New Search
Special District White Paper <br /> board of directors with different purposes, visions and philosophies, and is accountable to differing <br /> constituencies. <br /> If several different services need funding, a multiple - purpose county service district may be a better <br /> approach than several single - purpose districts. The full range of services to be provided must be <br /> identified and agreed upon prior to establishment of the district's permanent property tax rate limit, <br /> because the limit cannot be changed later. This may be a real disadvantage to attempting a <br /> multiple - purpose district, as it may be difficult to accurately project revenue needed for several <br /> purposes. Formation may be more difficult because the proposal will be more complex than a <br /> single - purpose district formation. <br /> Another atypical special district is a county road district within a city. The city council has control of <br /> budgeting and expenditure of the district revenue of a county road district, while the county board <br /> has control over levying the taxes and collecting the revenue. This division of responsibility could <br /> lead to difficulties between city and county if not carefully approached. <br /> County service districts and county road districts serving urban areas present special concerns <br /> because of the district - governing role of the county board of commissioners. While a county board <br /> is elected to represent the entire county, a district may serve only a small area of the county, so the <br /> principal of proportional representation and resulting accountability for district activities cannot be <br /> accomplished. Care would have to be exercised by the county board in its role as district governing <br /> board to address the need for adequate urban -level services. If a county board is more generally <br /> focused on rural service a district organized to provide urban services might not receive an <br /> adequate share of the county board's attention and energy, or the board's goals may not be <br /> consistent with the needs of the metropolitan area. This might be addressed by the use of an <br /> intergovernmental commission with representation by local urban jurisdictions, working in <br /> partnership with the county board on district- related matters or providing services directly, under an <br /> intergovernmental agreement with the district. <br /> The Regional Metropolitan Wastewater Model <br /> In order to implement the regional wastewater system, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management <br /> Commission was formed in 1977. An intergovernmental agreement between Eugene, Springfield, <br /> and Lane County established the MWMC and granted implementation powers and duties to it. The <br /> agreement provided that MWMC would finance and operate regional sewerage facilities (i.e., the <br /> regional treatment plant and wastewater lines 24- inches and larger) consistent with the agreement. <br /> In 1978, the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District (MWSD) was formed primarily <br /> to issue bonds and provide the funding for certain aspects of the regional treatment and wastewater <br /> systems. GO bonds were issued and are being repaid from a property tax levy. As mentioned, the <br /> MWSD has no permanent property tax rate limit and levies no operating taxes. As a county service <br /> district, the Lane County Board of Commissioners is the governing body of the District. The MWMC <br /> agreement obligates Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County to provide wastewater service within <br /> the metropolitan area. The intergovernmental agreement allows MWMC to fulfill the county's <br /> responsibilities for the administrative, operational, and maintenance expenses related to the <br /> regional sewerage facilities. <br /> Nig) <br /> Special Districts Paper - Final 11- 8- 01.doc Page 18 of 41 <br /> City Council Agenda page 42 <br />