Laserfiche WebLink
willing to buy the bonds. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly hoped the community had another alternative. He did not like the comer the City Council had <br />been painted into by bond counsel. He determined from Mr. Ruffler that the MWMC included three elected <br />officials representing the local jurisdictions and four lay representatives. Eugene had two lay representa- <br />tives. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly recalled that the council received an e-mail from Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Homebuilders <br />Association, who maintained that setting a higher SDC rate to cover the bond payment would be decided by <br />a non-elected board. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Ruffler said the commission recommends rates and <br />SDCs to the elected governing bodies, which then adopted them. Mr. Kelly asked what happened if a <br />community rejected the MWMC's recommendation. Mr. Ruffler said to the extent the rates or charges were <br />necessary to repay bonds, the MWMC could move forward without that approval. Any additional <br />component of the rates that went above that minimum requirement could be refused by the parties to the <br />IGA. City Manager Taylor said the fundamental issue was how to assure the bond holders while still <br />maintaining flexibility for the governing bodies. In the parties to the IGA could not reach an agreement, at a <br />minimum the parties must meet their commitment to the bond holders. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly disliked the fact there was no majority of elected accountable officials on the MWMC if the <br />parties could not reach agreement. The lay members of the MWMC could not be voted out of office. He <br />did not know the solution. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think it was a good idea to include Coburg in the review of the IGA. The council <br />should focus on the parties to the IGA as no decision had been reached that Coburg's participation in the <br />MWMC was in the best interest of other governments. She was concerned that the gesture to review the <br />IGA could be misread by Coburg. She hoped any analysis about including Coburg in the IGA had a <br />rigorous financial component because she wanted to avoid any situation where Eugene ratepayers subsidized <br />capacity for Coburg. Mr. Papd said he was suggesting the review as a mere courtesy. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd determined from Mr. Ruffler that Springfield provided financial services for the MWMC, so any <br />analysis of whether bond requirements were met would be done by that city. Mr. Papd asked what happened <br />if the estimates were high and the MWMC had more money than it intended to apply to the repayment of <br />bonds. Mr. Duey said that staff would review the numbers annually and make recommendations for the rate <br />component for the debt service through the MWMC for the cities to consider. The community could also <br />choose to either lower the rate based on the debt service, or raise it based on the debt service. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was concerned that the IGA eliminated the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) as a dispute <br />resolution body and called for the formation of a new dispute resolution body. Mr. Lidz responded that one <br />reason was that the two councils might want to appoint their MWMC representative to a dispute resolution <br />committee. Mr. Ruffler pointed out that the MPC included representatives from other bodies without an <br />interest in the wastewater program. Mr. Kelly appreciated both answers but neither satisfied him. He <br />thought it could be resolved by modifying the bylaws of the MPC to accommodate the dispute resolution <br />role, and suggested that a community's MWMC representatives could be involved in the discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed that the MPC should be the dispute resolution body. He thought the MWMC representa- <br />tives could be a useful source of information as opposed to being part of the dispute resolution body. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2005 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />