Item 2A - Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

flipchart, he discussed Fee Structure Development, Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis, Improvement Cost Basis, and Methodology. Ms. Bettman solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly believed in the need for SDCs. He opined that the increase did not seem out of line given the magnitude of capital improvements that were required, but having read the methodology, he found it difficult to decipher. He asked how it could be made more comprehensible. He wondered if there were other jurisdictions whose wastewater SDCs looked like this. Mr. McVey said the methodology was complex primarily because different elements of capacity in the system were being considered. He thought it would be difficult to accomplish what was needed with a simple methodology, but a more complex methodology, though more difficult to fathom, provided more equity. Mr. McVey asked Debbie Galardi, a consultant in the development of the methodology, to speak to the topic. Ms. Galardi agreed the methodology was complex, but noted that other cities had similar levels of complexity. She cited the City of Albany, which had SDCs that considered flow valves. She averred it was complicated, in part, to provide more equity. Mr. Kelly requested more material on the methodology prior to the public hearing as he would not be able to vote on something he did not completely understand. He felt the work should be readily comprehensible for the people who would be charged the SDCs. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Smith stated that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System (NPDES) permit had to be renewed quinquennially and would next expire in 2007. Mr. Pap6 thought additional requirements could be placed on the system due to a need for greater capacity and wondered if the SDC methodology was designed with this in mind. Mr. Noeson replied that, to the best ability of the MWMC, in developing the facilities plan, the regulatory assessment had been projected through the 20-year study period to anticipate as much as possible what the regulatory requirements could be. Mr. Pap6 asked if it was thought that the regulations could become more stringent. Mr. Noeson did not foresee this happening. Ms. Bettman asked, and Mr. McVey affirmed, that it was assumed that the mass limits would stay the same. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that slower population growth than projected could cause a shortfall in available funds from SDCs and would affect the project list. She though the numbers for installation of water infrastructure projected by EWEB were lower and possibly more realistic. Ms. Noeson replied that at the same time less population growth brought in less in SDC revenues, it would create less need for expanded capacity and would require less investment, so the absolute accuracy of the population projections was not of great concern. Ms. Bettman asked staff to provide a more in-depth look at how the increase would affect SDCs for commercial customers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 4 Work Session