Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for resolution. That resolution would then be referred to the three jurisdictions for adoption. The resolution must assure the bond holders that the bonds were sound. If the jurisdictions could not reach agreement through the MPC, the MWMC had the authority to make those assurances. Ms. Bettman asked if all the additional capacity projected in the Facilities Plan was within the city limits of Eugene and Springfield. Mr. Ruffler said the service area was within the urban growth boundaries of the two cities. Ms. Bettman asked if revenues collected from fees paid by Eugene ratepayers and SDCs collected from Eugene development were spent within the Eugene city limits only. In other words, did staff apportion services and infrastructure proportionately to the revenue and where the revenue was geographically collected? Mr. Ruffler said no. Most of the money was spent within the Eugene city limits because that was where the majority of the regional wastewater facilities were located. However, there were some facilities located outside either city. Ms. Bettman clarified that she was focused on capacity. She asked if wastewater fees were generated in the urbanizing areas, and maintained that residents of those areas paid no SDCs because they were in the County. She maintained that to the degree the City was providing services to the urban transition area, residents living within the city limits and in particular Eugene, with the largest concentration of residents, were subsidizing the capacity of those rate payers. Ms. Bettman referred to sections 4 and 5 on page 17 of the IGA, which referred to "promoting" equity between newly connected and previously connected users for contributions toward regional facilities and between various classes of users based on the volume, flow, and characteristics of their discharge. In other areas where equity was not being discussed, the IGA used terms such as "ensuring" and "comply- ing.'' She interpreted "promoting" as a squishy word that did not guarantee equity. Ms. Bettman had a lot of problems with the IGA. Her largest problem was that it was not compliant with City Growth Management Study policies that stated development was required to pay the full cost of extending services. The plan contained capacity for new development, and if the City could not ensure that SDCs could be collected at a rate that covered that capacity, the ratepayers would end up subsidizing it both in Eugene, Springfield, and in the urban transition area. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's question about whether the City's residents subsidized non-urban areas, Ms. Smith clarified the only residents provided services outside the city limits were those in River Road/Santa Clara, who were connected through a direct extension; in other words, they paid to extend service. User rates were proportional on a flow basis, so they were based on the flow used and its strength, and that was apportioned exactly by the users in either Springfield or Eugene. In regard to the SDC component, that was done on a demand or capacity basis and came down to a unit cost. However many units were built in either city paid the same amount. Ms. Smith noted that the MWMC, under the direction of the governing bodies and the settlement agreement with the Lane County Homebuilders Association, recently updated the SDC methodology with the criteria of equity, fairness, and statutory compliance in mind. The experts hired to take the citizen committee and staff through the exercise of developing the new methodology had to apply the statutory requirements to the methodology, which resulted in the current approach. That methodology was separate from the issue of the IGA. Ms. Taylor asked how much of the demand for wastewater service came from growth in the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 7 Work Session