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