My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 8 - Action MWMC SDC
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-06/28/04Mtg
>
Item 8 - Action MWMC SDC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:55:49 PM
Creation date
6/24/2004 8:58:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/28/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The proposed SDC methodology and rates are intended to fully recover growth's equitable share of <br />capacity-related improvements to the regional wastewater treatment system. <br /> <br />The staff summary also states that 65% of users are in Eugene. <br />2) Does that mean 65% of ratepayers are in Eugene? <br /> <br />City of Eugene wastewater user fee ratepayers constitute approximately two thirds of the total ratepayer <br />base within the MWMC regional wastewater system; Springfield and Lane County residents and <br />businesses connected to the wastewater system make up the other approximate one third. <br /> <br /> 3) Where is the additional capacity needed in Eugene or SpringdqeM or Lane Co. inside the UGB, is <br />it proportional? Are Eugene ratepayers subsidizing SpringfieM's need for increased capacity to serve <br />new growth? If Coburg were to be added to the system, under the current and proposed rate and SDC <br />structure, wouM other jurisdictions' ratepayers, specifically Eugene, be subsidizing their new capacity? <br /> <br />Growth is anticipated to occur throughout the Eugene/Springfield urban growth boundary with a slightly <br />higher rate of growth attributable to the Springfield portion of the UGB. A consistent SDC rate is <br />applied to all development within the regional wastewater service area so there is no differential for <br />development based on the location it occurs; wherever it occurs it will pay the same regional wastewater <br />SDC. As explained in the response to question # 1, under the proposed SDC ratepayers are not <br />subsidizing the future capacity needs of new development. Assuming that existing and proposed <br />policies and principles would apply to any agreement to include Coburg in the regional wastewater <br />system, Eugene and other jurisdictions' ratepayers would not be subsidizing new capacity costs in <br />Coburg. <br /> <br /> 4) MWMC is regional and therefore serves Lane County outside the city limits but inside the UGB, <br />how does this arrangement affect Eugene ratepayers? I guess to address the specific questions one <br />would need to know, what percentage of the ratepayers revenue goes to new capacity (i.e. improvement <br />and reimbursementD If65% or the total wastewater revenue is from Eugene ratepayers, does the <br />percentage of rates paid in Eugene match the percentage of capacity required by Eugene's growth? To <br />what extent are Eugene ratepayers subsidizing growth in other jurisdictions? <br /> <br />The proposed SDC methodology was found by MWMC and the CAC to provide for an equitable <br />allocation of costs to growth and existing system users. Under the proposed SDC, ratepayers would not <br />be subsidizing costs of capacity needed to serve growth. SDCs by their nature are proportional to <br />growth, so the percentage of SDCs paid in Eugene will match the percentage of capacity required by <br />Eugene's growth. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.