Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1980 Meeting , . M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council June 25, 1980 Adjourned meeting of June 23, 1980, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m., June 25, 1980, in the City Council Chamber, Eugene, Oregon, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. 1. ITEMS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Elected Officials Coordinating Committee Progress on Metro Update Ms. Miller said that the committee is down to a list of Commissioner Rutherford's concerns and a few from Eugene and Springfield. At 7 a.m. on Friday morning, the task force will meet for the last time to deal with the remaining concerns: the Airport, River Road/Santa Clara, and whether there will be a jurisdictional bound ar y. Following the last meeting, a plan will be submitted for adoption. Mr. Obie asked when the council would be considering the public testimony that e has been presented. Ms. Miller responded that the committee has been working on these and a number of changes have been made based on the testimony. Mayor Keller noted that they completed consideration of the testimony on Monday. Mr, Obie requested a written report on how the public testimony has been handled. Mayor responded that because of the numerous meetings the committee has had, they hav~ been unable to produce a written summary, but he plans to report on this during today's study session. Ms. Smith felt the council should be aware of how these items are being handled prior to finalization of the plan. Ms. Miller stated that they are still aiming at a July 1 deadline for submission of the plan and are trying to accommodate Springfield. B. Letter From Eugene Fire Fighters Association Mr. Lieuallen stated he had received a letter from the Eugene Fire Fighters Association raising questions about the effectiveness of Medical Services, rnc. He has reviewed the Touche Ross report and feels the scope of the report is not broad enough to be an adequate evaluation of the program. He as ked if there are plans to try to pursue the broader issues mentioned in the previous public hearing. Mr. Henry responded that Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m. in the Lane County Cafeteria Conference Room A, would be the next meeting of the task force. At this time, the committee's role and scope will be determined. They will be considering the quality of the service, The task force has been enlarged to include a representative from the Lane County Medical Society, Mr, Delay noted his intent is to broaden the scope. e 6/25/80--1 . , C. Variance to EWES by LRAPA - Mr. De;lay stated that LRAPA has approved a one-year variance for operation of EWES boiler No.3 authorizing use of a mixture of hogged fuel and coal. If others start using coal in their boilers this could lead to problems. There is already a particulate problem as well as a pollen problem but there has never been much of a sulphur dioxide problem which is what happens when coal is bur ned . This could cause prOblems for those with respiratory ailments and could be a real pollution problem. He requested the councilors think about the serious potential dangers. D. Formation of Private Industry Councils Mayor Keller stated he had received a memo from Gary Long which indicated that Lane County and the City of Eugene have agreed that two independently operating and appointed PIC's with cross-representation would provide a good basic element of coordination of activities between the City and the County. Jo i nt meetings will be held periodically to share concerns of the two jurisdictions. Previous discussion had indicated that the City and the County would be unable to wo~k together on CETA, but this may show that it can happen. A c oor din at ed task force will be developed to deal with those issues. E. Agenda Adjustments Mr. Henry stated that in order to provide an adequate discussion on the hotel (item VI on the agenda) it would be discussed immediately following routine e items. Two items will also be added to the agenda--request to appeal a zone change to LCDC and a request to submit testimony regarding possible revision to the definition "urban lands." Due to the length of the agenda, he recommended that the EEO report (item V on the agenda) be held over and placed as the first item on next week's agenda. Ms. Smith noted agreement that that issue would need more time to be discussed and would recommend carrying it over, Consensus was to carryover that item. Mr. Henry stated that the Hearings Panel would be rescheduled from July 21 to July 7. It would consist of Mr. Haws and Ms. Schue. Ms. Schue had i nd i c ated she would be out of town on July 21. Mr. Haws was not certain that he can attend. Mr. Hamel volunteered to serve as an alternate. 