Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Bettman expressed reluctance to support the budget. She asserted that it included approval of lawyer’s fees for the MWMC to pursue a claim against the DEQ. She alleged that the MWMC was lobbying for a lesser threshold of environmental quality. Councilor Bettman asked if the City of Eugene’s contribution of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees to the wastewater division was proportional to the City’s population. Ms. Smith replied that it was not proportionate; it was reflective of the services agreements between the cities of Eugene and Springfield and the MWMC. She stated that Eugene and Springfield work together to view and develop proposals for what activities were necessary for each of those functions. Councilor Clark asked if it would be fair to say that if the DEQ was successful in its action that it would cost the people in the City of Eugene tens of millions of dollars to build a cooling tower that could be scientifically argued to be unnecessary. Ms. Smith said she could not answer this directly. She stated that the MWMC had in its CIP a plant to address the TMDL. She explained that the MWMC was not trying to get out of implementing environmental improvements to address the temperature concern. She related that the MWMC had in its plans a $25 million reclaimed water program to remove discharge from the river itself. She declared that given the current wasteload allocation, the term for the amount of regulatory constraint that the MWMC had according to the rule the DEQ issued, the MWMC was looking at between $35 million to $50 million in additional capital expense that the MWMC would meet in a variety of ways. She stressed that the MWMC was moving forward with TMDL measures and reiterated that it was not its intent to avoid regulation to meet temperature constraints. Councilor Clark asked how Ms. Smith would characterize the MWMC’s response to the DEQ’s require- ments. Ms. Smith replied that the MWMC as a whole had taken a close look at how the rule was issued, how it impacted the MWMC, and how the specific regulation was derived. She stated that the MWMC took “very strong issue” with how the MWMC was treated in that TMDL. She said the issues were outlined in the complaint, which was public, and the City Attorney could supply additional information to the council should the councilors request it. Councilor Taylor asked if the council could approve the budget and exclude the portion of the budget that would pay for the lawsuit. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the council could not stop the lawsuit. He said if the council was interested in excluding a portion of the budget he would recommend postponement of the adoption of the budget in order to allow legal review of the intergovernmental agreements between the cities and the MWMC to determine exactly what those agreements require. Councilor Taylor asked if the council had no choice about whether the MWMC filed a suit against the DEQ. Mr. Klein replied that the MWMC was a separate legal entity and had the authority to file lawsuits. Councilor Taylor moved to table the motion until further information was available to the council. The motion died for lack of a second. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, City Manager Taylor stated that the work session Ms. Smith referred to was scheduled for June 25. Ms. Smith confirmed that final adoption of the budget for the MWMC was scheduled for June 23, in response to Councilor Bettman’s query. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting