Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as an Intergovernmental Entity; and Providing an Effective Date; and A Resolution Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Man- agement Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Mr. Ruffler and City Attorney Glenn Klein joined the council for the item. Mr. Ruffler reviewed the changes made to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in response to the council's comments at earlier work sessions. He referred any bond-related questions to City Finance staff Sue Cutsogeorge. Mr. Ruffler reported the Springfield City Council adopted the amendments to the IGA on May 2. The Board of County Commissioners was scheduled to have a first reading of the ordinance on May 18, and a second reading and public hearing on June 1. Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing before the council was scheduled to occur later that night, with final action scheduled for May 23. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the authority of the MWMC to direct user rate revenues to the bond covenants rather than systems development charge revenues even if the differential was SDC- eligible, Mr. Klein confirmed the MWMC could choose to fund the entire difference needed to meet bond covenants from user rates. Nothing in the IGA required the MWMC to fund part of the difference from SDCs. Ms. Smith pointed out that there were financial planning criteria in the IGA related to equity across user classes and the other principles that made it unlikely that MWMC would take that approach. Mr. Kelly posited the possibility that the current council would not be in place to oversee the issue in the future and a future MWMC body could take another approach by changing the financial policies. Mr. Jewett suggested that overlooked the existing text in Section 3(f) that mandated the MWMC to take certain considerations into account in dealing with the financial plan. Ms. Bettman indicated that she was not satisfied by Mr. Jewett's answer and asked staff to prepare an amendment calling for full-cost recovery. Ms. Bettman indicated she would also request an amendment to Item 1 on page 4 of the IGA related to full-cost recovery; an amendment to change Item 4 to replace the phrase "promoting equity" with "ensuring equity"; and an amendment replacing "promoting" with "ensuring" in Item 5. Mr. Kelly suggested that Section 3(d) of the IGA could be amended to address the issue of full-cost recovery. Ms. Bettman asked why Lane County was a party to the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said that the County partici- pated as the funding mechanism through a county service district. The local bonds needed to match the federal grants have been paid off, so the county service district was no longer collecting revenue for that purpose. City Manager Taylor added that the Board of County Commissioners had considered changing the IGA to eliminate its participation, but given the need to get to the bond market, there was agreement to keep the structure intact and revisit the idea later. The board had also expressed some interest in working through some of the issues with Eugene and Springfield that must be addressed to add the City of Coburg to the IGA. Ms. Bettman disagreed with that approach, saying it prejudiced the Coburg study and almost MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session