2. Stringfield Zone Change Appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (memo distributed) , Gary Chenkin, Planning, stated this concerns 15 acres that were changed from AGT-5 to M-2. He feels that this is a similar situation to the industrial tr i angle. He feels it is contrary to LCDC goals as well as City policies since it is clearly outside the urban service area. There is no industrial designation in that area, it is presently agricultural and there is no guarantee of service availability to the site. They have registered their concerns to the County beginning in October 1979 but the zone change was approved anyway. Staff is asking permission to appeal, e 6/25/80--2 -- --- Mr. Obie asked how the update treats this area. Mr, Chenkin responded that e it is somewhat vague--they have to consider the request on what is officially approved at the time that they make the decision. Mr. Obie asked what the designation on the update is now. Mr. Chenkin responded that it is outside the urban growth boundary and is designated agricultural but that plan is not a valid one on which to base a decision. Ms. Miller noted she felt it was part of the Airport compromise which has since fallen apart so it is wide open, Mr. Obie asked if legal fees would be involved and if so, to what degree. Mr. Chenkin responded there would most likely be legal costs. Mr. Long added that the extent of legal fees would depend upon the length of time involved and the County's response. It would probably cost more than $3,000. Mr, Haws asked if there was any chance to recoup legal fees. Mr. Long responded that there was not. Mr. Haws stated that the City should pursue this regardless of the cost. Ms. Miller noted support for the appeal and that it is not just one issue that is involved, as it affects the integrity of the planning process. The County feels industry should establish itself anywhere and be allowed whatever services they want. Ms. Schue felt it is not possible to wait for this to be resolved in the update. She would support the appeal, Mr. Obie asked whether non-legal staff could handle the appeal process. Mr. Chenkin responded he would feel uncomfortable with Planning staff making a presentation since there are many legal implications. If the Metropolitan Plan is adopted then staff could request that the case be dropped. Mr. Delay stated support for the appeal as there is a need for clear language and understanding. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to appeal a zone change (Stringfield) from AGT-5 to M-2 as approved by the Lane e County Commission to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 3. Possible Revision to the Definition "Urban Lands" (memo distributed) Mr. Chenkin stated that the Department of Land Conservation and Development will be holding ten public hearings throughout the state to consider views on a possible amendment to the goals or the definition of "urban land" as used in the goal s. It would provide that land inside city boundaries is either urban or urbanizable. The entire question was generated by the Cone! Breeden matter, The Eugene hearing will be in Harris Hall at 1 p.m. on Monday, June 30. The Planning Department feels that the definition should state that "all land within lawfully established cities is considered urban, unless it is otherwise designated in the city's comprehensive plan as either urbanizable land (inside the urban growth boundary) or rural land (outside the urban growth boundary)." Several points support this conclusion, one of which is that cities are the traditional providers of urban services since properties in cities can be taxed to support those services and should expect service availability and a right to develop at urban densities. The League of Oregon Cities has been in contact with staff and stated that other cities feel there is a need for clarification al so. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the presentation would be done by the Planning Department, e Mr. Chenkin responded that he would do it. Mr, Lieuallen then had asked for 6/25/80--3 < clarification on the issue. Mr, Chenkin responded that the issue is whether to change the goals and/or definitions or to leave them alone. The Court of e Appeals said that the administrative rules stating that land in cities is urban or urbanizab1e is invalid since that rule is in conflict with the way applicable provisions of the goals and definitions now read. Mr. Lieua11en noted that in an annexation last year, agricultural land was annexed and rezoned at the same time." The ruling of the court suggests that we would have to deal with that 1 and as if it were not annexed, Mr. Chenkin responded that might very well be corrett. Mr. Lieua11en then asked what would happen when the updated Metropol- itan Plan is acknowledged by LCOC. Mr. Chenkin responded that then the plan would. become the guiding factor. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, to approve submittal of the memo and provide testimony to LCOC regarding possible revision to the definition of "urban lands," Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. ROUTI NE ITEMS A, Approval of Council Minutes of June 4, 1980, and June 9, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua1len, to approve council minutes of June 4, 1980, and June 9, 1980. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; motion carried unanimously. · B. Call for Public Hearing e , 1. Public utility easement for Wilfred Jensen (map distributed) (EV 80-1) C~ 2160--Ca11 for public hearing for August 6, 1980: re: vacation request for Wilfred Jensen of public utility easement located east of Miramar Street, north of 53rd Avenue. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. CB 2160 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that the bill be approved and g; ven fi na 1 pass age. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18668. 2. Pedestrian right-of-way vacation for Lloyd Lindley (map distributed) (PV 80-1) - C8 2161--Ca11 for public hearing for August 6, 1980: re: vacation request for Lloyd Lindley of pedestrian right-of-way located e south from Bardell Avenue and Stonegate Street. 'I 6/25/80--4 '! . e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with the unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2161 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr, Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18669. 