Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Preparation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List included an extensive evaluation of alternatives for meeting the needs of the regional wastewater system over the next twenty years. A key element of the evaluation was to achieve the least cost approach by utilizing all existing facilities where possible, improving or upgrading them where needed, to meet future needs. An evaluation of the seasonal industrial waste site, including the lagoon was conducted as part of this evaluation. Continued use of the site is identified as an integral part of MWMC's long-term beneficial re-use (of biosolids and reclaimed water) program. Regarding Mr. Biggs' comments about the use of the gravel pits, there have been some very preliminary evaluations and discussions regarding the use of gravel~aggregate sites for the purpose of temperature mitigation. These options will be further considered and compared with available water reuse opportunities, as part of the reclaimed water use projects listed in the 20-Year Project List. The final set of viable alternatives considered along with the comprehensive matrix of criteria used to rate and prioritize the alternatives, is provided in Chapter 6 of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. Joshua Skov, 2089 Garfield Street, said he was a member of the SDC committee, a citizen of Eugene, and a business owner. He noted his comments would address both items subject to public hearings. He had three points. First, he stated that the proposed facility would protects the quality of life in that it addressed continued population growth. A close look at our population growth, energy needs, agricultural development, land use, and the potential impacts of global climate change leads to a simple conclusion: we can no longer take water for granted. Second, he underscored that the MWMC had met its charge to its constituents with responsive, thorough, and transparent public process. It had done "excellent work" in engaging a number of constituencies, and that if some views had not prevailed it was not due to lack of representation. Third, the SDCs generated by the methodology and Facilities Plan are low by any reasonable standard or benchmark. He alleged every comparable community in Oregon had higher SDCs. He attributed the lack of higher SDCs to the past good work of the MWMC. He felt the current SDCs to be abnormally low and, as such, they provided poor context for comparison to the proposed changes to the SDC methodology. He supported "getting on with the improvements." Judy Volta, 91070 South Willamette Street, Mayor of Coburg, spoke in support of the MWMC 20-Year Project List. She noted that Coburg had a population of 2,000, but employed 3,500. She related that it was one of the last cities of its size in the State that did not have its own wastewater system. Industries ran on septic systems. She said Coburg had recently been declared a regional groundwater management area due to nitrate contamination. She shared that Coburg had gone to Washington, D.C. with the United Front lobbying trip and was asked if it was working as a region to solve the problem. She stated that, of necessity, Coburg was working on a stand-alone wastewater facility. She conveyed the desire of the Town of Coburg to work with the region to resolve wastewater issues. She said assurance had been received from the Governor's Economic Revitalization Team that they would look for funding for a feasibility study to look into the possibilities and whether it would be a good idea for Coburg be a part of the MWMC. She asked the council to allow this discussion to take place. She emphasized that Coburg was willing to pay its way and was projected to only raise the amount of effluent by one percent. RESPONSE: Please see responses to Mayor Torrey's questions on this subject. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association, submitted testimony in writing. She alleged the Facility Plan to be tied too closely to SDCs. She predicted the addition of Coburg would affect the project list and, as such, thought a decision should be deferred until it was known whether Coburg would join. She thought the SDC issue could be settled without the Facility Plan. She asserted the public had not adequately weighed in on the plan and urged the City Council to call for more public examina- tion of it. She asserted that the community was only just getting involved. RESPONSE: The development of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan was undertaken independently and prior to the update of the SDC methodology, to address the needs identified by the Commission. However, to ensure consistency with statutory requirements, the development of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, the 20-Year Project List, and SDC Methodology has been carefully coordinated The timing of the SDC methodology