Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY The June 13, 2004, HBALC letter attempts to discredit the SDC Methodology by stating that capacity that has been identified to serve growth in Table C-1 of the Methodology is not used in the allocation of projects to support the SDC rate calculation. However, the capacity needs of growth are directly used in the SDC rate calculation, as illustrated by: · Presentation to the CAC at the February 25, 2004, meeting (see meeffng minutes) · Presentation to the CAC at the March 10, 2004, meeting (see meeting minutes) · Packet provided to the Eugene City Council June 14, 2004, Public Hearing These examples demonstrate that the capacity requirements to serve growth for each capacity parameter (as presented in Tables C-1 and C-3 of the SDC Methodology) are explicitly used in the SDC rate calculations. Headworks Expansion, Middle of Page 3 through Top of Page 6 A similar discussion was presented in the May 3, 2004, HBALC letter addressed to MWMC. CH2M HILL responded with a written point-by-point response to the May 3rd letter. This response was submitted into the public record at the May 6, 2004, MWMC meeting and pointed out many flaws in the HBALC assessment. This material has been distributed to the City Council. Additional Odorous Air Treatment, Middle of Page 6 Growth is allocated 26 percent of this project as was presented previously via: · Slides 22 through 26 of presentation given to SDC CAC on February 25, 2004 (at that time 28 percent of the project was allocated to growth; minor refinements/rounding issues have reduced that allocation to approximately 26 percent) · Page 12 of June 7, 2004, letter from Fred McVey to Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council Filtration Allocation to Project Type, Last Paragraph of Page 6 The June 14, 2004, Home Builders letter states that Filtration allocation was changed from 25/75 to 50/50 between Capacity and Performance project types, respectively. However, this is not correct. Table PL-2 from the packet submitted to both Eugene (Posted April 15, 2004) and Springfield (Posted April 15, 2004) states that the allocation is still 25/75 as was previously presented to the CAC at numerous CAC meetings. Peak Flow Allocation, Last Paragraph of Page 6 With respect to the allocation of the project list to peak flow, the June 14, 2004, Home Builders letter incorrectly states that" ... the number has dropped to $11,000,000 and much of the original cost redistributed to other components for which growth pays much more." From Table I-1 from the packet submitted to both Eugene (Posted April 15, 2004) and Springfield (Posted April 15, 2004), the amount of the $144 million project list allocated to the Peak Flow capacity parameter is $47,329,925 or approximately 33 percent of the total. Growth's share is $12,654,487 of that $47 million or just under 9 percent of the total 20- year project list costs. The costs have not been shifted from peak flow to other parameters as the June 14, 2004, Home Builder letter suggests. C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELF\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~IS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804,DOC 4