3. Hi lton Hotel/Conference Center Agreement (memo and addit ional information distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the time element is critical on this issue and a decision on the development agreement must be reached by Friday. Several meetings among ERA staff, developers, and the City Attorney have been held. He introduced Joe Richards, Attorney for ERA, to discuss the key issues, objectives, and concerns, and Charles Kupper, HCC, to discuss cost figures and economic impact. Mr. Kupper stated that negotiations on some eTements of the contract were still being held just prior to the council meeting and that Mr. Richards would speak to the concerns raised in the memo from Stan Long. Mr. Richards stated the City Attorney's office saw a draft in late May. He e expressed appreci ation for the attorney's efforts and suggestions. In th e attorney's memo, it is noted that in this kind of negotiation what should be done is not necessarily what can be done, due to economic factors. It is true that the developer will have primary use of the main conference space. It is true that public use of the parking facility is not to conflict with use by the hotel arid conference center patrons. It is also true that substantial equipment repair should be, expected over the years. This is a 75-yearagreement with the main agreement being 55 years in length followed by two 10-year options. The only criteria for picking up the options is that the hotel not be in default at the time they chose to exercise the options. There is no way of knowing whether the percentage rental will cover conference center operating expenses. Mr, Richards feels that whether expenses will or will not be covered by rental fees must be compared to the total benefit the City will receive. Operating costs are going up less than five percent per year. Also, if rental revenues were to be low because of lower hotel use, then operating expenses would also be lower. Mr, Richards stated this is not the same kind of test that would be applied to a private development, since there are additional public benefits. A reuse appraisal was obtained from Keyser/Marston Associates of San Francisco. They were asked for two things: the fair reuse value of the parcel that is being sold and rental value of the conference center and parking. He ment ioned five of the factors that had been taken into account including the high risks . of this development. The appraisal reported that in the fourth year, when 6/25/80--5 . lease payments are deducted from the income the appraisal indicated that income would;be negative $25,000, a minor amount. This indicates a nominal value for e the parcel. Also, the conference center lease terms are fair. Tax increment bonds ;can be used to pay the operating expenses when a deficit occurs. Howard Rankin, bond counsel, agrees with that opinion. It is true that the agency should be sure of the track record of the developer and this developer is putting 25 percent equity into this project. There is no security arrangement, since the $100,000 for the parcel will be paid in cash. The sum of $33,000 has already been paid by the developer for the Hilton franchise. In reply to the question of construction and no standards or criteria being listed on it, there are design criteria for all downtown renewal projects, and the staff feels they will easily comply. In regard to the question of comple- tion and damages resulting from delay, the City is adequately protected. A management agreement has been provided. There was a question that the developers should be required to maintain a certain level of quality of upkeep and they will be held accountable to the same standards that the City follows for the conference center. There is a change in the contract on shared footings. The contract has been changed to read that the City will pay a pro-rated share if a shared footing is used. Provision will be made for up to 425 parking spaces if this can be done within the $2.5-million budget. In regard to use priority, the main conference space will be booked for events generating hotel room counts. That is how the developer was attracted to the project. Booking records will be readily accessible so that the City can determine that proper booking procedures are be i n g f 0 11 owed . At Dick Reynolds. suggestion, there will be electronic recall e of the booking information. As a practical matter, the hotel has the right to book the main conference center for an entire year, but it is on a first-come, first-serve basis. It would not freeze out the City's use unless they had 365 days of confirmed bookings. The City can book the main conference space. There are provisions for annual review. Booking of the main conference space without generating room count has been limited to five days per year. There was concern from the City Attorney that in regard to the main conference space, it was uncertain what "reasonable" room count meant. Mr. Richards stated that the final test would be the financial success of the hotel and arbitration would be employed if necessary. Booking terms are favorably written for the developer, to the extent that the conference center is for private use, and it will be subject to taxation. There is no provision for escalation of the minimum rent through the 55-year period. At the end of the 32nd year, operating expenses will be paid for by the hotel as long as the amount does not go beyond the three percent. There was a quest ion as to whether arbitrat ion shaul d be used to reso lve quest ions such as payment of rent. Mr. Richards feels this is the judgment call. After three years of deferred payment, if they do not start making payments at the end of that time, on 20 days' notice, use of the conference center can be closed to the developer. And finally, assignment standards have been specified by the City. . 6/25/80--6 ~ Mr. Kupper stated the conference center consists of about 35,000 square feet. . This figure was derived from a study done for the Civic Center in 1977 by Economic Research Associ ates. The study shows there is a strong market for conference center business. They decided that they should go with the 35,000- square-feet figure due to the new Lane County facility and due to the City's budget, since it would cost $82 to $100 per square foot. The center will be subject to architectural review but it probably will contain a main ballroom of 13,000 to 14,000 square feet, a smaller ballroom of 5,000 to 8,000 square feet, and the rest will be the lobby, etc. The concept of this center adjoining the hotel is patterned after Monterey, California. - In regard to cost and revenue, Mr. Kupper indicated the council had received a memo showing what the long-range impacts might be. This information has two scenarios--a worst case and a best case. The worst-case scenario would be a catastrophe scenario and extremely unlikely to happen. This would mean the payroll and operating cost would increase 15 percent per year and that revenues would increase less than five percent per year. He feels the best-case scenario is more likely what will happen. He would say that in no instances have the figures been II puffed; II reasonab le revenues were used and mi nor def ic its wou 1 d be shown in the first five years, He feels it is important that the City understand what could happen. He feels that the economic impact generated by existence of the hotel will offset any deficits. The council should not assume that the worst-case scenario would never happen. This morning, staff and the developer talked about devising a way in which the City might have a way of escaping overwhelming deficits. They agreed in principle that the City would establish a base line and if operating deficits exceeded that amount, then the _- developer would either pick up the excess deficit or the entire conference center would be turned over to the developer. The developer has said that is reasonable and they would be glad to do that. This would be a- good-faith agreement since there is no time to include it in the contract. Mr, Kupper indicated Mr. Long felt there should be a letter of understanding to this effect. " Mr. Lieuallen asked if the operating deficit would include operating expenses over and above the rent or if room tax and/or other items would be included. Mr. Kupper stated that other revenue flowing through the City would be included as we 11 . Mr. ,Lieuallen asked if a definition of net terms of operating deficit after all figures were entered in would be the mechanism used. Mr. Kupper responded that that could be used as a basis. Mr. Lieual1en asked what the magn i tude of the City's 1 i abi 1 i ty wou 1 d be in order to get to the po i nt that the City would be allowed to get out of the contract. He asked if Mr. Kupper was confident of the figures. Mr. Kupper responded they are assump- tions. The hotel payments are based on a feasibility study which is the basis on which lenders loan the money to the developers. Room tax figures are based on calculations from gross revenues from the Hilton Hotel only. Commerc i al leases would go for about $10 a square foot and there are about 6,000 square feet of commerc i al space avail ab le. Conference roan rental is a "guesstimate" based on Monterey and Pasadena. The catering contract is based on 10 percent of the food and beverage and is an estimate. Parking revenues are based on monthly rentals as available and they might also be low, . 6/25/80--7 L Mr. Obie stated he feels the assumptions are basically right and thinks the schedule is the way ,to develop the formula. The council should be aware that . they are acknowledging a commitment of 40 percent of the room tax funds of that hotel~for 75 years. He asked Mr. Long if the answers given are satisfactory in regard to legal concerns. Mr. Long responded that the memo to which Mr. Richards responded was provided in May and the changes are based on the second draft and represent some improvements. The policy questions and risk sharing seem to be the same as they were previously. The possibility of receiving an additional one percent of the gross after 31 years and six months is not a traditional escalator provision. The agreement responds to most of the tech- nicalquestions their office had~ but not whether it is a good deal or not, Mr. Obie stated he feels confident that it as close to putting together a hotel as they can come at this time. This is a paCkage and council needs to decide if they want it. It would appear that the potential bail-out feature~ which would be triggered by the council~ would limit the liability to a $200,000 per year subsidy and then the council can decide if they do not want to spend more than that. Some subsidy is in the public interest since the project provides meeting rooms and economic benefits. He would like to request that the County join with the City and contribute 40 percent of their room tax funds since they would probably use the facility also. With the letter of intent of good faith and the bail-out feature he would recommend that this be approved. Ms. Smith stated she is not certain the original room tax ballot measure would support the notion that 40 percent of the room tax generated from that hotel would be allocated to the project and she does not want to go ahead with that unless there is strong support for it. Mr. Henry stated that within the present resolution, 40 percent of the net room .