10/29/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- ------ Ms. Smith stated that the commission originally recommended the $5 charge; she e is willing to go along with Springfield's charge of $4.25; however, she feels the commission would still support the $5 charge. If Eugene's council still supports their original position, there is a possibility that Springfield would also. She asked if there is action that could be taken today to establish the charge at $5, but if Springfield doesnlt approve the $5 charge, to have the charge be $4.25. She noted that she would prefer the $5 charge. Mr. Henry noted that they could move to adopt the ordinance with a charge equal to action taken by Springfield. Keith Martin, City Attorney, stated that this could be passed based upon what Springfield does next Monday, or held over until next Wednesday after Springfieldls actions are known. Ms. Smith noted that the $5 charge would generate needed income. Mr. Lieuallen noted that originally he had supported the staff recommendation but feels this is not the proper way to create a capital reserve fund. The moneys could also be used for maintenance operations and the staffing level is unknown. He feels it is appropriate for the council to take the same action the Springfield council is considering. They should deal with the capital construction problems in a more direct manner rather than to create such a small fund in this manner. Ms. Smith stated the council still must approve the commissionls budget. Mr. Pye stated that it is correct that the commission cannot spend money without budget approval by all three jurisdic- tions. If the money is set aside for capital projects, that is what it must be used for. There is control. Mr. Lieuallen asked if that control and the limitation are within the ordinance. Mr. Martin responded that that is not necessary as the commission must do that as part of their contractual agree- ment. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the capital reserve fund were to be .included in e the charges, what could or could not be done with those funds. Mr. Henry noted that it would be listed as capital outlay in the budget. Mr. Lieuallen said there seemed to be a question about it previously as to how it could be used. Mr. Pye stated that according to the Attorney General, it would be subject to audit law but not budget law and they would have to request approval from the council for a different usage. Mr. Martin stated that the effect of the basic agreement says that to amend the budget the councils must approve it. Mr. Delay asked, in regard to the $4.25 single-family charge, why there is a lower rate for multi-family dwellings and if these are load-based figures. Mr. Pye responded that they are 10ad-based--6,000 gallons per month for a single family dwelling and 5,000 gallons a month for a multi-family dwelling. Mayor Keller stated that $.75 per month might be a painless way to get some additional financing in the years ahead, especially since it is known how this money would be used. He would hope that Springfield would think that that would be good, too. No action could be taken today and the council could respond to Springfieldls action. Mr. Delay requested that staff let the Springfield council be aware of the council IS position. Consensus was to take no action on the item and hold it over until November 5. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 29, 1980 Page 7