New Search
Special District White Paper — Draft for Internal Review <br /> If several different services need funding, a multiple - purpose county service district may be a <br /> better approach than several single - purpose districts. The full range of services to be provided <br /> must be identified and agreed upon prior to establishment of the district's permanent property <br /> tax rate limit, because the limit cannot be changed later. This may be a real disadvantage to <br /> attempting a multiple - purpose district, as it may be difficult to accurately project revenue needed <br /> for several purposes. Formation may be more difficult because the proposal will be more <br /> complex than a single - purpose district formation. <br /> Multiple - purpose county service districts present special concerns because of the district - <br /> governing role of the County Board of Commissioners. While the County Board is elected to <br /> represent the entire county, the CSD may serve only a small area of the county, so the principal <br /> 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 <br /> governing board to address the need for adequate urban -level services. If the county board is <br /> more generally focused on rural service delivery, a CSD organized to provide urban -level <br /> functions within a metropolitan region might divert the county board's attention and energy away <br /> from its primary interest, and the district may end up under - served. <br /> Another atypical special district\is a county road ,district within a city. The city Council has control <br /> of budgeting and exp ndifure of the district tevenue of a county road while the county <br /> board has control ove levyin s� <br /> g thetaxeand colieeting the revenue. This division of <br /> responsibility could le d to difficult issues betweehi City and county if nqt carefully approached. <br /> The most compelling actor in choosing a single purpose Vs. a multiples purpose district type is <br /> likely to be the overall jpolitical of the pr'oposal, \and whether an existing district rather <br /> than a new district can provide the ' ` <br /> The Regional Metropolitan Wastewater Model <br /> In order to implement the regional wastewater system, the Metropolitan Wastewater <br /> Management Commission was formed in 1977. An intergovernmental agreement between <br /> Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County established the MWMC and granted implementation <br /> powers and duties to it. The agreement provided that MWMC would finance and operate <br /> regional sewerage facilities (i.e., the regional treatment plant and wastewater lines 24- inches <br /> and larger) consistent with the agreement. <br /> In 1978, one year after the MWMC was formed; the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater <br /> Service District (MWSD) was formed primarily to issue bonds and provide the funding for certain <br /> aspects of the regional treatment and wastewater systems. GO bonds were issued and are <br /> being repaid from a property tax levy. As mentioned, the MWSD has no permanent property tax <br /> rate limit and levies no operating taxes. As a county service district, the Lane County Board of <br /> Commissioners is the governing body of the District. The MWMC agreement obligates Eugene, <br /> Springfield, and Lane County to provide wastewater service within the metropolitan area. The <br /> intergovernmental agreement allows MWMC to fulfill the county's responsibilities for the <br /> administrative, operational, and maintenance expenses related to the regional sewerage <br /> facilities. <br /> The intergovernmental relationship between a county service district and an intergovernmental <br /> body has worked well in the metropolitan area. A needed service was identified, the local <br /> Draft #5 Page 18 10/24/01 <br />