-. tax receipts for the City as a whole are going into the Performing Arts (Civic Center) development. The resolution does not distinguish between the conference center or the Performing Arts Center. The 40 percent of the room tax generated by the hotel will be revenue to the City and could go to the conference center. The other 60 percent could go to the performing arts groups~ the Convention Bureau, and special projects or facilities. Ms. Smith noted she did not see this as being a problem~ she is just concerned that the action be appropriate. She wants to make certain the procedure is correct. Mr. Long stated there is a legal requirement that any revenues pay convention expenses. There is no legal requirement that the 40 percent of room tax go to the conference center. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the developer is counting on the room tax being part of the arrangement and Mr. Kupper responded that they are not. Mr. L ieuallen said he agrees with Ms. Smith and Mr. Long that the current resolution is very broad and Mr. Henry's interpretation is debatable. Mr. Long then asked if 100 percent of the room tax monies from the hotel could be directed back. Mr. Kupper responded that they could be. Mr. Delay congratulated the Renewal Agency for a job well done. He said he feels the council has failed by not getting involved in the process. There is a potential for negotiating a different kind of agreement, but the council is not in a position of being able to deal with this question now. There are two perspectives from which this agreement can be viewed, by the private developer . 6/25/80--8 . or as a member of an elected body. The public must look at other intentions to . provide for long-term security of the downtown. He said he does not feel there should be a raid on the general fund, The council must look at the contract in front of them, not rely on good faith, and determine if the benefits are worth the risk of operating at a deficit. Ms. Schue said she agrees with Mr. Delay and feels they should go ahead with this project since it is too late ~o back off. Mr. Lieuallen said he doubted that anyone on the council was seriously considering that position; they were merely trying to clarify points. He asked Mr. Kupper if it is legal to use tax increment money for operating expenses. Mr. Kupper responded that the Eugene Renewal Agency could sell revenue bonds backed by tax increments. He said he feels that since people are relying on room tax funds to operate the Performing Arts Center, council needs to be careful about making other commitments for that money. Mr. Richards noted he was uncomfortable using tax increment money to pay operating expenses, and feels they should be used only for deficits, and he feels that this should be not be done after the first two or three years. Mr. Obie noted that the conference center is being built with tax increment funds and these funds should not be used for operating expenses. Mayor Keller invited the developers to speak. Grant Kesler thanked the council, especially Councilors Delay and Obie. He also thanked Mr. Kupper and those who made the commitment and are taking the e risk--First National Bank, Oregon Bank, Citizens Bank and the Benjamin Franklin Savings and Loan. He noted that the changes suggested are not opposed by the developers. It would be of no disa9vantage to them, but could be an advantage to the City. If the hotel fails, and the conference center is not needed, there should be a way out. Security has been registered and approved in New York, C~lifornia, and Oregon. They have executed contracts with Vik/Cannon Construction. The plans are completed and they can begin construction within the next 10 days. Mr. Delay said he feels the comment Mr. Obie made about not using tax increment funds points to a question of exactly how the council is going to deal with this reality. Monies should come from directly related revenue. Mayor Keller complimented the council on achieving the goals of obtaining the Performing Arts Center and the hotel. He feels these are important in trying to develop a good economic package for downtown Eugene. He noted his apprecia- tion to councilors and staff. He noted that it has not been easy. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the council approve the Hilton Hotel/conference center agreement, Mr. Obie said he assumes this motion includes the letter of intent of good faith. Mayor Keller responded that it does. e 6/25/80--9 -, Roll call vote. Motion carried 7:1, with Councilor Haws voting e no. