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

Home Browse Search

indicated it was his goal to have a decision by the end of June 2005. Mr. Kelly said nothing in the budget or capital budget was unexpected to him. He asked if either contained any deviation from the plan the council reviewed in 2004. Ms. Smith said no. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible, given the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, that the SDC failed to provide full-cost recovery at some point in the 20-year plan. Ms. Smith said the Facilities Plan had scheduled updates every five years, and she anticipated that the projections would be adjusted accordingly. Ms. Bettman asked if anything in the IGA held the MWMC to the standard of full cost recovery. Ms Smith said the IGA laid out financing criteria. Those criteria have become the established principles in the financing plan, and they spoke to the need for full-cost recovery. Ms. Bettman asked what the SDC rate increase for residential development would be. Mr. Jewett indicated the regional rate went from about $500 to $945 for a single-family residence. Mayor Piercy called for a third round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman referred to the reimbursement charge in Table 6 of the SDC methodology, and said the total reserve capacity was $62 million. That was capacity in the existing system that could be used to serve new development. She asked if the SDCs were set at a level that allowed the MWMC to recover the cost of projected capacity as well as the reimbursement component. Ms. Smith said everyone who paid an SDC paid an improvement fee and reimbursement fee component that allowed those costs to be covered. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to ratify the fiscal year 2005-2006 MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Pap~ offered as a hypothetical situation that Eugene had a better stormwater system than Springfield, and asked if staff could quantify the increased load that Springfield put on the system through failure to address infiltration and inflow (I&I). Ms. Smith said that during the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, staff built a model of the entire system and determined the most cost-effective I&I rehabilitation work and improvements needed to the plant to make the overall system the most cost-effective. As a result of the plan, the two cities had targeted different basins and targeted budget amounts based on system condition. A Eugene-Springfield staff team met quarterly to track how well that effort was going. Mr. Ruffler added that the plant monitors flows coming in from the different parts of the system, and it was more likely that there was a higher percentage of I&I coming from the Eugene than from Springfield. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 2005 Page 6 Work Session