Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/1985 Meeting f ) M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 16, 1985 11:45 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holman, Cynthia Wooten (11 :45-1 :00), Debra Ehrman, Ruth Bascom, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan. The adjourned meeting of January 14, 1985, of the City Council of the City of Eugene was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. REPORT ON EUGENE ARTS FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTIONS (background information distributed) Councilor Bascom said private/public partnerships are very important for economic development. The Hult Center is a City-owned facility, but donations of the private Eugene Arts Foundation have helped to make it a fine facility. Ms. Bascom appreciated Ms. Schue's remark that a broad base of support is extremely important for the foundation. e Carol Baker Tharp, marketing director of the Hult Center, reported that the $18.5 million bond issue was not enough to buy everything wanted in the Hult Center. The Eugene Arts Foundation has contributed $2.3 million to the center. Ms. Tharp used slides to illustrate the capital improvements the donations from the Eugene Arts Foundation purchased. The donations furnished Studio I and provided the house curtain, the metal roof, sky lights, accustical glass, additional chairs, accustical shells, light and sound equipment, the floor and orchestra pit in the Soreng Theater, the air handling system, 14 line sets, and fictures and furniture. In addition, the foundation has contributed over $600,000 to the operating expenses of the center. Ms. Bascom introduced members of the Eugene Arts Foundation Board of Directors who were present. They were Caroline Chambers, John Alvord, Hope Pressman, Wayne Atwood, Carolyn Campbell. Directors who were not present were Kim Gregory, Emerson Hamilton, Becky Hogen, Lloyd Milligan, Michael Whitehead. She also introduced Maurie Jacobs, Less Anderson, and Ben Snyder. Ms. Bascom pointed out the foundation also gives money to local arts groups and funds free events. Caroline Chambers, foundation president, said the foundation paid for the excavation of the Studio I area and the Jacobs Community Room. The foundation will continue to contribute to capital improvements, operations, and the arts groups. About 150 citizens are participating in the formulation of future plans for the foundation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 1985 Page 1 e Ms. Bascom thanked the foundation for its gifts, its grit, and its grace. Mqyor Obie emphasized the important role the foundation has played in the development of the Hult Center and the necessity for continued investment in the center. II. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS Councilor Miller thanked the staff for the orientation sessions. Councilor Bascom had represented the council at the Maude Kerns Art Center and had introduced Mrs. Victor Atiyeh. Councilor Ehrman requested the postponement of Agenda Item V (Further Discussion of Municipal Court Amendment Concerning Juror Examination Process). It will be rescheduled. A. Appointments 1. Submit ballots for Downtown Commission Interviewees/Set Interview Time (memo, applications, background information and ballot distributed) e Councilors submitted ballots for those they wished to interview for the opening on the Downtown Commission. Ms. Ehrman said some candidates had been previously interviewed by the council. She suggeted they be considered but not interviewed. Mr. Hansen said he voted for two women, but he would consider other candidates. Ms. Schue pointed out the new councilors had not interviewed any candidates previously. Some councilors had voted for four candidates, but it was agreed that only three votes for each councilor be counted. III. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Consideration of City Council Minutes of December 12, 1984, December 19, 1984, and January 7, 1985 (minutes distributed) Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the minutes of December 12, 1984, December 19, 1984, and January 7, 1985. Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. IV. RESOLUTION APPROVING ADVANCED REFUNDING OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION ON COMMUNITY CONFERENCE CENTER (memo, resolution distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Warren Wong presented the staff report. He said an effort was made a year ago to refinance the Community Conference Center Certificates of Participation; but, interest rates changed and the effort was suspended. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 1985 Page 2 . e . Explaining the refinancing plan, Mr. Wong said certificates of participation are ownership interests in lease payments. The present certificates were issued in June 1981 for $6.9 million at 11.57 percent interest. The parties involved in the refinancing plan are the Urban Renewal Agency, the City, the trustee which is First Interstate Bank, and the certificate holders. The Eugene Renewal Agency (ERA) pays rent to the City from revenue (tax increment) which is derived from the increase in the assessed value of the property in the renewal area. The revenue is called tax increment revenue. The City uses the money from the Renewal Agency to make lease payments for the Conference Center to the trustee. The trustee is the owner of the Conference Center. The trustee pays the certificate holders. The City would like to refinance the