CC Minutes - 05/09/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

possible to separate the two actions. Ms. Bettman referred to page 23 of the operating budget and suggested that, due to a decrease in residential water use, the MWMC revenues also dropped, leading to the need for the rate increase. She asked why, since the rates were intended to cover usage and flow, they did not go down when water use went down. Mr. Ruffler indicated there was no correlation between less water usage and rates or linear relationship in terms ofwastewater treatment. Water is a carriage medium for wastewater, so while a resident may use less water they were still contributing the same strength or even higher strength of waste, causing treatment costs to remain relatively even. The portion of the plant's expenses affected by conservation was pumping costs. Ms. Smith said that people would see some savings on the local side of the bill, which was where the conveyance system was reflected. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Ruffler that the positions in Public Works were reimbursed through the MWMC. Ms. Bettman asked how much the commercial rates were increasing. Mr. Ruffler said they were going up six percent as well. Ms. Bettman said her experience on the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee led her to believe that there was considerable ~wiggle room" in determining the capacity for new growth. She maintained that in general, Eugene was in the lower third of Oregon cities in terms of recovering the costs of growth through systems development charge (SDCs). Even if the SDC was consistent with the methodology, she suggested it could correctly be stated that the community was not recovering the costs of growth because staff could not develop a definitive allocation for SDCs. Ms. Smith said that the SDC methodology the MWMC forwarded to the two councils followed the new statutes effective in 2003. Those statutes laid out a procedure that required the commission to develop a project list. Every project on the list must be allocated across all the process components and each had an allocation to growth. A great deal of analysis of individual projects went in to determining what was needed for capacity for new growth. Ms. Smith said the MWMC secured the best consultants it could to evaluate the projects for the specific new capacity requirements for growth. There was no judgment call on the part of the commission to either lower the SDC or avoid full cost recovery. The analysis done was a technically objective analysis. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about a proposed staffing shift, Mr. Ruffler said Eugene provided both regional and local services and the cost of regional services were paid by the MWMC. Each year staff looked back at the allocation of staff time and the projection for the next year, and adjusted the funding percentages accordingly. Mr. Pap~ asked if the increased work load in bio solids management could be addressed by the staffing increase proposed. Mr. Ruffler anticipated additional increases in staffing as subsequent phases were added to the bio cycle farm project. Ms. Smith said the added staff was also needed to empty and reline the lagoons on a more aggressive time line than originally foreseen. At the request of Mr. Pap~, Ms. Smith reviewed the changes to the reserves. Mr. Kelly asked if the SDC was covering the cost of growth. Ms. Smith said yes. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the status of the court case involving the MWMC Facilities Plan, Ms. Smith said that the case was going to oral argument on May 16. Mr. Jewett said the judge MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 5 Work Session