My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/11/05 WS
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2005
>
CC Minutes - 04/11/05 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:27:40 AM
Creation date
6/17/2005 4:32:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Mr. Ruffler summarized the changes to the agreement, noting they were generally related to the financial <br />provisions of the IGA and would allow the MWMC to issue revenue bonds needed to generate the revenue <br />necessary to implement the 2004 Facilities Plan. The modifications would strengthen the assurances that <br />moderate rates and fees would be established sufficient to cover long-term borrowing by MWMC. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruffler recommended approval of the agreement. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruffler noted the feedback provided by the council was incorporated into the draft IGA in that the <br />Metropolitan Policy Committee remained the dispute resolution body. A courtesy copy of the draft IGA was <br />provided to the City of Coburg. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing was scheduled for May 9, and final action was scheduled for May <br />23, 2005. The Springfield City Council held a work session on the item and would hold a public hearing <br />and possibly take action on April 18. The Lane County Finance and Audit Committee discussed the IGA <br />and had a follow-up meeting scheduled April 12 for further discussion. No action had been scheduled <br />before the Lane Board of County Commissioners. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked staff to discuss the Board of County Commissioners' position on the IGA and the County's <br />role in the IGA. Mr. Ruffler said he did not want to speculate about the board's position as the board had <br />not yet discussed the IGA. The chief executive officers of the three participating jurisdictions had discussed <br />the issue, and County Administrator Bill Van Vactor discussed his interest in pursuing some options not <br />outlined in the draft IGA. Mr. Ruffler noted that Commissioner Anna Morrison, a past member of the <br />MWMC, indicated some concerns about the IGA. In regard to the role of the County, that was outlined in <br />the IGA but it was not the same level of participation as that of the two cities. The County sets no <br />wastewater rates and collects no fees. The County was originally involved in the MWMC as the financing <br />agent and served as the entity that formed the service district that facilitated the construction of the <br />wastewater treatment plant. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor said that legal counsel of the three jurisdictions reviewed the IGA. The County would <br />have preferred the County service district be used as the funding entity. The managers and legal counsels of <br />the two cities believed the recommended approach was the best approach. Mr. Van Vactor had suggested <br />that if the three jurisdictions could not reach agreement, it might be time for the County to withdraw from <br />the agreement. That idea could be pursued, but it was important for the MWMC to get to the bond market <br />in the fall, in time for the first round of capital improvements. He hoped the County would adopt the <br />changes so the timelines could be met. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Ruffler to explain a statement in the Agenda Item Summary that said the modifications <br />included a change in the directive to facilitate timely transfer of ownership. Mr. Ruffler said the original <br />IGA referred to compensation to the cities for the regional facilities; that was because the existing plant was <br />built on the site of the preexisting Eugene, and part of the Springfield, treatment plants which were then <br />dedicated to regional purposes, and the original agreement related to compensation of the two cities for their <br />property and facilities. That issue has never been closed out, although it was probably a moot issue over <br />time. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.