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that Lane County donate 40 percent of their room tax funds for the hotel. Mr. H~ws left the meeting. Mr. Lieuallen noted he does not feel it should necessarily be that particular amoun ~ . Mr. Delay said he felt that the County should be encouraged rather than requested to designate a certain amount. Mr. Obie suggested that asking the County to match the City's efforts would be better, and that a letter should be sent. I Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSIDERATION OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE COOPERATIVE MUSEUM COMMISSION WITH LANE COUNTY (memo distributed) Mr. Henry said that material had been distributed from Russell Donnelly, Chairman of the Cooperative Museum Commission, requesting that the City consider joining as a regular member of that commission. The revenues to support the commission include a $12,600 contribution each from the University of Oregon, Lane County, the Education Service District, and Lane Community College, and would include the same from the City of Eugene. The City would be authorized - to replace one of the at-large positions on the commission with a person nominated by the City. The commission's goal is to build a complex of museums in Alton Baker Park. The Willamette Institute of Science and Technology is the fi rst ph ase. He recommends participation in the commission. Mr. Henry asked Mr, Donnelly to provide background information. Mr. Donnelly stated that the State Museum of Natural History is being author- ized by S8 754 and they have the support of the Governor. They are asking governments to share equally and the University of Oregon and the County have already committed their monies. One executive director would be hired following national recruitment. He hopes the council would consider joining the Coopera- tive Museum Commission. He said this would be the largest and most successful museum complex in the United States. Mayor Keller asked if a nine-member commission had been considered. Mr. Donne,lly responded that they had, and had considered including the City of Springfield. This will be looked at and perhaps changed later. Ms. Smith asked whether there is a firm commitment from Lane County and the Un ivers ity. She does not want the City to enter into another agreement where it ends up the only contributor. Mr. Donnelly noted that the City of Eugene could also create that type of situation for the other agencies. Ms. Smith then asked where the mone~ would come from. Mr. Henry responded it would be from contingency funds. Mr. Obie noted he appreciates the request but is concerned that this is approxi- mately the same amount of money that is needed to buy additional books for the - 1 ibrary. He said he felt this request should go through the same process as 6/25/80--10 . other items. The Budget Committee should approve this unless it can be funded by room tax funds. Ms, Schue noted that Ms. Smith's and Mr. Obiefs comments are logical, but she said this is a special case as they have demonstrated a good track record. She said she was impressed with the planetarium and would support the request. Mr. Delay said he would like the Budget Committee to consider this item. Mr. Henry said this request has been made at this time because the money is needed for this year's operation. The request was made two or three weeks ago, If there is a Budget Committee meeting within the next two weeks, it could be brought before the committee at that time, and placed on the September ballot. Ms. Smith said she would like the item to go before the Budget Committee. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the level of funding would be. Mr. Henry responded $12,600 for this year. Consensus was to include this item in the Budget Committee discussions which are to be held in the next two to three weeks. Mayor Keller indicated this was a fine investment. Mr. Hamel left the meeting. IV. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1980-81 ANNUAL BUDGET Mr. Henry said this ordinance includes items in the Tier 2 budget and can be amended 1 ater . If there is to be another budget request on the September 16 e ballot, there will have to be a Budget Committee meeting. This election was close, with the budget being defeated by only 140 votes. He urged that the City reconsider Tier 2. He said that July 10 could be the date for a Budget Committee meeting, and on July 14 the council could act on the item. Informa- tion could be prepared and strategies devised for the September election. CB 2162--An ordinance adopting the budget; making appropriations; and determining and levying the annual tax for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1980, and ending June 30, 1981; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. CB 2162 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr, Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote, All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18670. V. AWARDING BIDS FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BANCROFT IMPROVEMENT AND GENERAL OBLIGATION PARKLAND ACQUISITION BONDS SALES e' Mr. Henry said that U. S. National Bank of Oregon bid a true-interest rate of 5,87792 percent on the principal amount of $3,850,000 of General Obligation 6/25/80--11 --.-- . Bancroft Improvements Bonds, Series "G" at a net interest cost of $1,235,425. He further stated that First National Bank of Oregon bid a true-interest rate of 6.56805 percent on the principal amount of $4 million of General Obligation Parkland Acquisition Bonds, Series 1980, at a net interest cost of $2,466,212.50. These interest rates are less than might have been expected. Res. No. 3390--Awarding sale of General Obligation Bancroft Improvement Bonds, Series "G,1l in the principal amount of $3,850,000 to United States National Bank of Oregon at a net interest cost of $1,235,425.00 and a net effective interest rate of 5,87792 percent. Res. No. 3391--Awarding sale of General Obligation Parkland Acquisition Bonds, Series 1980, in the principal amount of $4,000,000 to First National Bank of Oregon at a net interest cost of $2,466,212.50 and a net effective interest rate of 6.56805 percent. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, Meeting was adjourned to July 2, 1980. Respectfully submitted, e ~~~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:al/CM7a4 - 6/25/80--12