My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 06/13/05 Mtg
>
Item 2A: Approval of Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:30:40 PM
Creation date
6/9/2005 11:36:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/13/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
predicated the outcome. The cities were providing the service and needed staff, and the inclusion of Lane <br />County complicated negotiations between the cities and provided the board with an opportunity to veto <br />the actions of the two cities. She wanted to see an amendment to the IGA that removed the County from <br />the agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the element of the IGA that gave the MWMC ultimate authority over <br />rates. Mr. Ruffler clarified that the IGA gave the commission the ultimate authority in determining rates <br />necessary to repay the bonds. The governing bodies could request reconsideration. If the MWMC refused <br />to reconsider the rates, the issue would be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for resolution. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Smith said that any additional changes adopted by Eugene <br />would be referred to Springfield for adoption. Mr. Pap6 questioned whether Eugene could force a full- <br />cost recovery policy on Springfield. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a second round of council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that growth was expected throughout the community, with a slighter higher amount <br />attributed to Springfield. There was no differential in the SDC for a development based on its location. In <br />other words, more growth was happening in Springfield, and if that community decided to collect a lower <br />local SDC, the loss would be made up in user fees from ratepayers, and Eugene ratepayers will be paying <br />for growth in Springfield. For that reason, the IGA had to be modified to call for 100 percent cost <br />recovery from SDCs. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy determined that Mr. Klein and Mr. Jewett believed it was legal for the council to hold a <br />single public hearing on the two MWMC items. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Ruffler confirmed that the amendment of the IGA <br />required the consent of the County. City Manager Taylor added there was sentiment on the part of the <br />board to discuss that with the two cities. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Bettman for a third round of questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Smith that properties must annex to one of the two cities to receive <br />service from the MWMC. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the home builders were suing over the project list, the rates, or the SDCs. Mr. <br />Jewett said the homebuilders were suing over all those things. They were suing over adoption of the <br />facilities plan, the 309 list, the SDC methodology, and the manner in which rates were calculated. The <br />home builders were also challenging amendments to the comprehensive plan and facilities plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />Dennis M. Taylor <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.