01/07/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1&--,' ,. . ;;-J , . .J> i have planning expertise.. Mayor Anderson replied that the te~ "no~ember" was mis- ! ! leading. The intent was that the two "nonmembers" would b fo th . e lay people. Qualifications) : r e appo~ntees would be determined by the respective Councils. !Mrs. Real asked how the expense would be met for the c t 1 th '. en ra office proposed for 1 e,comm~ss~on. Councilman Hershner, member of the regional sewer committee pro- lpos~ng the contract, answered that expense of the commission was to b d tween E S. f' e prorate be- : ugene, pn~g ~eld, and Lane County. He added that Springfield peo le had Iq~:lms about crea:~ng another governmental structure, however the inteilt w~s to pro- v~ e a cent~al po~nt ~nd a designated person to whom inquiries and comments could be ! addressed w~t~out hanng to deal with each. agency separately. It was thought some jstaff person ~n one of the governmental units would be delegated that responsibility. 'Mrs. Beal then referred to the provision for hearings to be conducted by the com- 'mission and noted there was no provision for appeal from a commission d ' . ;s~e wonde~ed too whether in the event'of an individual complaint regard;~~s~~~~rty , t e Counc~l would be bound by procedures under the Fasano ruling. Manager replied. .!.~a.t...._t:..~e....!'.asano procedures would .119_~~aRl!~_'!...._since . this woul~ !!.~~.!!.:_land-use type hearin~'J .. .. .... .." '. .... ...... ..'...... .. .. _ "'_. ,. .. ", r..".,.." .:" '::'~'"-'""-~' " jt~as explained that for the individual there is'tne same relationship between :this commission and the Council as exists between the Planning Commission and lCouncil. Two public meetings and two public hearings are held which should give 'adequate protection to the individual against an arbitrary decision. The next step iwould be a court challenge. . Mrs. Beal asked about the type of financial plans to be adopted. Public Works ,Director answered that the contract under discussion would not in itself provide for adoption of any specific financial plan. The contract is an interim agreement to provide for co-ordination in the formulation of plans and policies having to do with a unified regional sewer service. Until regional sewerage regulations are adopted each council will act on recommendations from the commission, and the regular budgeting procedure will be followed. In answer to Mrs. Beal's question about the signature line for chairman of the Springfield Utility Board, Manager replied that approval of the Board is required since it is responsible for Springfield's sewerage treatment; the city of Springfield itself is responsible only for sewer lines. .. ;Councilwoman Campbell asked whether creation of the Advisory Commission would at Bome future time put the cities "out of the sewer business," and if bonds were to be issued how they would be handled. Manager-explained the intent was to provide regional sewer service by the cities through contractual arrangement rather than creating another agency such as a metropolitan sewer district. Lane County could !create a county service district for financing purposes only, and that district coul~ i~pbmit issues to people living within the district. However, it would seem less lcumbersome for the two cities to join together in submitting one bond issue to voters. ~in a single election, the majority to prevail. Manager added that a proposed statute \ ).which would allow that type of bond election is being submitted to the Legislature, Land there is understanding that it would be introduced at the special session. I:" _ _..___~ '.. , ,.,. .. j ~',..-.. - . Icouncilwoman Beal asked whether a bond issue would be prorated on the same basis las provided in the contract for other expenses. She wonder~d too whether areas I Iwanting sewerage service would have to be annexed. She felt it would be unfair to juse Eugene and Springfield bonding capacities to provide service to areas outside Ithe two cities' limits. Public Works Director explained that there is no plan at ithis time for financial arrangements. The purpose of the contract is to set up the [Commission which will make r~Q9mmendations to the several agencies in that respect. ;Councilman Hershner said t~t extension of services to unincorporated areas is one 'of the problems to be faced by the commission. Contractual arrangement is one I' al terna ti ve and it is assumed charges under a contract, wouLd be adfl(JuC!t~.~ cover cost of the extension. - -. _ ' j I _\ Icouncilwoman Campbell asked what the status of the current policy not to extend lsewer service beyond the urban service boundaries would be under the contract. :Councilman Hershner answered that there would be no change. Public Works Director [stressed the importance of recognizing the main points not covered by the agreement iunder discussion. It would. not resolve the present Santa Clara/River Road problem, :nor does it change the present policy calling for annexation in order to havefsewer;- ,service. Neither does it adopt the Bartle Wells report as a financial plan. One !of the main charges to the commission would be to make recommendations on the type I .1 of financial plan to follow. He added that the contract does not change the status i of the East Bank Trunk, nor does it bind the two cities to providing sewer service lin the urban service area. Details of all those situations are to be worked out-; by the proposed cOIr1I!!!ssion. _ Mayor Anderso~ said the contract in reality wou~den=-___J L-._.___~~~___ '. L s 1/7/74 - 5