Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Lieuallen stated that it is clear now that the current bond will be inade- <br /> -- quate. He would support the new rate structure since Springfield supports it. <br /> Ms. Smith indicated that Eugene should have the same cost as Springfield. The <br /> commission had recognized that this reserve would not pick up all the additional <br /> costs but felt it would help. <br /> Mr. Haws asked if the same rates previously approved with the capital charge <br /> included could be charged in Eugene and thus build a pot for the future to <br /> lessen the crunch for Eugene citizens. Mr. Henry responded that it would <br /> not be practical to create our own capital reserve fund which would later be <br /> pooled with other jurisdictions. Mr. Delay asked if it would be a question of <br /> equity to the rate payers. Mr. Henry stated that it would be unfair to have <br /> Eugene citizens pay more than Springfield citizens since it. would all be pooled <br /> in the end. Mr. Delay asked about the commission's principle of equality. Mr. <br /> Henry said the commission tries to work with that principle; that fair payment is <br /> made for assets given up and a fair charge is levied for services provided. <br /> Mr. Delay asked about the condition of certain pipes being taken over and noted <br /> that there is a considerable difference in the quality of pipes between the <br /> jurisdictions. Don Gilman, Public Works, stated that the pipes are taken over <br /> in their existing condition and the value of the line is based on age. Mr. <br /> Delay asked if there is a significant difference in maintainability of each <br /> jurisdictional system. Mr. Gilman stated that Springfield's system will require <br /> more rehabilitation. Mr. Gilman added that the cost would be significant. <br /> Mr. Delay asked if they have had a smaller budget for maintenance than Eugene. <br /> Mr. Gilman responded that they have. Springfield did a master sewer study and <br /> e has identified $27 million of additional work--some rehabilitation and some new <br /> construction. Mr. Delay asked if it will be twice as expensive to deal with <br /> their system than ours. Mr. Gilman responded that it would be. Mr. Delay asked <br /> how this would be funded. Mr. Gilman responded that it would be funded by a <br /> user charge and a bond issue. Mr. Delay asked if this is coming out of the <br /> general pool. Mr. Gilman responded that it is. Mr. Delay asked what the dollar <br /> figure was. Mr. Gilman responded that Springfield's study showed $18-20 million <br /> would be the regional responsibility. Mr. Delay suggested that the question of <br /> equity be addressed in this area by the commission. <br /> Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City had inspected the sewers earlier. Mr. Gilman <br /> responded that a sewer system evaluation was done by a consultant and it was <br /> determined that the rehab work was the most cost-effective method. Some Federal <br /> grant funds will be available to do that work. Springfield will receive <br /> $4 million and Eugene will receive $1 million from that Federal program. Mr. <br /> Lieuallen stated that he presumes the commission will talk about this. Ms. <br /> Smith indicated that she assumes so, but not all of the figures are available <br /> yet. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the commission is aware that these issues will be <br /> raised. Ms. Smith said that it is. Mr. Henry stated that there is a question <br /> of policy whether the individual cities should maintain the distribution system. <br /> This is not just a matter of rehab; there is also new development. <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 29, 1980 Page 6 <br />