Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

necessary to implement the 2004 Facilities Plan. The modifications would strengthen the assurances that moderate rates and fees would be established sufficient to cover long-term borrowing by MWMC. Mr. Ruffler recommended approval of the agreement. Mr. Ruffler noted the feedback provided by the council was incorporated into the draft IGA in that the Metropolitan Policy Committee remained the dispute resolution body. A courtesy copy of the draft IGA was provided to the City of Coburg. Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing was scheduled for May 9, and final action was scheduled for May 23, 2005. The Springfield City Council held a work session on the item and would hold a public hearing and possibly take action on April 18. The Lane County Finance and Audit Committee discussed the IGA and had a follow-up meeting scheduled April 12 for further discussion. No action had been scheduled before the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly asked staff to discuss the Board of County Commissioners' position on the IGA and the County's role in the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said he did not want to speculate about the board's position as the board had not yet discussed the IGA. The chief executive officers of the three participating jurisdictions had discussed the issue, and County Administrator Bill Van Vactor discussed his interest in pursuing some options not outlined in the draft IGA. Mr. Ruffler noted that Commissioner Anna Morrison, a past member of the MWMC, indicated some concerns about the IGA. In regard to the role of the County, that was outlined in the IGA but it was not the same level of participation as that of the two cities. The County sets no wastewater rates and collects no fees. The County was originally involved in the MWMC as the financing agent and served as the entity that formed the service district that facilitated the construction of the wastewater treatment plant. City Manager Taylor said that legal counsel of the three jurisdictions reviewed the IGA. The County would have preferred the County service district be used as the funding entity. The managers and legal counsels of the two cities believed the recommended approach was the best approach. Mr. Van Vactor had suggested that if the three jurisdictions could not reach agreement, it might be time for the County to withdraw from the agreement. That idea could be pursued, but it was important for the MWMC to get to the bond market in the fall, in time for the first round of capital improvements. He hoped the County would adopt the changes so the timelines could be met. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Ruffler to explain a statement in the Agenda Item Summary that said the modifica- tions included a change in the directive to facilitate timely transfer of ownership. Mr. Ruffler said the original IGA referred to compensation to the cities for the regional facilities; that was because the existing plant was built on the site of the preexisting Eugene, and part of the Springfield, treatment plants which were then dedicated to regional purposes, and the original agreement related to compensation of the two cities for their property and facilities. That issue has never been closed out, although it was probably a moot issue over time. Mr. Poling referred to Section 16 in the IGA related to reconsideration of charges or rates, and asked how user rates and systems development charges (SDCs) were established, and what mechanism was in place for someone to appeal the final decision of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett indicated that both cities had MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 5 Work Session