My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 06/13/05 Mtg
>
Item 2A: Approval of Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:30:40 PM
Creation date
6/9/2005 11:36:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/13/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Kelly said nothing in the budget or capital budget was unexpected to him. He asked if either <br />contained any deviation from the plan the council reviewed in 2004. Ms. Smith said no. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible, given the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Eugene, <br />Springfield, and Lane County, that the SDC failed to provide full-cost recovery at some point in the 20- <br />year plan. Ms. Smith said the Facilities Plan had scheduled updates every five years, and she anticipated <br />that the projections would be adjusted accordingly. Ms. Bettman asked if anything in the IGA held the <br />MWMC to the standard of full cost recovery. Ms Smith said the IGA laid out financing criteria. Those <br />criteria have become the established principles in the financing plan, and they spoke to the need for full- <br />cost recovery. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what the SDC rate increase for residential development would be. Mr. Jewett <br />indicated the regional rate went from about $500 to $945 for a single-family residence. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a third round of comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman referred to the reimbursement charge in Table 6 of the SDC methodology, and said the total <br />reserve capacity was $62 million. That was capacity in the existing system that could be used to serve <br />new development. She asked if the SDCs were set at a level that allowed the MWMC to recover the cost <br />of projected capacity as well as the reimbursement component. Ms. Smith said everyone who paid an <br />SDC paid an improvement fee and reimbursement fee component that allowed those costs to be covered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to ratify the fiscal year 2005-2006 MWMC <br /> Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvement Program. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ offered as a hypothetical situation that Eugene had a better stormwater system than Springfield, <br />and asked if staff could quantify the increased load that Springfield put on the system through failure to <br />address infiltration and inflow (I&I). Ms. Smith said that during the development of the Wet Weather <br />Flow Management Plan, staff built a model of the entire system and determined the most cost-effective <br />I&I rehabilitation work and improvements needed to the plant to make the overall system the most cost- <br />effective. As a result of the plan, the two cities had targeted different basins and targeted budget amounts <br />based on system condition. A Eugene-Springfield staff team met quarterly to track how well that effort <br />was going. Mr. Ruffler added that the plant monitors flows coming in from the different parts of the <br />system, and it was more likely that there was a higher percentage of I&I coming from the Eugene than <br />from Springfield. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.