Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

update was the result ora settlement agreement among the Home Builders Association of Lane County, the MWMC, and the two cities. The settlement agreement directed the use ora Citizen's Advisory Committee, which included a representative of the Home Builders Association and which approved the SDC methodology adopted by the MWMC. The settlement agreement also established the timeline for completion of the work effort on the SDC methodology and its implementation - July 1, 2004. This was agreed to by the Home Builders Association. The extensive processes employed for public outreach and involvement in the develop_ ment of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and SDC methodology have already been documented in a memo to the Council in the AIS for the ratification of the MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program for FY05, and will be attached to the AIS for the June 28, 2004, Council meeting for concurrence on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List. In addition, please see responses to written materials submitted by Ms. Cuellar. Mike Hudson, 2760 Chuckanut Street, spoke as the City administrator for Coburg. He echoed the comments of Ms. Volta, and reiterated the desire of Coburg to be a part of a new facility. He suggested that Coburg could hold back its flow during peak hours if necessary. He said it was ecologically and economically appropriate for a partnership, and that Coburg had no interest in "punching a hole" in the urban growth boundary (UGB). He noted the Town of Turner had successfully formed a regional wastewater district with the City of Salem. RESPONSE: Please see responses to Mayor Torrey's questions on this subject. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, Chamber of Commerce, asserted that the MWMC Facility Plan and 20-Year Project List were very complex and technical. He said, post a review of the plan, the Chamber was uncertain whether the plan was too much, too little, or too soon. As such, the Chamber did not support or oppose the project list, but was not indifferent to it as the $144 million price tag was the type of infrastructure expense that warranted the attention of the Chamber and of the public. He listed questions that could illustrate items needing explanation before the public, as follows: · How often does the region currently fail to meet 100 percent peak wet weather flow treatment and would any of those occurrences have required a capacity expansion anywhere near the magnitude of the 102 million gallons per day called for by the Facilities Plan? · Is DEQ requiring the MWMC to build to the worst case scenario that may never occur and, if so, have those assumptions been challenged? · In terms of capacity size and system performance relative to population and total numbcrof uaers~ does the MWMC plan exceed, do le~ than, or be on par with what other communities were having to do? Hc rclatcd the Chambcr~s rcqucst that thc council gct as much information as it needed to make an informed decision, given that the plan represented a substantial investment. RESPONSE.. M-WMC provided a briefing to the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee on April 2, 2004, at their request. The questions noted by Mr. Connolly and others were posed as part of that meeting, and responses were provided to the Chamber in response to all of their questions. (Please see M-WMC Wastewater Facilities Plan and System Development Charge Update- Response to April 2, 2004, Questions from Eugene Chamber of Commerce.) MWMC representatives met later with Mr. Connolly and other Eugene Chamber of Commerce representatives and with the Executive Director of the Lane Metro Partnership to address any questions/concerns that remained MWMC representatives also provided information directing the Chamber to specififc sections of the Facilities Plan that addressed their questions. That meeting enable the Chamber of Commerce to get additional information and clarifications as needed Information on the frequency of overflows and the State's standards in relation to peak wet weather controls is provided in a memo submitted to the Lane County Board of Commissioners, (Peak Wastewater Flows, Response to the Public Hearing on the Regional Wastewater Facilities Plan, June 11, 2004) a copy of which is attached to the AIS for the June 28, 2004, Council meeting. DEQ responses to inquiries regarding the state standards and planning requirements for facilities plans have also been provided to the City Council. Craig Costello, 481 Ventura Street, expressed great respect for the MWMC Facilities Plan and hope that Coburg could be a partner in it.