CC Minutes - 10/26/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and opinions on both sides of this issue would abound. Mr. Papé asked if an outside consultant could be brought in to help the process. Mr. Corey responded that to the extent that the council’s opinion was to move ahead, staff’s recommendation would be to bring a consultant on board to do so. Mr. Papé acknowledged that the joint elected officials just approved a $145 million, 20-year plan and wondered if the addition of communities outside of the two UGBs had been considered. Mr. Ruffier responded that the plan did not consider wastewater flow from outside of the area. He said, should the request move forward, the MWMC would review the plan to evaluate how it should be altered to meet the need. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Ruffier stated that Coburg provided some projections of effluent levels and it was estimated that Coburg effluent would comprise one to three percent of overall levels at the wastewater facility. Ms. Bettman commented that it seemed that consistent determinations of what it would cost were being made even though the process had yet to be started. She asserted that systems development charges (SDCs) were “litigatable” and this and other assumptions of cost recovery that were built into the model were difficult. She predicted it would be “almost impossible” to reach full cost recovery. She averred that the council represented the City of Eugene and it needed to determine the public interests of Eugene. Ms. Bettman opined that it was premature to approve a model at this point. She recalled that the last discussion at the council resulted in approval for Coburg to conduct a study. She felt that the result of the study was an IGA to move forward with it. She disagreed that the motion presented to the council was a first step. Instead she thought it a “relentless march” in response to one jurisdiction’s request. She noted that other jurisdictions, including Veneta and Creswell, built their own wastewater facilities. She wanted the council to step back and have a broader policy decision-making process with Eugene. She averred that the request was inconsistent with growth management policies, the Metro Plan, and the facilities plan. She said millions had been spent on these plans and this project disregarded those plans by proposing that they be modified. She opined that this negated the planning processes. She did not see how “importing sewage from Coburg” would be in the best interests of City of Eugene taxpayers and ratepayers. Ms. Bettman recalled that Coburg had requested an expansion of their UGB by 60 acres for purposes of building a wastewater facility. She asked if Coburg would “get to keep” this land. Mr. Corey replied that this was not a question he was in a position to answer. He underscored that the issue before the council was not should or should not the service be extended but rather whether or not the City should develop a means for responding to the question as it comes in from Coburg and others. Ms. Ortiz observed that Coburg’s proximity to the McKenzie River presented a unique issue. She said it would be of great concern to her and others should there be an overflow into the McKenzie River. She asked if there were other communities adjacent to the McKenzie that could have this problem. Mr. Corey responded that he did not think there were other wastewater facilities near or on the McKenzie River. Ms. Ortiz asked if the 60-acre parcel Ms. Bettman referred to was publicly owned property. Coburg Mayor Volta asked Jack Detweiler, wastewater consultant for Coburg, to speak to this. Mr. Detweiler explained that approximately 45 acres had been acquired by the City of Coburg with the goal of building a treatment facility on that land. He said in order to get the land use compatibility statement required to do so it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 3 Work Session