certificates in order to save money. Certificates worth $11.4 million will be issued. $4.5 million will be "zero coupon bonds;" no interest will be paid on them. The City will net only about $800,000 from the sale of the zero coupon bonds. The owners will receive $4.5 million when the bonds are paid. $6.9 million will be regular serial bonds. The City will net about $7.7 million in cash from the refinancing. $7.0 million will be put in an escrow account to pay the existing certificates. The rest will be used for issuance costs and a debt service reserve account. The new certificates probably can be marketed at about a 9.5 percent interest rate. Insurance will be bought on the new certifi cates to secure an "AAA" rati ng. The refinancing plan will require three changes in existing agreements among the parties. The first change is that the tax increment revenue of the Renewal Agency must exceed the outstanding debts by 125 percent before the Renewal Agency can issue additional tax allocation bonds. The outstanding debts must include those on the Conference Center parking garage and the Parcade and the rent payment to the City. The second change is that the debt service coverage of the Renewal Agency will increase from 100 percent to 110 percent; that is, tax revenue must exceed debt service by 10 percent. The tax increment revenue must be enough to pay outstanding bonds and certificates. The City has deposited the highest year's debt service payment (about $865,000) as a reserve with the trustee. The trustee can invest the reserve, but the City selects the investment medium. The time for which the trustee can invest that amount will be reduced from 5 to 10 years. At the present time, most of the money is invested for less than one year in Treasury Bills. The third change is in the lease/purchase agreement between the City and the trustee. The City will agree not to buid another conference center in the next two years; the lease termination date will be changed from June 2, 2006, to a date five days after all the certificates are paid; and the City will agree not to useproperty tax proceeds to make lease payments if the Renewal Agency does not make its payments to the City. The refinancing plan will be reviewed by the State Treasurer who will determine that the net savings to the City exceed three percent and that the issuance costs are reasonable. Council approval of the resolution will authorize the refinancing of the certificates. The council will modify the agreements later. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 1985 Pa ge 3 e Answering questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Wong said about $6.7 or $6.8 million of the 1982 issuance is still outstanding. Of the $11.4 million to be financed, only about $7 million will earn interest for the certificate holders at about nine percent. The Parcade and the Conference Center garage are not being refinanced, but the debts on them must be considered when the Renewal Agency considers issuing additional bonds. The financing mechanism used by the City to finance the Conference Center is still in use elsewhere, but recent legislation has decreased the benefits to some users. e Mr. Holmer pointed out the Conference Center is not tax exempt. Mr. Wong said the City maintains the Conference Center is really owned by the City and has asked for a ruling from the Department of Revenue. The City will have to go to court if the ruling is adverse. The insurance cost is about the same as the savi ngs between a tri pl e "A" interest rate and a hi gher interest rate with no insurance coverage. Mr. Holmer wondered if the City should wait three months to refinance the Community Center. Mr. Wong said interest rates seem to be going down now; but they will probably go up in the spring. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Hansen, Mr. Wong said half of the General Fund comes from non-property tax sources, such as revenue sharing and user fees. Those sources could be used to make the lease payments if the Renewal Agency did not make payments to the City. There are no prohibitions on how those revenue sources can be used. The net savings to the City from the refinancing will begin the first year. The Renewal Agency will save about $52,000 the first year and about $20,000 each year afterwards. Res. No. 3895--A resolution approving Advance Refunding Plans for Certificates of Participation on Community Conference Center to be used in the alternative and authorizing submittal of such plans to the State Treasurer for his approval. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. IV. RESULTS OF BALLOTING FOR DOWNTOWN COMMISSION INTERVIEWEES/SET INTERVIEW TIME Mqyor Obie announced the results of the balloting for Downtown Commission interviewees. Mary Young received eight votes, Nancy Willard received six votes, Christine Miller received three votes, and Marilyn Odell received two votes. No other candidates received more than one vote. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to interview Mary Young, Nancy Willard, Christine Miller, and Marilyn Odell for the positions on the Downtown Commission. Mr. Rutan and Mr. Hansen expressed doubts about the wisdom of interviewing the candidates who received only two or three votes. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 1985 Page 4 e Roll call vote. The motion failed; 5:4; Ms. Schue, Ms. Wooten, Mrs. Ehrman, and Ms. Bascom voted aye; Mr. Rutan, Mr. Holmer, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Miller voted nay; Mayor Obie broke the tie by voti ng nay. Mayor obie said he had voted "nay" because Marilyn Odell had been interviewed several times by the council and he did not feel it was fair to ask her to be interviewed again. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to interview Mary Young and Nancy Willard for the position on the Downtown Commission. Ms. Ehrman said she would vote against the motion although Ms. Miller had applied for several City positions and had been previously interviewed. Mr. Rutan said several people had told him they did not wish to be intereviewed and turned down time after time. Roll call vote. The motion passed, 5:4. Mr. Hansen, Mr. Rutan, Mr. Holmer, and Mr. Miller voted aye. Ms. Bascom, Ms. Wooten, Ms. Ehrman, and Ms. Schue voted nay. Mayor Obie broke the tie by voting aye. Mr. Gleason announced Ms. Young and Ms. Willard will be interviewed January 28, 1985, in the McNutt Room. e Mayor Obie recessed the meeting briefly about 1 p.m. Mayor Obie reconvened the Eugene City Council in a work session in the McNutt Room at 1 :05 p.m. Ms. Wooten was not present. VI. METRO PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Teresa Bishow of the Planning Department gave the staff report. She said the Metropolitan Area General Plan requires a mid-period review every 2-1/2 years and a major update every five years. The mid-period review will evaluate progress made in plan implementation and consider changes in the metropolitan area and in planning documents adopted since adoption of the Metro Plan. Ms. Bishow discussed the mid-period review process. Mr. Hansen asked for a short summary of potential problems and issues that will be discussed. Ms. Brody suggested the council receive a consolidated list of issues generated by the staff as well as those raised at the Planning Commission public hearing. The council can add to the list and the issues will be incorporated into the review. Mr. Holmer pointed out an update completed in August 1988 will be a six-year update. Ms. Bishow said the staff interprets text in the Metro Plan to mean that a work program for conducting a major update be adopted five years after the plan was adopted (August 1982). The update process could take a year to - MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 1985 Page 5 - e - be completed. Later in the meeting, Mr. Holmer said he did not want to wait more than five years for the plan to be reviewed. He would be satisfied if the mid-period is sufficient to amend the plan. Ms. Brody said the mid-period will not be a complete update of the Metro Plan, but some amendments might be generated which could be adopted in the fall of 1985. Mayor Obie pointed out the council had indicated earlier it wanted the Awbrey-Meadowview area considered during the mid-period review. The issue involves the quantity of industrially zoned property. He hopes the reasons for the decision made during the review will be clear. Mr. Rutan suggested the LCC Basin be considered in the same way the Awbrey-Meadowview area is considered. VII. EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN PARTNERSHIP Mayor Obie announced a public hearing would be held on the partnership January 28, 1985. The work session was adjourned about 1 :25 p.m. (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) MDG:c1j/1633C MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 1985 Page 6 -'^.:' .........:' .~. ~ :e B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) Number of Openings: 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: ,e 1. MAA, tJ~l ~ OlA-,.J (, 2. \rV I ~LM-IJ 3. Counc 'e ~ e B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) Number of Openings: 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: e 1. ~, ' /7 '" 'f- ."------.~~lv--~ (.,. ~ -. , 2. jJvet~ 3. :::1-- ~ Submitted by: ~ ,Councilor Date . .. _.__._._-_._._-~------'_._---_. , , ~.--~.... ::~~ - B A L LOT (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) Number of Openings: 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: e 1. -Har7 Yl!lll."'~ ~ 2. _Na'V\c7 WiUo..d. ( ___0. f'r > +"'hP H cl ft!4r~ 3. Submitted by: l)~ ~('~ Councilor Date - ~'_n,u__.:__c-_-::-___."'___-:-____', '=---- ' _.. , - e e B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) . Number of Openings:' 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: 1. !:lb~l~~ CJ'~ 2.~d~ ~~ Submitted by: C~ Councilor /-/~-J5 Date ---"'. ,', r.:-'" ! ~ B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) Number of Openings: 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: e );1~ ?r 2. /1,oz,v<:( . tl/d/~ 1. 3. ~ Council or - 1- (6 --g-S Date ,,:I:,..,..~~ ',.; Je B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) , ';... Number of Openings: 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: e 1. Submitted by: /&)YWJ {!knLOJJ Councilor ' Date e . .f-"~-, ,-__,--0-:--------;--'_.',."..., . , , , , , !i.,'~ . .e B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) Number of Openings: ,I Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: . 1. MfJ fGr 6. 7 ~ (//\/& 2. Mr+P-./ L iN OfJtLL 3. TE-f f ICE 'j {<. E/ 11/ Go LtJ Submitted by: "'~ couMd! e L/r;' ~S- {/ Date ,,/ ~ .:.-;.~.. .~.:':. -' B ALL 0 T (DOWNTOWN COMMISSION) ',-,- Number of Openings: 1 Downtown Boundary Seat Term to Expire: 12/30/86 I wish to interview the following: - 1. 2. 3. - e e e " M E MaR AND U M January 11, 1985 To: City Counci~ ~ Warren nr ,fait Finance Director From: Subject: Advanced Refunding of Community Conference Center Certificates of Par~icipation In January of 1984, Council au~horized refinancing of Certificates of Participation ($6,920,000 at 11.75%) used to construct and equip the Eugene Communi~y Conference Center. Subsequent market interest rate changes made it unfeasible to proceed with the refinancing effort in early 1984. Current market rates indicate that it is both financially and legally feasible as well as financially prudent to reinitiate the effort to refinance the Certifica~es. The refinancing effort could save in excess of $300,000 in debt service payments, with the savings accruing to the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. The Renewal Agency remits funds to the Ci~y from its Tax Increment revenue; and, the City, in turn, pays lease payments to the trustee acting for the Certificate holders. The attached resolution authorizes refinancing the Certificates subject to favorable market conditions and compliance with applicable federal and state regula~ions. cc: M. Gleason G. Long Moore-Breithaupt C. Dallas Attachment -- 1 fnwgw510 # i " e MEMORANDUM January 8, 1985 TO: FROM: RE: Mayor and City Council Planning Department Metro Plan Mid-Period Review e Background The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan" Plan was mutually agreed upon locally ~y March 1982 and was acknowl edged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in August 1982. Major updates of the Metro Plan are called for every five years. In addition, the Metro Plan states that a review should be conducted between major five-year updates by the Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC), Planning Commissions, and governing bodies. The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), on September 27th, approved a work program for the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review. As part of the Mid-Period Review, citizens will have an opportunity to: 1.) comment on how well the Metro Plan is being implemented, 2.) evaluate changes that have taken place in the metropolitan area, and 3.) propose Metro Plan amendments. Two reports are available to assist citizens in their review. The first is a Status Report. It is a brief summary of implementation activities, plans, and studies adopted or in progress since the Metro Plan was adopted in March, 1982. The second is a Monitoring Report. It provides an overview of changes that have taken place in the metropol itan area since the Metro Plan was prepared in 1977. The Monitoring Report evaluates how well the basic assumptions made in the land use planning process conform to actual experience over time. Both reports were approved by MAPAC and MPC for public distribution. The Eugene Planning Commission and Eugene MAPAC appointees are scheduled to conduct a public meeting on January 29 to allow citizens an opportunity to present their comments. Citizens can also testify at Lane County or Springfield Planning Commission public meetings scheduled for January 22 and 23 respectively. Written testimony will be accepted through February 11. By February 28, the Metro Planning Team will consolidate the list of issues and recommend to the Planning Commissions that they be considered either for a) Plan Review, b) Future Study, or c) Plan Update. In general, those comments that address progress made in the implementation of the Plan or proposals to make minor Plan amendments will be appropriate for Plan Review. Those issues that are more complex and require additional study will be appropriate for Future Study. Plan Update issues will be those that are even larger in scale or scope. Staff will provide cost estimates concerning the amount of ~ resources needed to address items recommended for Future Study or Plan Update. ~, 1 By March 25, the Planning Commission will forward their individual recommendations to MPC concerning the timing of when to consider the various items. By the end of June, MPC is schedul ed to resolve any differences e between the three jursidictions concerning timing and to forward a set of recommendations that address those issues to be considered during the Mid- Period Review. There are three additional reports that will be prepared as part of the Mid- Period Review: 1.) Plan Evaluation, 2.) Public Facilities Plan, and 3.) MPC Mid-Period Review Report and Recommendations. The Plan Evaluation will include a chapter by chapter analysis assessing the implementation of the Metro Plan and the extent the Metro Plan is consistent with the conclusions of the Monitoring Report. The Plan Evaluation will also describe in detail any changes needed in the Metro Plan using as a guide the state requirements for Periodic Review. .. The Public Facilities Plan is being prepared in response to LCDC action on October 10, 1984, to adopt OAR 660 Division 11 Public Facility Planning. The public facility planning rule carries out the legislative requirement that: "A city or county shall dev,elop and adopt a Public Facilities Plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons." The services to be reviewed are: transportation, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water. The Public Facility Plan will not be part of the comprehen s i ve plan but wi 11 be a support documen~. The fi na 1 report will contain a summary of the Monitoring Report, the Plan Evaluation, and the a Public Facilities Plan and MPC's recommendations concerning Metro Plan ~ comments and proposed amendments. Action Requested This is an information item. No action is requested. pltbmem1 Enclosures e