My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-06/22/04JEO
>
Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:57:24 PM
Creation date
6/17/2004 8:20:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
162
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
end of the meeting. 'Commissioner Mordson also asked if funds were budgeted in.the current <br /> budget. Ms. Smith indicated there were no monies in the current fiscal year specifically bu~lgeted <br /> for these services. However, in the Regional Wastewater portion of the Finance Department's <br /> budget there is about $7,000 budgeted in Contrectual Services that will be used to start the <br /> consultant's services. In the FY 04-05 proposed budget, there is $40,000 budgeted. The services <br /> of the consultants will be to prepare for a bond issuance July 1,2005. <br /> <br /> IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSION KEELER TO APPROVE T~PRIL 22, 2004, MWMC <br /> MEETING MINUTES. TRE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMM~ER EVANS. MOTION <br /> PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. · <br /> <br /> There was no Public comment. <br /> <br /> Roxie Cue#ar., Director of Govel:nt Affairs, Jers Association of Lane County <br />(HBA), 2053 Laure St., Springfield. rough comment letter she <br />submitted on May 3rd and indicated she more ~nity to review the Facilities <br />Plan and had additional issues on the )mmer the Facilities Plan also <br />includes the list for the Systems Developm ~r percentages are allocated <br />to growth for each of the of ff improvement fees cannot be <br />used for replacement ree :he Facilities Plan. One is the <br />digestion improveme] that ~llocated to growth and yet the description in <br />the Facilities Plan at it is repl the system for the existing three digesters <br />with a pump mixing said like of that is replacement cost and <br />yet 66% of that cost is Ms. Cuellar said that the Facilities <br />Plan to accommodate 160 million gallons a day <br />(mgd) h less ca is needed for total wet weather flow--in <br />other over bL the Plan, she said the Plan states that the facilities <br /> operated so with which the existing pretreatment facility would have <br />to ht on and off Ii season is minimized. Ms. Cuellar stated that this is <br />over bu (the plant) headworks with the existing headworks as a back up <br />and to a this <br /> <br /> Continuir .r said that, regarding odor control, the Plan mentioned new 14' <br />bioscrubber vessE the implementation of the bioscrubber vessels, the existing <br />biofilters can be pha of service and the new bioscrubbers will handle the existing odor <br />control needs in additic Io the new needs. Ms. Cuellar said this is replacement again, to a certain <br />extent, and improvement fees cannot be charged to the extent that (MWMC) is simply replacing <br />existing capacity. The HBA has an issue with that. <br /> <br /> Another issue, Ms. Cuellar said, is that sometimes HBA feels not enough credit is being <br />given for performance versus capacity. She quoted an example as the gravity belt thickener, <br />which is listed as 100% capacity and yet in the description of the project driver, it states nitrification <br /> <br /> 4'54 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.