Admin Order 58-96-06-F-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-06-F-1 of the City Manager Pro Tern of the City of Eugene AMENDING METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CREDITS, AND REPEALING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER #58-95-06-F, AND ANY OTHER ORDER IN CONFLICT The City Manager Pro Tem of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. Sections 2.020 and 7.705 of the Eugene, Code, 1971 authorize the City Manager of the City of Eugene to determine and set fees and charges to be imposed by the City for services, goods, use of municipal property, and licenses and permits, and specifically systems development charges. Section 7.710 of the Eugene Code, 1971 further authorizes the City Manager to adopt and/or amend by administrative order, the methodologies used for establishing the systems development charges, and provides this may be effected concurrent with the establishment or revision of a systems development charge. B. In accordance with the procedures set forth therein, on May 09, 1996 I issued Administrative Order No. 58-96-06 and notified the Mayor and City Councilors that I intended to: (1) amend the City of Eugene SDC Methodology to allow the adjustment of SDC charges and credits after development occurs, to establish a systems development charge methodology classification of "large Volume User" for commercial and industrial development discharging more than 100,000 gallons per day; and (2) amend the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Equalization Fees and Credits thereto, as calculated by MWMC, all as set forth in the Notice attached as Exhibit A thereto and incorporated therein by reference, including the attachments thereto; and to repeal any Administrative Orders in conflict, including Administrative Order Number #58-95-06-F. C. The current City of Eugene Systems Development Charges (SDCs) for each system, were set forth in Table #1 of Exhibit A, to the Notice, and reflected a 2.15% increase based on the City Engineer's review of the National Construction Cost Index, published by the Engineering News Record for the preceding twelve months. These are automatically adjusted each year pursuant to Section 2.3 of the February, 1993 SDC Methodology and were included therein for ease of reference only, and therefore have not been replicated in Exhibit A hereto. D. The Notice was published on May 9, 1996 in the Register Guard, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, p'osted in four public places, and was made available for inspection by interested persons during normal business hours (8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays), as more fully set forth in the notice. In addition thereto, a public verbal comment session was held on June 19th from 5:30 p.m. to 6:07 p.m. The Notice provided that written comments could be submitted thereon for a period of 45 days from the date of posting and publication, and that consideration would be given to verbal comments at the June 19th session. Numerous comments were received, to which I make the following findings: Comments on MWMC SDC Fees and Credits: One comment asserted that the MWMC SDC fees were too high, while other comments objected to the proposed rates on the basis that they were too low to provide for a full cost recovery, and should be established in an amount that would recover the true costs. Administrative Order No. 58-96-06-F-1 Page 1 of 2