Item 4: MWMC Ord.and Res. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Springfield City Council held a work session on the proposed amendments to the IGA on March 21, 2005, and an additional meeting on April 18, 2005, for the first reading and public hearing on the ordinance related to the proposed amendments to the IGA and the related issuance of the revenue bonds. Two members of the public spoke at the public hearing. The Springfield City Council approved amendments to the IGA on May 2, 2005. The amendments approved differ slightly from the version now being considered by the Eugene City Council. The Lane County Finance and Audit Committee first discussed the proposed amendments to the IGA on March 15, 2005. A follow-up meeting of the Finance and Audit Committee was held on April 11, at which time the committee voted to forward the proposed amendments to the full Board of Commissioners for consideration. The first reading of the ordinance approving the updated IGA is scheduled for May 18, 2005, with a second reading and public hearing on June 1, 2005. The amendments that will be considered by the County Board of Commissioners are the same as those which are currently before the Eugene City Council. If the County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council approve the amendments, they would be forwarded back to the Springfield City Council for its review and final approval. Amending the IGA requires consensus of all parties to the agreement; therefore, if any one jurisdiction does not accept the amendments, the IGA remains as it is currently written. In this eventuality, the MWMC would not be able to utilize revenue bonds as the most cost-effective mechanism for raising the revenue necessary to implement the 2004 Facility Plan and would have to turn to higher cost options, which include substantial increases in user rates or borrowing at significantly higher interest rates. It is unclear, given the out-of-date nature of the IGA and potential conflicts among the governing bodies, whether any external borrowing (even at higher interest rates) would be possible. Should the governing bodies not universally agree on the need and language for amending the IGA, any of the parties to the agreement have the option of terminating their participation in the agreement, by providing one year's advance notice of termination to the other governing bodies. If the County Board of Commissioners was willing to withdraw from the MWMC, the change could be handled as an amendment to the existing IGA and potentially could happen fairly quickly. If the County was not a willing partner in such a change, the dissolution of MWMC and subsequent reformation of an agreement for management of the regional wastewater program could take a year or longer. It is uncertain what the budget/fiscal status of the regional wastewater program would be during the process of reformulating the agreement. RELATED CITY POLICIES Not applicable. COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Approve the recommended changes to the intergovernmental agreement between Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County for the regional wastewater program, the related ordinance for the IGA and the resolution to approve issuance of revenue bonds by MWMC. 2. Direct staff to modify the proposed changes to the IGA and return with a modified proposal for Council approval. 3. Take no action on the proposed changes to the IGA. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050523\S0505234.doc