Laserfiche WebLink
iii. DIRECTION REGARDING LIBRARY FINANCING ISSUES <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said that due to scheduling confusion for the public hearing on the library funding issues, the <br />council may wish to recess the hearing this evening and reopen it on June 1. He asked for staff direction from <br />the council on: 1) maximum indebtedness; and 2) the timing of the local option levy for operation costs; and <br />3) the size of the local option levy. Mr. Johnson said the council may wish to seek advice from the Council <br />Committee on Finance or the Mayor's Library Improvement Committee. He noted that the November ballot <br />may be crowded with measures from the three jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said there was no question that anything having to do with a property tax should go out in <br />November, given the failure of Ballot Measure 53. She said she believed that both the library and parks bond <br />measures should be able to pass on the same ballot. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Ms. Taylor, noting that this primary election was the only window of <br />opportunity for avoiding the double majority rule in the next two years. She suggested buying options on <br />land parcels now for use as parks in the future rather than putting a parks measure on the upcoming ballot. <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said the library capital should be limited to whatever can be realized from the urban <br />renewal fund and those funds raised privately. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue expressed his view that the library should be built with urban renewal funds without referring it to <br />voters and finance operations later, saying the community was more likely to support an operations measure <br />once the library is built. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said he supported the concept of not building something that the City cannot afford to operate. <br />He predicted a "reshaping" of the public safety measure, given the events of last week, that garner more <br />enthusiastic support from the community. He urged caution about what is put on the November ballot, <br />adding that he would be comfortable postponing the parks measure because there was good momentum built- <br />up for the library and it would be foolish not to "go for it". <br /> <br />Mr. Lee agreed that November was the preferred election date, but he was undecided about which measure to <br />put forward. He ascertained that the council must take action no later than August 27 for the November <br />ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the library committee public forums were complete but the information had not yet been <br />collated. He reported that public sentiment was that a library was needed and the idea of branches was very <br />popular. With that in mind, he said, a) there should not be a separate urban renewal vote, and b) he was not <br />attached to a specific election date--it was more important move forward and keep trying until it passed. Mr. <br />Meisner said he was undecided about how to address parks at this time. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said using the $18 million to build a library without addressing operating will give the <br />perception that the council is circumventing the public. He expressed concern that if the measure passed in <br />September without the double majority, it would go down as a defeat. He suggested asking the parks <br />committee for a smaller figure and also to postpone any decision until Councilor Nancy Nathanson gave <br />input. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said staffhad already discussed a reduced figure for parks to refer to the committee. Addressing <br />the library issue, he indicated that based on public comment, it was obvious that the library proposal will <br />include branches. With the existing ordinance on urban renewal, there would have to be another election in <br /> <br />Minutes--Eugene City Council May 26, 1998 Page 3 <br /> 6p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />