HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: City of Coburg Request for Connection to Regional Wastewater Facilities
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: City of Coburg Request for Connection to Regional Wastewater Facilities
Meeting Date: October 26, 2005 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Kurt Corey
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5241
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City of Coburg has requested the extension of wastewater collection and treatment services
provided by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). This work session is
for the purpose of obtaining direction from the Eugene City Council as to processing this request.
BACKGROUND
The cities of Eugene and Springfield joined together with Lane County in 1977 to develop a regional
treatment complex for all wastewater generated in the greater metropolitan area. The regional system is
owned by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). The MWMC is comprised
of representatives from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County (the governing bodies). Operational and
administrative roles and responsibilities are defined within a regional intergovernmental services
agreement.
The City of Coburg is faced with local growth and economic development issues together with ground
water quality problems that have necessitated an investigation of wastewater treatment and disposal
options. Available alternatives are generally limited to constructing a stand-alone wastewater treatment
facility in Coburg or connecting to the regional treatment facility via Eugene collection’s system.
Connection to the regional facility is being investigated as Coburg’s preferred alternative. Expansion of
the MWMC service area would require, at a minimum, consent of the regional partners.
Future similar requests from other regional stakeholders can likely be expected as agencies work to
address environmental concerns and the needs of regional growth and development. Junction City has
most recently expressed an interest in wastewater treatment services through MWMC.
At a Joint Elected Officials (JEO) meeting on October 11, detailed information and options relating to
the issues, timing, costs, and customer/service relationships specifically regarding the Coburg request
were provided and discussed. The governing bodies continue to face a number of significant questions:
1. Do the governing bodies wish to continue work on an evaluation of Coburg’s request for regional
wastewater services?
2. What is the direction of the governing bodies regarding Junction City’s recent expression of need
and interest in requesting wastewater services?
3. What is the scope of activities staff are directed to undertake regarding questions #1 and #2?
4. Which scenario represents the governing bodies’ acceptable level of cost-recovery as the conceptual
model for refinement of “buy-in” costs Coburg would be expected to pay?
5. Which customer/service relationship scenario would the governing bodies wish to pursue?
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051026\S051026A.doc
6. How will the up-front work be funded, will the governing bodies authorize sufficient staffing to
conduct the work, and will Coburg be expected to fund the effort whether or not it becomes an
MWMC member?
7. Is there an alternative direction the governing bodies wish to provide?
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, the Public Facilities and Services Plan, and the
MWMC Facilities Plan all have been adopted by the City of Eugene and generally pertain to the issue at
hand. However, given the complexities of the issue, it would be simplistic to cite any particular policy
statement is this summary document. A more thorough discussion of the relationship between Coburg’s
request and long-range regional plans and other pertinent policy documents can be found in Attachment
A, beginning on Page 3.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council could choose to:
1. Direct the City Manager to work with the City of Springfield and Lane County to develop a model
for responding to the Coburg request. This option would include an acknowledgement that
preparation of such a model is in the public interest; that Coburg would be financially responsible for
the cost of all associated efforts including planning, legal, and connection costs; and that staff would
return with recommended cost-recovery and customer/service relationship scenarios.
2. Decline to investigate the viability of service models appropriate for responding to the Coburg
request or future similar requests.
3. Take no action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends Option 1.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve Option 1: Direct the City Manager to work with the City of Springfield and Lane
County to develop a model for responding to the Coburg request. This option would include an
acknowledgement that preparation of such a model is in the public interest; that Coburg would be
financially responsible for the cost of all associated efforts including planning, legal, and connection
costs; and that staff would return with recommended cost-recovery and customer/service relationship
scenarios.
ATTACHMENTS
A. September 16, 2005, memo, “Discussion of City of Coburg Request for Connection to the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewater Facilities”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kurt Corey
Telephone: 682-5241
Staff E-Mail: kurt.a.corey@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051026\S051026A.doc
M E M O R A N D U M
Eugene City Council
To:
Springfield City Council
Lane County Board of Commissioners
From:Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Executive Officers
Date:September 16, 2005
Discussion of City of Coburg Request for Connection to the Metropolitan
Subject:
Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewater Facilities.
ISSUE
A meeting of the joint elected officials (JEOs) is scheduled for October 11, 2005 to review and
discuss the City of Coburg’s request for extension of wastewater treatment and disposal services
to Coburg from the existing service area covered by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC). When Coburg officials made this request in June, 2004, the JEOs
requested a report identifying relevant issues and steps that would need to be addressed, and an
assessment of the scope of work, timing and resources needed to address them. This memo and
attachments were prepared at the direction of the Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County
executive officers (SEL) to respond to the JEOs’ request.
BACKGROUND
The City of Coburg is being driven to provide city-wide wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal services because of known ground water quality problems in the Coburg area as well as
an interest in providing for economic development. Coburg first prepared (in 1999) and updated
(in 2004) a Wastewater Facilities Plan, which includes a sanitary sewer collection system, and
two general options for providing wastewater treatment, including: 1) construction of dedicated
treatment facilities to serve Coburg; and 2) conveyance of Coburg wastewater to the MWMC
wastewater treatment facilities. During this five-year period, Coburg’s planning and community
growth projections changed significantly. Coburg’s planning horizon has been extended from
2022 to 2028. The population projections have increased from the 2022 build-out population of
2,980 to a 2028 population of 3,255, and a projected build-out population of 6,700. This
increase corresponds to an increase in the planned area within the Coburg urban growth
boundary (UGB) from 547 acres to 812 acres.
As noted in Coburg’s draft 2004 Facilities Plan Update, “these changes contribute to the need for
significantly larger and more costly wastewater collection and treatment facilities than were
envisioned in the 1999 plan.” The summary chapter of Coburg’s draft 2004 Facilities Plan
Update, included as Attachment B, provides additional background on Coburg’s planning and
evaluation of wastewater treatment options. Coburg has vigorously sought State and Federal
funding assistance to partially fund the estimated $16.5 million (in 2004 dollars) in costs
associated with building a collection and treatment system. As Coburg has sought funding,
Federal and State agencies have requested that the option of connecting Coburg to the MWMC
system, currently serving Eugene-Springfield area, be evaluated.
Several State agencies, including the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
the Office of Economic and Community Development (OECD) have actively supported Coburg
Page 1
in seeking timely resolution to the City’s wastewater treatment needs. The State has placed a
high priority on addressing Coburg’s ground water quality problems, as well as supporting
economic development and job creation opportunities. To this end, the State has promoted the
option of connecting Coburg to the MWMC system.
In June, 2004, officials from the City of Coburg appeared before the JEOs and requested that
consideration be given to extending the MWMC regional wastewater treatment services to
Coburg. The request was made appropriately before the three agencies’ governing bodies
(Governing Bodies), because the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) establishing MWMC does
not permit MWMC to grant such a request. Under the IGA, the MWMC is expressly limited to
providing services to the Governing Bodies, and to areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB.
At its June 22, 2004 meeting, the JEOs requested staff to prepare a scoping report outlining the
issues and estimated costs and time frames associated with pursuing further study and
deliberation of Coburg’s request.
Over the past year, SEL has guided Eugene and Springfield regional wastewater program staff in
preparing this background report to the JEOs. The Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County
Planning Directors and respective legal counsel also have been consulted on portions of this
report. This report identifies key issues relevant to the JEOs’ anticipated deliberation on whether
and how to move forward with further evaluation and/or a decision making process that could
lead to extension of MWMC wastewater services to Coburg. The discussion below does not
attempt to fully analyze or resolve these issues. Rather, it is intended to summarize the issues,
present scenarios for discussion purposes, and estimate the timing and costs for additional work
that would be needed to address or resolve the issues. The timing and cost estimates are
provided in Attachment A. It is difficult to predict whether this report identifies the full range of
issues that may emerge through the various public review processes that would ensue, given the
unprecedented nature of this request in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES
CONTEXT FOR JEOs CONSIDERATION OF COBURG’S REQUEST
Coburg’s Wastewater Facilities Plan and its request for services provide a partial context for the
JEOs discussion. These are described in the “Background” section and Attachment B of this
memo. This section addresses aspects of the broader context within which the JEOs may wish to
consider Coburg’s request for wastewater services. The key issues addressed in this section
include:
?
Relationship of Coburg’s situation and request to long-range regional planning activities
and other small (satellite) communities’ needs for wastewater treatment services in the
future;
?
Comparative environmental, public health, and safety issues associated with all aspects of
Coburg’s wastewater treatment options;
?
Impacts of connecting Coburg to the MWMC system on Eugene-Springfield area
collection system and treatment facility capacity; and
?
Cost equity among the MWMC customers and new customers outside the UGB.
Page 2
Relationship to Long-Range Regional Planning and Other Potential Extraterritorial
Service Needs
Part of SEL’s directive to staff in formulating this report was to consider Coburg’s request for
wastewater services in the broader regional planning context, including potential future service
requests from other small cities surrounding the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Specifically, staff was directed to relate Coburg’s request to the Region 2050 planning study and
its strategies for meeting the service demands of long-term regional growth. The relevance of
this direction became real during the preparation of this report, because Regional Wastewater
Program staff recently received an inquiry from Junction City staff regarding the possibility of
receiving wastewater services. This section summarizes the relevant information available at
this time, and the preliminary conclusions reached regarding efficient means of providing
wastewater services throughout the Southern Willamette Valley.
Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, and Coburg are parties to the Region 2050 planning study
which is being undertaken to help establish a consensus for a preferred Regional Growth
Management Strategy for the Southern Willamette Valley. The boundaries of the study area take
in several communities beyond the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, including Coburg,
Creswell, Veneta, Junction City, Goshen, Pleasant Hill, Westfir and others. The study models
three potential growth scenarios for the future. These include: 1) a focus on “Compact Urban
Growth,” with only modest expansion of UGBs to support future growth; 2) increased focus on
expansion of “Satellite Community Growth” to support regional growth demands; and 3)
increased “Rural Growth” to more closely approach urban levels of development in areas where
rural resources (i.e., agriculture and forestry) are marginal.
Wastewater services are among the services undergoing analysis within the Region 2050
planning study. The Rural Growth scenario would result in the least amount of new demand for
sewerage services, because of the expected increase in rural residential development with on-site
septic systems. However, regardless of which regional growth patterns emerge as preferred,
Eugene-Springfield and several small communities in the area will require new and/or expanded
wastewater collection and treatment facilities within the 2050 planning horizon. Some of the
small neighboring communities, such as Veneta, Lowell and Creswell have or are in the process
of constructing centralized wastewater services. Others, like Coburg and Goshen rely on private
septic systems which will eventually need to be replaced by alternative systems, and a decision
about how to best meet community wastewater treatment requirements will need to be made.
Coburg’s poor groundwater situation (the area has been designated as a groundwater
management zone by the DEQ due to high levels of nitrates in the groundwater) and resulting
restrictions for planned industrial expansion, have led to the City being the first case to test the
question and the preliminary conclusions reached by Region 2050 Technical Advisory
Committee staff (TAC) who are providing wastewater systems planning analyses.
It should be noted that the Region 2050 planning horizon extends a full 25 years beyond the
current MWMC Facilities Plan, which establishes the treatment processes and capital
improvement projects needed to meet community growth and environmental performance
requirements within the Eugene-Springfield UGB through 2025. The vast unknowns regarding
likely technological advancements in wastewater treatment, the Willamette River’s ability to
assimilate increased pollutant discharges, and the levels of treatment that will be required to
address environmental conditions this far into the future all make it fruitless to predict the
technologies and cost-effective locations of new wastewater treatment facilities that will be
developed to serve Eugene-Springfield between 2025 and 2050. The wastewater loads
Page 3
associated with community growth during that time may or may not be treated cost-effectively in
the same location and facilities that exist today.
However, in considering the long range future of the Region 2050 communities, the following
general findings and considerations have been offered by wastewater TAC staff regarding
planning for efficient and cost-effective provision of wastewater services within the study area.
?
Development of new wastewater services, no matter how they are provided, will be
costly for small satellite communities.
?
There is no blanket one-size-fits-all approach to providing wastewater services that will
be efficient or cost-effect to all of the communities within the Southern Willamette
Valley.
?
Communities that have developed sewerage infrastructure and treatment facilities will
likely be best served by continued operation of their dedicated facilities.
?
For some communities, topographic conditions, such as unfavorable gradients and hills,
will make localized wastewater management more efficient and cost-effective than
conveyance to the existing Eugene-Springfield wastewater treatment facilities. The
Crow-Loraine and Alvadore areas are examples of this type of area.
?
Extensions of existing regional wastewater services beyond the current UGB would, in
general, be most cost-effective and efficient overall where they would result from
incremental growth with corresponding incremental extension of sewers from the
Eugene-Springfield UGB outward toward existing satellite communities. The cost-
effectiveness and system efficiencies would be achieved in this type of
development/service pattern through the addition of small increments of public
conveyance over time with users able to tap into the system (where elevations and
geographic conditions are favorable to conveyance by gravity), paying for public
improvements as development occurs. Examples of areas where projected development
patterns may result in these efficiencies include Goshen and Pleasant Hill.
?
Extensions of existing regional wastewater services beyond the current UGB would, in
general, be expected to be less cost-effective and efficient overall where the satellite
community to be served is significantly removed from the existing service. These types
of extensions would cause a “leap-frogging” of public conveyance infrastructure over
rural areas that would not participate in funding or be provided with wastewater services.
Assuming an increment of wastewater treatment capacity built to current environmental
requirements would cost roughly the same at the Eugene-Springfield regional facilities as
it would within the satellite community’s UGB, then the services provided through the
leap-frog service extension would be more costly based on the costs of added conveyance
system and pumping facilities that would otherwise be avoided.
?
Coburg and, perhaps to a lesser degree, Junction City are examples of where this pattern
would occur. In these examples, for extension of existing regional wastewater services to
prove cost-effective and efficient for both the Eugene-Springfield area and the satellite
community, the local costs of constructing the length of force main required to connect to
the MWMC system would need to be offset by operational cost-savings in the satellite
community, without increasing costs to Eugene-Springfield customers.
While these general findings may serve as “rules of thumb,” it should be emphasized that they
are generalized conclusions. There may be other factors elected officials may wish to consider
Page 4
beyond the simple objective of “cost-effective and efficient provision of public facilities” when
considering whether services should be extended to a satellite community. The Region 2050
study has not, at this point, extended the evaluation of future wastewater services beyond this
simplified view.
Beyond providing this regional planning information in response to requests for a broader
framework and context for discussion, staff has not anticipated that further staff effort or
resources would be expended on this for the purposes of evaluating Coburg’s request. Therefore,
no associated work activities or costs are identified in Attachment A.
Comparative Environmental, Public Health and Safety Impacts
When MWMC discussed Coburg’s request several years ago, several issues were raised by
Commissioners, which are reflected throughout this report. One of the factors several of the
Commissioners expressed as important is whether regional treatment of Coburg’s wastewater
would be more or less beneficial to protecting water quality and the environment. This is one of
the factors the elected officials and the public may find important in considering whether
wastewater service should be treated and discharged by MWMC facilities. This question has not
been analyzed, and therefore conclusions cannot be drawn as to which wastewater treatment
option would provide greater benefits to the environment and lower environmental and public
health/safety risks in the long run.
The following elements should be included in a comprehensive evaluation of this question.
?
Impacts on land use and the environment from 1) building a wastewater treatment plant
and new outfall vs. 2) building a conveyance and pumping system to connect to an
existing treatment system and existing treated wastewater outfall;
?
Impacts on water quality of 1) effluent discharged to the McKenzie River from a new
outfall serving the Coburg system. [Note, the treatment system would have to be
designed and operated to meet current wastewater discharge standards, including those
requirements established under the Total Maximum Daily Loads and Waste Load
Allocations] vs. 2) conveyance to and treatment and discharge of Coburg’s wastewater
through MWMC’s existing system to the Willamette. [Note, the MWMC system faces
significant challenges over the next 10 years to comply with new temperature limitations,
and one of the main strategies for achieving summer water temperature requirements is to
divert effluent flow out of the River by increasing treated water reuse projects. Option 2,
connecting Coburg to the MWMC system, would increase the amount of wastewater
flows that have to be treated or diverted through reclaimed water use. This has to be
weighed against the alternative impacts of Coburg’s effluent discharged to the
McKenzie.]
?
Risk factors associated with conveyance of wastewater from Coburg to the MWMC
system, which would include conveyance across the McKenzie River;
?
Risk factors associated with the operation and maintenance of a new wastewater
treatment facility, including chemical usage (such as for disinfection), electrical
transmission facilities, potential for chemical air emissions and odors, and facility-related
transportation activities;
?
The need for a separate program to manage the disposal or beneficial reuse of biosolids
generated by a dedicated wastewater treatment facility for Coburg.
Page 5
Staff has insufficient information to estimate the level of effort and resources that would be
expected to study these issues for the purposes of evaluating Coburg’s request. Therefore, no
associated work activities or costs are identified in Attachment A.
Collection System And Treatment Facility Capacity
The MWMC facilities, and the local wastewater collection systems for Eugene and Springfield,
were planned and constructed to serve the anticipated populations within the Eugene-Springfield
UGB. Therefore, these facilities, and long-range facilities plans have not accounted for the
conveyance and treatment of Coburg’s wastewater. [Note however, Coburg’s wastewater
contributions would be minor in comparison to the overall system capacity, under the growth
projections presented in Coburg’s Facilities Plan.] The following collection and treatment
system capacity issues would need to be addressed.
Collection System Capacity
Under the regional treatment alternative, Coburg’s studies show plans to convey wastewater
through a force main (i.e., a pressurized pipe fed by a pumping station) that would cross the
McKenzie River in the vicinity of Coburg Road, via the old railroad bridge. It would then
connect with the Eugene collection system in one of several possible locations. In 2004, a
preliminary evaluation was made of the viability of connecting Coburg’s wastewater discharge to
the Eugene collection system. Further study would be needed to determine the optimal location
for the connection and the extent to which capacity enhancements would be needed in the
Eugene local wastewater collection system to handle the increased flows generated from Coburg.
Treatment Facility Capacity
In 2004, MWMC completed a 20-year Facilities Plan, which prescribes capital improvements
needed to upgrade performance and expand capacity in various parts of the treatment works,
biosolids management facilities, and regional pump stations. After over twenty years of
operation, the treatment facilities currently experience capacity and environmental performance
constraints in certain parts of the facilities under certain seasonal conditions. These capacity
constraints include: 1) insufficient capacity during peak wet weather flow events, which has
resulted in unpermitted overflows and bypasses in December, 2003; and 2) inadequate solids
removal capability during rainy “dry season” months, which has resulted in exceedance of
discharge permit limits for solids in May, 2005. Additionally, ammonia limits and temperature
management requirements, which were newly added to the discharge permit, have added
capacity constraints. All of these issues require construction of improvements to maintain permit
compliance for existing sewer users and to add capacity for future users.
The capital projects specified in the MWMC Facilities Plan will address the capacity and
performance constraints for existing and future users through 2025. If completed in accordance
with the adopted schedule, existing capacity constraints would be resolved prior to the estimated
time frame of a Coburg connection (i.e. 2008). However, several factors have resulted in
significant delays in capital project implementation, putting the MWMC system in greater
jeopardy of failure to meet permit limits and key regulatory deadlines. Further study is needed to
evaluate the adequacy of MWMC’s construction progress and whether any projects in the 20-
year facilities plan would need to be accelerated to accommodate a Coburg connection without
significant risk of permit violations.
Page 6
Cost Equity
Recovery of Capital Asset Investments, New Capital Expansions, and Planning and Study
Process Costs
This section addresses the costs a prospective sewer customer outside the UGB could expect to
be assessed assuming existing and future Eugene-Springfield sewer customers would not absorb
or subsidize the costs of providing service outside the planned service area. Eugene-Springfield
area sewer customers and property owners have paid for the locally-funded share of the
planning, permitting and construction of existing facilities through a combination of property
taxes, user rates and connection fees over time. The facilities have been built to serve current
populations and future growth within the UGB. Because Coburg is outside the UGB, its
wastewater demands have not been planned for as part of the MWMC service district or the local
collection systems. While sufficient average dry weather capacity is currently available to
connect new customers, an increment of capacity and facilities equivalent to Coburg’s increment
of demand would need to be added to the regional wastewater system at some point.
In order to establish equity among Eugene-Springfield customers and Coburg, Coburg would
need to be assessed for a prorated share of the local (Eugene) and regional (MWMC) system
capacity used, as well as for the facilities, buildings, planning, permitting, etc. that are necessary
to run the overall regional wastewater program. To assist Coburg in determining whether
connection to the regional system would be cost effective in comparison to building its own
system, and to provide the elected officials with a starting point for determining potentially
appropriate connection (or “buy-in”) costs, SEL directed staff to prepare a rough analysis. The
analysis was directed under the premise that costs would be captured in a manner that avoids
“subsidies.” This underlying premise reflects sentiments expressed by the elected officials at the
June, 2004 JEO meeting, and the requirements under the MWMC IGA, which states that
connection fees be charged to create equity among existing and future sewer customers.
To provide a “ball park” analysis, but keep it as simple and objective as possible, the scope was
limited to the following areas:
1.The capital assets/facilities addressed in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and SDC
methodology;
2.The capital assets (existing support facilities) that are not addressed in the MWMC SDC
methodology.
3.The Eugene collection system connection costs;
4.The contract costs for major long-range planning studies conducted since 1996 to address
future capacity needs through 2025; and
5.The elected officials’ decision-making process and adoption of necessary Metro Plan and
MWMC IGA amendments.
The simplest approach to this rough analysis was to apply the MWMC SDC methodology to
Coburg’s actual and planned wastewater profile, which was provided by Brown and Caldwell
engineers. The methodology was applied first to show the actual total of SDCs that would be
paid if the equivalent set of customers was located inside the UGB. The Eugene local
wastewater SDC methodology (in effect in 2004) was applied similarly, under the assumption
Coburg would connect to the Eugene collection system. This analysis resulted in charges
summarized below as a “Baseline Comparison.”
Page 7
The methodology was then applied under two sets of assumptions, as summarized below under
“Scenario 1” and “Scenario 2,” to give a range of estimated capital costs the elected officials
may consider appropriate to capture Coburg’s increment of demand for capacity in treatment and
conveyance facilities without subsidies from Eugene-Springfield area sewer customers. Under
these scenarios, a rough estimate of a proportionate share of the long-range facilities planning
efforts (described as item 4 above), based on Coburg’s estimated flow, the costs of the regional
public involvement and decision making processes (item 5 above), and of existing support
facilities (aside from facilities that are captured in the SDC methodology—item 2 above) were
also provided as separate figures. These estimates would be common to both modeled scenarios,
and therefore were added to both scenarios to provide an estimated “bottom line” buy-in cost. An
expanded version of this cost recovery modeling results is provided in Attachment C.
It should be noted that the analysis summarized below does not provide a comprehensive
assessment of previous investments existing customers have made, through property taxes and
user rates, which would support services to Coburg. The analyses also did not consider the costs
associated with building a pipeline across the river or any potential improvements needed in the
Eugene collection system to receive Coburg’s wastewater. The analysis did not consider a wide
range of issues that would need to be evaluated by the Governing Bodies in establishing
appropriate service, governance and accountability relationships with Coburg, all of which
would have associated costs. At the time this analysis was conducted, a place holder amount of
$300,000 was included. An updated estimate of the decision making costs is part of Attachment
A.
Finally, it should be noted that an estimate of ongoing costs, which would translate into Coburg
sewer user fees, cannot be derived until the full range of services that would be provided to
Coburg under an intergovernmental agreement is determined. However, given that Coburg does
not currently provide ongoing sewer system maintenance, regulatory programs, sewer user
customer services, and general administration, it should not be assumed that Coburg’s ongoing
user rate costs would be equivalent to those paid by Eugene and Springfield sewer users. It is
assumed, however, that the costs of services provided to Coburg such as intergovernmental
coordination, technical assistance, and directly provided services by Eugene and/or Springfield
would be made up through ongoing monthly wastewater fees. These fees could be assessed by
various means, including as direct charges to individual customers, or as a single assessment to
the City of Coburg.
Summary of Connection Cost Scenarios
Baseline Comparison
Eugene local and MWMC SDC methodologies were applied to existing and projected
developments in Coburg exactly as though they were located in the planned MWMC service
area. Under the MWMC SDC methodology, part of the SDC charge is based on the cost of
existing available capacity, and part is based on new capacity required. The total regional charge
is based on a weighted average cost of existing available and new capacity. Strict application of
this methodology to Coburg would not result in full cost recovery, because “existing available
capacity” and “new capacity” pertain to planned customer demand inside the UGB through 2025.
Similarly, the Eugene SDC methodology does not anticipate collection system improvements
that may be needed to convey Coburg’s projected volume of flow.
Page 8
Baseline Comparison Costs
(In 2004 Dollars)
MWMC SDC charges = $2,880,239
Eugene SDC charges = $1,038,000
Other charges = $0
Total connection costs = $3,918,239
Scenario One
This scenario applies the MWMC SDC methodology using the assumption that there is no
available physical capacity, and is based on using the “unit cost of new capacity” that is charged
to new users requiring some increment of new system capacity to meet their demand. This
partially accounts for the fact that Coburg lies entirely outside the planned service area. The
methodology distributes the costs of the MWMC Facilities Plan 20-Year Project List according
to whether additional capacity was gained by a physical expansion of capacity or whether new
capacity was gained by improving a process. One-hundred percent of the cost of new physical
capacity is passed on to new users, whereas existing users share in the cost of capacity gained by
performance improvements on a prorata basis (such that 11% to 28% is charged to new users).
Scenario One Costs
(In 2004 Dollars)
MWMC SDC charges = $4,590,000
Eugene SDC charges = $1,038,000
Support Facilities = $ 106,000
Past Planning Studies = $ 12,000
Decision Processing = $ 300,000
Total connection costs = $6,048,758
Scenario Two
Scenario Two is similar to Scenario One, in that it is based on using the “unit cost of new
capacity” charged to new users requiring some increment of new system capacity to meet their
demand. However, in Scenario Two, the new user is charged for the total project costs of new
capacity (rather than charging a portion of the new capacity gained by performance improvement
projects to existing users). This scenario more closely estimates the actual cost of capacity that
Coburg would consume if connected to the regional system, because it applies the full
incremental costs of projects needed to meet, as examples, the recent, more stringent
environmental requirements on temperature (which will be met by projects that divert effluent
out of the river) and ammonia (which will be met by projects built to improve the environmental
performance of the existing facilities).
Page 9
Scenario Two Costs
(In 2004 Dollars)
MWMC SDC charges = $8,740,000
Eugene SDC charges = $1,038,000
Support Facilities = $ 106,000
Past Planning Studies = $ 12,000
Decision Processing = $ 300,000
Total connection costs =$10,196,375
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING (LAND USE) AMENDMENT PROCESSES AND
REQUIRED APPROVALS
This section addresses the requirements that would need to be satisfied for the Governing Bodies
to lawfully extend wastewater services under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) pertaining to land
use planning and the implementing Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs). It identifies the
applicable rules, and the aspects of locally-adopted land use plans that would require
amendments. It also describes the approvals and associated mandated processes that would
apply. Although this analysis was prepared following consultation with planning directors and
legal counsels from each jurisdiction, it should be considered a preliminary assessment at this
time.
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities
and Services Plan (PFSP)
Compliance with state land use goals (ORS 197, OAR 660) is a requirement of all acknowledged
comprehensive plans. The primary goal that governs public facilities infrastructure (water,
sewer, transportation) is Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services. The rule implementing this goal
is OAR 660-011 Public Facilities Planning. The rule requires cities with populations greater
than 2,500 to adopt a public facilities plan and incorporate certain elements of the public
facilities plan into the comprehensive plan.
The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State of Oregon in April, 1982. Subsequent to
acknowledgement, the Metro Plan has been amended through separate “post-acknowledgement”
action of Eugene and Springfield; through joint adoption of “post-acknowledgement” actions by
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County; and through the periodic review process, also adopted by
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County.
The Metro Plan’s public facilities component, which includes Chapter III-G as well as the
separate functional plan, the PFSP, were prepared, adopted and acknowledged in 1982, updated
in 1987, and updated again in 2001. Chapter III-G of the Metro Plan and the PFSP were
recently amended (2004) with new information related to sanitary sewer service projects and
policies (These latest amendments are currently the subject of multiple appellate challenges).
?
describes thewater,sewerand transportation
By rule, a public facilities plan “…
facilitieswhichare tosupport the land uses designated in the appropriate
acknowledgedcomprehensive planswithin an urban growth boundary
…” (OAR
660-011-0005)
Page 10
?
“…alistofthe significantpublic facilityprojects
The public facility plan shall contain
whichare tosupport the land usesdesignated in the acknowledged comprehensive
plan
.” (OAR 660-011-0010)
?
a mapor writtendescription ofeachpublic
The public facility plan shall contain “…
facilityproject’s general location or service area
.” (OAR 660-011-0010)
?
policy statements orurban growth
The public facilities plan shall contain “…
managementagreementsidentifying the provider ofeachpublic facilitysystem, and
a discussion of theprovider’s existing funding mechanismsandthe abilityof these
and possible new mechanismsto fund thedevelopment of eachpublic facility project
or system.
” (OAR 660-011-0010)
?
The project lists and maps in the Metro Plan and the PFSP do not identify sanitary sewer
extension to Coburg or to rural lands as is required by OAR 660-011-0060 Sewer Service
to Rural Lands. The Metro Plan and PFSP do not mention sewer extensions beyond the
The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and
UGB except to “
Educationon the Metro Plan diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural sites used for
landapplication of biosolids and cannery byproducts. These sites serve the entire
metropolitan area
.” and,
?
“An existing development outside the urban growth boundary when it has been
determined that it poses an immediate threat of public health or safety to the
citizens within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth boundary that can only be
remedied by extension of the service.”
(Metro Plan, Policy G.25, page III-G-12)
?
Metro Plan policies do not identify sanitary sewer extension to Coburg; the list of
exceptions to the policies do not identify sanitary sewer extension to Coburg; and the
fundamental principles of the Metro Plan do not identify the provision of public facilities
and services outside the UGB.
?
The Metropolitan Plan is based on the premise that Eugene and Springfield, the
“
two existing cities, are the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels
of development within the urban growth boundary
.” (Metro Plan, Plan Principle #6,
page II-1)
?
The Metropolitan Plan was developed to meet the supporting facilities and services
“
necessary to serve a population of 293,700. That population level may be reached
before or after the year 2000, depending upon the rate of growth. The Plan is based
on the needs of a future population level and not a specific year.
” (Metro Plan, Plan
Principle #7, page II-1)
State law requires amendments to Chapter III-G of the Metro Plan, and amendments to the
project list and maps in the PFSP and Metro Plan before extension of sewer to Coburg is
possible. If the strategy to support this amendment is to use an exception policy similar to the
Airport exception, other chapters in the Plan may need to be reviewed for internal plan
consistency. This same consideration may be necessary with regard to the fundamental
principles.
Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Coburg Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal would establish an explicit public policy decision to construct a sewer line from
some specific location in Eugene-Springfield to a specific location in Coburg. As the line leaves
Page 11
the Eugene-Springfield UGB it comes under the jurisdiction of the Lane County RCP. Likewise,
once the line crosses the Coburg UGB it comes under the jurisdiction of the Coburg
Comprehensive Plan. Neither of these two plans contemplated this proposed service delivery at
any location, therefore both of these plans would require amendments to reflect this policy
decision and the physical presence of the pipe. It may also be necessary to specify in the RCP
that this is an exclusive arrangement between the cities and county and no lateral connections
between the two UGBs would be allowed.
It is unclear if additional text amendments to the Metro Plan, the RCP or the Coburg
Comprehensive Plan must address any of the following issues:
?
identifying Coburg as a customer or partner;
?
would Metro Plan public facilities policy need to address future development in Coburg
related to Periodic Review, Plan amendment, or UGB expansion;
?
would the Coburg Comprehensive Plan rely on this arrangement to satisfy Goal 11 and
OAR 660-011 with respect to an acknowledged plan having adequate public facilities to
accommodate planned development;
?
would Eugene, Springfield and Lane County elected officials need to approve
amendments to the Coburg Comprehensive Plan by making corresponding amendments
to the Metro Plan if circumstances in Coburg change over time;
?
would the Metro Plan need to include new policies that address unexpected impacts on
the capacity of this service from development in Coburg, or could this matter be
addressed in an IGA between the service provider(s) and the client; and,
?
to what extent are Goal 11 compliance questions satisfied by reliance on OAR 660-011-
0060 which addresses sewer extension outside of UGBs.
Plan Amendment Procedural Requirements
Amendments to the Metro Plan that would allow this particular proposal to be considered must
be initiated by one of the three governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield or Lane County.
Only a governing body may initiate a refinement plan, functional plan, a special
“
area study or Periodic Review or Metropolitan Plan Update
.” (Metro Plan, Policy
#4c, page IV-2)
Lane County and the City of Coburg would need to follow the rules of their respective
comprehensive plans to determine how such amendments would be initiated in their jurisdiction.
One of the requirements of OAR 660-011-0010 is to identify the service provider, require urban
growth management agreements (IGAs) and identify the source of funding to construct the
facilities. MWMC exists through an IGA and mutual cooperation among Lane County,
Springfield and Eugene. These Governing Bodies select from their own memberships, and from
the general citizenry of the area, their representatives on the MWMC Commission. The MWMC
Commission oversees planning, construction and operation of the facilities, and approval of the
budget, capital improvements plans (CIPs), and user fees and charges. The three Governing
Bodies ratify budgets, CIPs and significant long-range facilities plan updates.
The Governing Bodies of Eugene and Springfield adopt and implement user rates and SDCs. The
MWMC Commission would be the signatory on the OAR-required IGA with the City of Coburg.
