Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THORP 1011 HARLOW ROAD, SUITE 300 PURDY SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477 JEWET]" & PHONE: (541)747-3354 FAX: (541) 747-3367 URNESS EoMAIL ADDRESS: WILKINSON, P.e. June 23, 2004 Ithorp@thorp-purdy.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW MARV~NO. SANDERS (1912-1977) Laurence E. Thorp JACK B. LIVELY (1923-1979) JILLE. GOLDEN (1951-1991) Susie L. Smith Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission 225 N. 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: MWMC / Systems Development Charges Our File No. 434-122 Dear Ms. Smith: The attorney for the Home Builders Association of Lane County, Andrew H. Stamp, submitted a lengthy letter dated June 14, 2004 to the Eugene Mayor and City Council urging rejection of the Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission ("MWMC") Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement List and the proposed Methodology (Methodology) for determining System Development Charges. You have asked for comments on that letter. A number of the issues raised in the letter have previously been addressed. No attempt will be made in this letter to respond to those issues. This letter will summarize the Staff's position and respond to allegations for which responses have not been previously given.~ In reviewing Mr. Stamp's letter, readers should be mindful of its failure to distinguish between the Methodology used to determine rates and the rates themselves and the unstated assumption that if the City adopts a policy with which he disagrees, the policy must be illegal. Also bear in mind that contrary to Mr. Stamp's assertion, the City did not send the Methodology "back" or suggest that MWMC "go back to the drawing board" last year. MWMC and the Homebuilders entered into an agreement to try to work out their differences. A copy of that agreement is attached. Unfortunately, it appears that the Homebuilders have not made a good faith attempt to live up to the commitments it made in the agreement. I. Introduction. Mr. Stamp's analysis proceeds from a fundamentally flawed perception both as to the state of the law and as to the actions of the MWMC. With respect to the state of the law, Mr. Stamp asserts that the statute contemplates that an "SDC methodology" is a unitary and indivisible statement of the process for determining the basis for a charge, the projects to be funded by revenue raised through the charge, and the rates of the charge. Mr. Stamp is perhaps confusing the statute as enacted, with House Bill 2983 (2003) as originally introduced. That original bill incorporated the project list into the methodology by l This letter was prepared in cooperation with MWMC Staff and consultants and Eugene Staff.