CCMinutes - 05/24/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, City Manager Dennis Taylor said the MWMC budget before the council was only for FY04-05. Councilor Pap6 asked how much of the projected $108 million was included in the CIP for FY04-05. Speaking on behalf of the MWMC, Susie Smith responded that the CIP for the budget before the council was projected to cost $18 million and consisted of both new projects and those carried over from the previous year. Councilor Pap6 expressed concern regarding the timing of the public hearing on the CIP and budget. Ms. Smith said the MWMC met every third Thursday of the month at 7:30 a.m. She explained that the commission tried to have public hearings at different times in the day and had not experienced an increase in public participation. She added that the MWMC held two public hearings on the proposed CIP and budget and had noticed them as per public meeting law. She noted that the MWMC had an interested parties list as well, consisting of several hundred people. Councilor Pap6 asked if there was a website. Ms. Smith replied that there was, but it had not been updated recently, as the person who did so was no longer working for them. Ms. Smith stated, in response to a question from Councilor Poling, that the Lane County Board of Commissioners reviewed the facilities plan only, but the City of Springfield reviewed both the CIP and the systems development charges (SDCs). Springfield and Lane County were scheduled to review the budget in June. Councilor Poling noted that the planning commissions for the jurisdictions were slated to discuss this and asked what the purpose for this was. Ms. Smith clarified that the planning commissions were reviewing proposed amendments to the MetroPlan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan to update the information pertaining to wastewater facilities. She said up to this point, wastewater facilities were defined as pipes 24 inches and larger and pump stations. Upon review of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the administrative years, it had been determined that facilities such as the treatment plant, the bio-cycle farm, and the bio-solids facility should be included. Councilor Poling asked how much of the $18 million in the CIP was being discussed by planning commis- sions. Ms. Smith replied that the budget was not being discussed. Councilor Poling asked if the Board of Commissioners would provide opportunities for public comment. Ms. Smith responded that the board had not chosen to provide such an opportunity in the past. Councilor Kelly commented that he was prepared to support the motion because it only took into considera- tion the one-year plan and not the 20-year project list. He noted that the City of Springfield had voted unanimously to approve the 24-percent increase in user fees to help fund the CIP. Councilor Meisner said he could neither support nor oppose the motion because he felt the public had not had adequate opportunity to choose to be involved as the noticing was too obtuse. Councilor Bettman supported the motion. She indicated she had a problem with the draft budget for the 20- year plan; however, in that the resources from SDCs amounted to $850,000 in FY03-04 and $1 million in FY04-05, it did not adequately cover the $108 million projected cost of the CIP.