WOBURN - In a 9-0 vote, a wary City Council recently granted the mayor's office the authority to refinance existing city bonds without the input or approval of their board.

According to Mayor John Curran, who appealed for the passage of the order along with Cynthia McNearna, the city's Financial Advisor, Woburn was losing out on opportunities to take advantage of record-low refinancing options.

Specifically, McNearna explained that the current procedure called for the mayor's office to submit a refinancing proposal to the council for action, which could drag out a final decision on the matter for weeks.

In doing so, the Financial Advisor argued, the city could and already has lost out on favorable refinancing options that are only available within a short window of time.

But by granting Curran the power to directly authorize City Treasurer Donald Jensen to refinance several bonds, the city could take advantage of those opportunities immediately — saving at least $300,000 on several current bonds.

"The interest rates are anticipated to go up. If we wait, we can't take advantage [of this potential $300,000 in savings]," said McNearna. "The Federal Reserve bank is meeting to discuss interest rates on Nov. 1."

"I don't know how controversial this matter has become for this board, but it should be a black and white issue. There's no games. There's no gimmicks," the Financial Advisor added.

One of the council's major reservations with surrendering it's authority, several Aldermen questioned whether the refinancing package could end up costing the city more money over time — specifically through receiving a lower finance rate with a longer loan term.

However, according to Curran and McNearna, state law prohibited the refinancing package from earning less than a 3 percent "present value savings".

"The most important line in his order is the first line that says, 'in order to reduce interest costs.' We are under state statute that prevents us from refinancing for more money," Curran responded.

Referring to a statement by McNearna that the statute only allows such bonds to be refinanced once during the life of the debt, Ward 1 Alderman Charlie Doherty questioned why some bonds were listed for refinancing that appeared to show no potential for savings.

When McNearna responded that the item in question, bonds issued in 2004, did show the potential for savings over the summer, Doherty expressed skepticism at Curran's assertion that the order needed to be passed immediately

"Do we find ourselves now in the best position on this? You come to us now and say, we don't have any time. But you're saying that prior to eight weeks ago, it wasn't as good [to refinance the 2004 bonds] as it was eight weeks ago?" Doherty said.

"If the urgency was there on your part, I would have expected more work. And that's my point. This came to us right before a council meeting," the City Council furthered, believing the council should have been informed of the savings opportunities long in advance if the window of opportunity was so short.

Jumping on Doherty for the suggestion — and underscoring his primary argument for the order, Curran alleged the opportunity for savings on the 2004 bonds passed not because of the lateness of the request, but rather because the proposal was stuck in committee for three months.

"It sat in your committee for three-months. In that time the rates have gone up and we lost the window for that 2004 bond," the mayor shot back angrily. "I'm asking the City Council to take action on this tonight. This is a simple housekeeping issue."

Although Ward 3 Alderman Scott Galvin attempted to amend the order by inserting language that specified the new authority would only deal with refinancing old bonds, his motion was narrowly defeated in a 5-4 vote.