CC Minutes - 04/11/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling referred to Section 16 in the IGA related to reconsideration of charges or rates, and asked how user rates and systems development charges (SDCs) were established, and what mechanism was in place for someone to appeal the final decision of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett indicated that both cities had mechanisms in place that allowed residents to challenge their respective SDCs and fees. If the MWMC rates in general were being challenged, citizens could appear before the MWMC and make comments to seek changes. They could also appear before any of the governing bodies and request them to question the actions of the MWMC. Mr. Jewett said the MWMC has processes in place allowing residents to lodge complaints or express concerns. Mr. Poling was concerned about the fees and SDCs established to cover the bond covenants and additional money needed to maintain the bonding. He asked how that was established and what type of mechanism was in place to appeal that decision. Mr. Jewett said the process for establishing user rates and SDCs would remain unchanged. The MWMC would make recommendations to the governing bodies, which would adopt them by ordinance or City Manager action. He clarified that the MWMC did not impose either an SDC or a user rate on individual users. MWMC will recommend rates in the future to the city councils, just as it does know. The two cities would then go through their normal rate-setting process. Also in response to Mr. Poling's question, Mr. Klein said he believed that someone could challenge the fees in Circuit Court through a writ of review. Mr. Jewett said if there was no change in the SDC methodology but an action was taken that increased the SDC rate, the State SDC statute enabling the MWMC to establish the rate provided a mechanism for review. If there was a change to the methodology, the commission would make that recommendation to the governing bodies and there was a process in place to be followed. Mr. Poling thought it important to move forward with the rate-setting process to ensure the two communities had a system in place to handle the wastewater the area produced and to keep the local rivers clean. Referring to page 10 of the Agenda Item Summary, Mr. Pap6 asked staff to clarify what a ;;minor" revision to the Facilities Plan entailed. Ms. Smith said the IGA provided for five-year updates, and any changes to the Facilities Plan that would drive a five percent user rate increase constituted a minor revision. It was not five percent of the overall cost of the Facilities Plan. The revision was user-rate sensitive. Mr. Pap6 asked if that could be quantified by numbers. Ms. Smith said staff had not done any research on that text, which was included at the request of Mr. Van Vactor as a means to gain greater accountability to the governing bodies. She added that the governing bodies would review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis, and any changes to the Facilities Plan would be reflected in the CIP. Mr. Pap6 sought an aggregate amount for any given year. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the element of the IGA related to the limited recourse of local government in regard to recommended rates or charges. He was concerned about the MWMC as the final arbiter of what was necessary to maintain bond ratings and access capital markets. He asked if there had been discussion of forming an independent body to make that determination. Ms. Smith clarified that the text in question was specifically requested for inclusion by the bond counsels. The finance staffs of Eugene and Springfield discussed the issue in terms of the target objectives for bond ratings and interest payments. Both cities have a stated policy of maintaining an ;;A" rating. Ms. Smith said it was implied that the MWMC MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 2005 Page 6 Work Session