Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF EUGENE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT To: Mayor James Torrey and Eugene City Councilors Date: June 22, 2004 Subject: MWMC SDC Methodology and SDC Rates CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION - NOT SUBJECT TO RELEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT This memorandum responds to several legal issues raised by Andrew Stamp's letter to you dated June 14, 2004. It supplements the letter from Laurence Thorp to Susie Smith, dated June 18, 2004, which also addresses Mr. Stamp's letter. In prior memoranda, staff has addressed the engineering and tectmical issues raised in Mr. Stamp's and Roxie Cuellar's correspondence. Misguided Assumptions and Inferences Mr. Stamp's arguments rely substantially on numerous assumptions and inferences about staff's intentions and the effects of adopting the MWMC SDC Methodology as proposed. For example, on page 3 of his letter, he describes the "apparent purpose" and the "apparent goal" of the approach to the Methodology. Sinfilarly, on page 4, he asserts that MWMC "seeks to" disregard certain protection afforded by the SDC statutes; on page 6, he states that "as an unstated corollary, MWMC seems to be operating .... "The Methodology and supporting documents do not support the assumptions and inferences that follow these statements. To the extent that they form the basis for Mr. Stamp's analysis, his arguments are based on false premises. Here, I address only the more substantial errors. Mr. Stamp's letter asserts that MWMC is asking you to adopt an incomplete shell formula, to which it would "add the facts and data input later, at some as-of-yet-undisclosed time, in order to arrive at the complete SDC." He asserts that staff wants to usurp Council's legislative power. Page 3. A similar argument appears on page 6. In fact, staff has applied the Methodology to the relevant data to produce the SDC rates, and the SDC rates are before you for adoption at the same time as the Methodology. In addition, the proposed SDC rates were provided for public review with the Methodology 60 days before the first public hearing on the Methodology. See Table S-1. On pages 3, 4 and 18-19, Mr. Stamp asserts that MWMC intends to evade meaningful judicial review of the SDC Methodology and rates. As a matter of law, neither the Methodologynor the SDC rates will or could be insulated from judicial review. These points are discussed in more detail below.