09/14/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Guenzler outlined the steps that would be taken over the next months and e years in development and operation of the facility. These included the two cities' working to find regional solutions to the problems of sludge disposal and of Agripacls discharges. Mr. Obie asked what staff and the MWMC were recommending be done to deal with Apripacls wastes. Mr. Guenzler responded that Agripac will be required to treat its wastes independently from the regional plant, but that the commission felt very strongly that Agripac must not be driven out of the area. The commis- sion was therefore recommending financing through County Service District Bonds which would provide funds that Agripac would not have to pay back. Mr. Gleason elaborated further on this and explained that he had met with both the management and board of directors of Agripac to explain the City's position. He said that Agripacls wastes would represent 37 percent of the capacity of the new plant and that they therefore cannot be left in the system. Mr. Gleason said that three contigency plans have been developed for dealing with Agripac's wastes: 1) a land disposal system; 2) an operational progam of pretreatment by means of trickling filters; and 3) other options, such as moving the plant to a site where disposal can take place more readily. Mr. Gleason reiterated that the city councils and the commission do not want to lose Agripac and will therefore work to make it both feasible and affordable for them to remain here. Mr. Obie asked if the acreages available to Eugene and to Springfield for future industrial development had been taken into consideration in determining the ratios for use of the plant. Mr. Gleason responded that the toxic waste issue is different from the volume issue. He explained that Eugene had received the larger share of volume, but-that Springfield was granted higher levels of e toxicity, as Springfield is the site of more heavy industry. Mr. Guenzler elaborated on this by explaining that each toxic element has its own limit and that the jurisdictions would have to become increasingly stringent in dealing with toxicity as the limits for specific elements are approached. He sai d that the jurisdictions can discuss potential levels of toxicity with industries seeking to locate here and can then bring the issue to the MWMC. He added that if there is a problem with a specific element, industrial pretreatment of - wastes can be required. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Guenzler for his presentation. III. DOWNTOWN RENEWAL PLAN UPDATE Mr. Gleason introduced Mr. Tharp. Mr. Tharp referred to a map of the area chosen for study by the Renewal Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) in development of a Downtown Revitalization Plan. He said that eight months ago the City Council had established the RPAC and had asked them to make a recommendation on whether the existing renewal area should be expanded and/or whether a new renewal area should be created. He explained that Lyle Stewart, a renewal consultant, had been hired to work with this committee. Mr. Tharp said that the RPAC had recommended that the Central Eugene Renewal Project not be expanded, since the original project has not yet been completed. The RP~had spent some time '", studying a possible new renewal area which would encircle the old project and had concluded by passing the plan resulting from its studies to the Eugene e Renewal Agency with no recommendation to support the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 3