Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Zelenka said he had been impressed by the grants. He asked when the deadline was for the next <br />round of applications. Ms. Bridges replied that final applications were due February 22, 2008, with the <br />deadline for the pre-review set at December 3, 2007. She stated that applications for the next round would <br />be available in July. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka asked that the Budget Committee be provided the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) <br />attachment for the Neighborhood Matching Grant program. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz initiated discussion of Item E Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management <br />Commission FY08 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if all of the costs that could be funded by Systems Development Charges (SDCs) <br />were being funded by SDCs. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor asked Wastewater Division Manager Dave Breitenstein to the podium. Mr. <br />Breitenstein invited Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) General Manager Susie <br />Smith to respond to the question. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith explained that the MWMC embarked on $15 million in revenue bond financing for the Capital <br />Improvement Program (CIP). She said the debt service payments had been scheduled out of SDCs and user <br />rates in accordance with eligibility of those funds. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman interjected that she had read all of this. She repeated her question. Ms. Smith replied <br />that for the present year, all of the costs that qualified for SDCs were funded from SDCs. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if SDCs were recovering the full cost of capital construction. Ms. Smith replied <br />that they were not. Councilor Bettman concluded that the ratepayers would have to make up the difference. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked what the projected outcome was on the SDC lawsuit filed in 2004. Ms. Smith <br />responded that the lawsuit had been recently resolved in the Oregon State Court of Appeals and the decision <br />had affirmed the MWMC and its two partner cities approval of the SDC methodology. She believed the <br />time had expired for the Lane County Home Builders Association to appeal that decision to the Supreme <br />Court. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Smith affirmed that the MWMC filed a complaint <br />against the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding the establishment of the Total Maximum <br />Daily Load (TMDL) rule for temperature and the manner it had been established. She believed that Eugene <br />staff would be bringing a work session to the City Council to review the TMDL with the council. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked what the point would be to hold a work session given that adoption of the budget <br />would allegedly result in a $75,000 increase in attorney fees to litigate with the DEQ. Ms. Smith responded <br />that $75,000 was the level set for the generalized attorney’s fees. She related that the level for MWMC <br />litigation expenses for the TMDL and for the suit brought against the MWMC by Oregon River Watch was <br />set at $200,000. She could not give an estimate at this time of what it would cost to resolve the matter with <br />the DEQ. She recommended that Councilor Bettman refer further questions to the legal counsel for the <br />MWMC. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />