
grandfathered Option 1; D) preserve option for library plus downtown projects, base option; and <br />E) preserve for downtown projects only. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to delete Option A. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that the option should be retained in case the library did not get built. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that the option should be retained in case the council could not agree on a <br />strategy. He said that eliminating the option would eliminate a strategy in which the council <br />would defease the district and put out to the voters a question of converting it to capital and <br />directing the funds back into the library. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that selecting either Option B or Option C would not rule out <br />termination; the council could always terminate the district. If one of the two options did not work <br />out, he believed the council would want to give the strategy outlined by Mr. Laue serious <br />consideration. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she had suggested eliminating options to determine whether <br />there was clear consensus on the council. She did not perceive that consensus to exist, and <br />suggested the council move on to the staff presentation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to table the <br /> motion. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Lee and Mr. Farr voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that testimony at the hearing seemed to indicate support for using urban renewal <br />funds to build a new library. He believed there was considerable community support for the <br />library, and said he would be willing to focus on the option that got the community a new library. <br /> <br />Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, reviewed the impact of the options related <br />to the library only on the average annual tax bill. He said that if the council wanted to construct a <br />library using urban renewal funds, Option B(5)(A), Library Only, Grandfathered Option #1 with <br />Underlevy plus Local Option Levy, would be the lowest cost to the taxpayer. <br /> <br />Mr. Bowers referred the council to Option C(7)(B), including downtown projects and the library. <br />He said that councilors Meisner and Ms. Nathanson asked what was the most money under the <br />base option that urban renewal could provide to the library. Mr. Bowers said that the option <br />reflected $9 million of urban renewal dollars used to lower the amount of a general obligation <br />bond for the library. The cost was lower than some of the other options and funded the sample <br />library package, leaving $4 million for other projects, the money not eligible for the library. Mr. <br />Bowers said that one of the issues of concern was that the option clearly required a general <br />obligation bond to make up for what urban renewal could not support. A local operating levy <br />would be needed for the operating costs. Mr. Bowers pointed out that currently, both votes <br />required a double-majority of voters. An advantage to the option was that there was no need to <br />specify projects. <br />Mr. Bowers referred the council to Option C(5)(B), prepared by staff in response to a request <br />from Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson previewed her remarks about the option by noting strong citizen support for a <br />library and its status as a council goal. She said that she wished to preserve the maximum <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 3 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />