CCMInutes - 06/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

served a different function than the Facilities Plan. The budget authorized the expenditure of funds; if the Facilities Plan was not adopted, he questioned whether it made sense to proceed with adopting the first year of the CIP. MWMC General Manager Susie Smith indicated the CIP for fiscal year 2005 was an integrated mix of projects, both those underway and those in the planning stages. If the CIP was not funded, projects underway would come to a stop, and MWMC staff would come to work on July 1 unable to pay bills or do any work. She said the MWMC, Lane Board of County Commissioners, and the Springfield City Council had all adopted the same budget, and Eugene's failure to do so would trigger a dispute resolution process between the various parties. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the MWMC had not done a good job in regard to outreach about the extensive project list included in the CIP, and he wanted to see more outreach. He said he did not know if the CIP was ~good, bad, or indifferent" but wanted outside verification of its value by an independent evaluator. He was disappointed the plan had come to the council in %uch a rush." Mr. Kelly indicated support for the motion. While he acknowledged Mr. Papa's concerns, he pointed out the City was the fourth party to take action on the budget. He was comforted by the fact that Lane County and Springfield had already examined and approved the budget prior to Eugene taking action. With regard to the concerns expressed by Mr. Pap~ about the 20-year plan, Mr. Kelly suggested the council approve the first year of projects to allow MWMC to proceed now, with the understanding it could object to the list later. He thought it unlikely the MWMC would embark on any projects while the list was in dispute resolution. Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Smith for her response to questions. He supported the motion but said that should not be interpreted as support for the Facilities Plan. While he agreed with Mr. Kelly that Eugene was only one of several jurisdictions approving the budget, he had to be able to tell his constituents that every effort had been made to ensure the double-digit rate increase represented the most cost-effective and efficient 20- year CIP. He wanted them to be well-informed, but doubted that was the case given the lack of outreach. Ms. Bettman also supported the motion. She had some problems with the proposed rate increase because much of the increase contributed to offsetting the cost of new development to support new growth. She thought the financing mechanism very flawed. However, she believed the systems development charge methodology was better than what existed now, which was a bigger subsidy from ratepayers for new development. Ms. Bettman said she was not able to judge what facilities were the most needed, and was not willing to second-guess the commission in that regard. Mr. Pap~ asked Mr. Poling, the City's representative to the MWMC, to speak to the issue. Mr. Poling concurred with the remarks and Ms. Smith and Mr. Kelly. He said the budget before the council was needed to fund ongoing projects and it did not authorize any new projects past the first year of the CIP. Mr. Pap~ asked if the CIP included projects that would be ongoing into the next fiscal year. Ms. Smith said yes. The amount of funding allowed the commission to provide for contractual obligations for work that would span multiple years. Much of the construction work would happen in the following fiscal year. She did not know the precise budget number for those projects as staff was still in the process of developing MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 3 Work Session