Page 12
It is unclear if the IGA should contain provisions addressing goal compliance regarding future
actions that may invoke Goal 11 questions, particularly since the IGA establishing the
Commission restricts all land use and community growth decisions to the purview of the
Governing Bodies. It is unclear if the IGA per se is a land use document or would become a
land use document if conditions related to goal compliance were included as provisions of the
IGA. None of the existing MWMC IGAs are considered land use documents for the reasons
listed here.
Lane County Boundary Commission Requirements
The final local land use process involves the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission. The Boundary Commission has approval authority for changes, mergers,
dissolutions, and creation of service districts; and annexations and extra-territorial extension of
sewer if: a) the line is a “forced main” or, b) the line is a gravity line 8” or larger. This proposal
could be accommodated without a change in the Metropolitan Wastewater Management District
boundary (which is currently specified in the MWMC IGA as the UGB) provided Coburg is a
customer and not a partner. However, since Coburg’s Wastewater Facilities Plan specifies that
the discharge to the MWMC system would be by way of a force main, the Boundary
Commission has approval authority of the extension of this line.
An extension of a sewer line outside of the city limits of Eugene or Springfield, but within that
city’s UGB, is defined as an extra-territorial extension if not accompanied by an annexation of
the land over/under which the line is extended. An extension of the sewer line beyond the UGB
is similarly categorized. The Boundary Commission may not approve an annexation proposal of
any classification that does not comply with the policies of the applicable comprehensive plan
(ORS 199). Without the necessary and appropriate changes to the Metro Plan, RCP, and Coburg
Comprehensive Plan, the Boundary Commission could not approve the sewer line extension.
State Agency Involvement
All post-acknowledgment land use decisions are referred to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) for comment. The Department’s authority to approve
or deny an amendment is limited to the Periodic Review process. It does not appear that the
statute considers this proposal to be an application requiring the Periodic Review process The
Department would send a copy of the proposal to affected state agencies (DLCD, DEQ, OEDD,
for example) for comment on program consistency issues. It is difficult to project the nature or
content of those comments.
Time Line and Direct Costs for Processing Required Amendments and Approvals
Attempting to quantify time lines and costs associated with the various processes necessary to
complete this proposal is uncharted territory. Although the history of the Metro Plan does
include some extraordinary amendment proposals (Short Mountain sanitary sewer extension;
Prison siting, etc.) none were ever adopted and none involved the variety of issues, participants
or coordination demanded by this proposal.
The time line for the land use decision (Metro Plan and PFSP only) would begin with the formal
initiation process. One of the three governing bodies would be required to adopt a motion or
resolution initiating the action. Assuming the initiating government has enough information to
take this action, approximately a month would be necessary to accomplish this first step
(scheduling, report preparation, meeting action). The ideal time frames, and steps required by
the Metro Plan, for processing the proposed amendments is outlined below.
Page 13
?
Within 50 days of initiation, a staff report shall be delivered to each member of the
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County planning commissions.
?
Within 30 days of receipt of the staff report, the planning commissions shall conduct a
joint public hearing.
?
Within 30 days of the close of the hearing or close of the evidentiary record, the planning
commissions shall make a recommendation to their respective governing body.
?
Within 30 days of the planning commission recommendations, the elected officials of
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall conduct a joint public hearing on the
amendment.
?
Within 30 days of the close of the joint public hearing the elected officials shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny the proposal.
Strict adherence to this timeline would result in a final decision within 200 days from the
initiation preparations. It is not a violation of the Development Code or Metro Plan to take
“A different process, time line, or both …may be established by the governing
more time:
bodies of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County for any government initiated Metro Plan
amendment.”
(Springfield Development Code, Article 7, Section 7.110)
It is common place, if not entirely without exception, that participants of the Metro Plan
amendment process request record extensions at each required public hearing. A minimum of
one week and up to 30 days is typically given by the planning commissions for record extension.
The hearing before the elected officials is intended to be limited to the record developed at the
planning commission hearing, but past practice has never limited testimony. The give and take
of new testimony eliciting new questions extends the record several more weeks. The elected
officials then reconvene to consider the whole of the record. If no additional questions are raised
during the reconvened meeting, the elected officials adjourn to deliberate, usually taking another
2-3 weeks before all three governing bodies make a final decision. What under ideal
circumstances was designed to take 200 days can easily become 250-300 days.
The City of Springfield charges $21,000 for an amendment to the Plan text, and $416 per acre
for amendments to the diagram. It is assumed that this fee, on average, will recover
approximately 60% of actual cost. This is a complex and precedent-setting action, therefore
60% cost recovery will likely be reduced by half or more. This puts the actual costs associated
with Planning Division processing closer to $70,000. The number of agency staff, legal counsel,
consultants, and public participation that would be involved in this process could add
significantly to this cost. An estimate of total costs and time involved is included in Attachment
A. It should be noted that if this process becomes similar to the Short Mountain sewer line
proposal, costs will increase proportionally.
GOVERNANCE, ADMINISTRATION, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION
This section addresses how services would be provided and the IGAs that would be needed if the
Governing Bodies decide to extend MWMC services to Coburg. As a baseline, the current
MWMC IGA would have to be amended to permit MWMC to provide services to Coburg.
Development of additional IGAs between Coburg and MWMC, and potentially between Coburg
and Eugene and/or Springfield as providers of specific (contractual) services would be necessary
depending on the levels of service desired by Coburg.
Page 14
Two scenarios are provided for discussion purposes. The scenarios would require significantly
different levels of resources made available by MWMC and regional wastewater staff to support
and be accountable to Coburg and its customers. They would result in significantly different
levels of intergovernmental coordination and public policy accountability. It should be noted
recent and past experience amending the MWMC IGA, or creating new agreements to provide
service (i.e., the previously proposed Short Mountain Leachate connection), informs us that
development and approval of IGAs by all parties on MWMC-related matters can be time
consuming and resource intensive. This is reflected in the estimated time frame and costs for
developing and adopting amendments to the MWMC IGA, as well as creating new IGAs, which
are provided in Attachment A.
Scenario 1: Coburg as a Customer Under a Service Agreement
This scenario would require minor modifications to the IGA to allow for MWMC to serve
customers (such as Coburg) other than the partners to the IGA and outside the UGB under a
defined set of circumstances that comply with all applicable state laws and Metro Plan policies.
Coburg would not be a signator to the MWMC wastewater discharge permit and would not have
a role in developing MWMC policies, plans, budgets or user charges. The City of Coburg would
be billed monthly for its combined discharge and would be responsible to provide all services,
public information and accountability to individual Coburg sewer users. Coburg would be
obligated to provide all necessary flow metering, monitoring, and analytical data necessary for
MWMC to determine flows, strengths, and compliance with regulatory requirements.
This scenario would require the least amount of time and resources on the part of the MWMC
partner agencies to implement both initially and in the long term. It would place the
responsibility for customer accountability and services within the City of Coburg organization,
and would make Coburg’s relationship to MWMC similar to other regulated Significant
Industrial Users (SIUs) within the service area. This scenario would require an IGA between
MWMC and Coburg, which would outline the obligations and commitments of Coburg as
conditions of being provided wastewater services. Additional IGAs also could be developed to
enable contracted services to be provided to Coburg at the City’s request.
Scenario 2: Coburg as a Limited Partner
This scenario would require negotiations among the Governing Bodies to determine an
appropriate/acceptable level of partnership Coburg would be extended, and the attendant levels
of accountability, intergovernmental coordination, involvement in MWMC matters, and
liabilities. Regional wastewater program staffing, budgets and review time frames would need
to be expanded to serve MWMC administration and procedural requirements of the Coburg
organization and City Council as a member organization. The issues that would need to be
addressed under this scenario include, but are not limited to:
?
Appropriate representation on the Commission or other means of accountability;
?
Level of Eugene-Springfield staff involvement and/or ongoing coordination and
provision of public information and basic customer services to Coburg customers;
?
Coburg’s role in development and/or review of MWMC policies, plans, budgets, and user
charges and how to recover the costs and address the impacts of this level of involvement
if it is disproportionate to the customer base served;
?
Coburg’s responsibilities and liabilities regarding the NPDES permit; and
Page 15
?
Increased ongoing regional wastewater program staffing and other costs associated with
maintaining MWMC’s responsibilities to an additional partner, the costs of which would
be significantly disproportionate to the customer base served in Coburg.
Unlike Scenario One, this Scenario could not be accommodated by minor modifications to the
MWMC IGA. It is assumed that significant amounts of time and resources would be spent
negotiating the conditions of the partnership, drafting IGA amendment language supporting the
negotiations, and processing the agreement through all four Governing Bodies. Like Scenario
One, Additional IGAs would be needed depending on the level of ongoing support services
Coburg would seek to contract with Eugene and/or Springfield to provide.
ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, REPORTING AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
The MWMC-owned regional wastewater facilities and the locally-owned collection systems in
the metropolitan area are operated under a single National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, which is issued by the DEQ to the Cities of Eugene and Springfield
and to MWMC. This permit, which enables MWMC to discharge treated wastewater to the
Willamette River, carries numerous requirements the Cities and MWMC must meet to maintain
compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act and the State’s water quality statutes and
administrative rules.
This section addresses the regulatory programs/requirements that are mandatory for Eugene and
Springfield, and would need to be adopted and implemented in Coburg if Coburg were to
become connected to the MWMC system. It also addresses obligations Coburg would be
expected to meet through ordinances and agreements. The activities and tasks staff has identified
as needed are described below. An estimated time and cost for Eugene-Springfield wastewater
program staff to support wastewater services to Coburg is provided in Attachment A.
Industrial Pretreatment Program and Pollution Management
The Industrial Pretreatment Program is a federally mandated program that is intended, among
other things, 1) to prevent discharge of pollutants to the sewerage system that may interfere with
the operation of the system or contaminate the resulting sludge, or pass through the system,
inadequately treated, into receiving waters; 2) to protect the health of employees working in and
around the sewerage system; and 3) to improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim
wastewater and sludge otherwise entering the sewerage system. In the Eugene-Springfield area,
MWMC is delegated the authority to develop and enact the “model” pretreatment ordinance and
corresponding pollutant limits. MWMC also enacts regulatory Pollution Management Practices
for certain businesses and industries that are not regulated by permit, because they generate
significant pollutants of concern. Eugene and Springfield are obligated to adopt local
ordinances, enact rules, and implement programs that are identical to the MWMC-adopted
models.
If wastewater services are extended to Coburg, the Eugene-Springfield staff would need to plan
and conduct the following work activities:
?
Provide background information and technical assistance to Coburg staff and Council;
?
Assist Coburg with development, legal review, and adoption of ordinances that
implement the MWMC model pretreatment program, local limits, and that provide for
Page 16
program implementation and enforcement, including adoption of the Enforcement
Response Guide;
?
Assist Coburg with development of a program and implementation plan, or develop the
program for implementation through a service contract with Coburg;
?
Conduct a formal review of Eugene-Springfield regulatory “local (pollutant) limits” in
accordance with DEQ and EPA guidelines to determine adequacy, whether they will need
to be adjusted to accommodate Coburg’s industrial pollutant load, and how reserve
capacities will be established and apportioned to enable industrial growth in Eugene,
Springfield and Coburg; and
?
Work with Coburg to develop enforcement authority, responsibility, and program
compliance assurance within Coburg’s city limits, including the ability to assess and
collect fees and charges, and to implement any and all regulations and Pollution
Management Practices as adopted by MWMC.
The scope, timing and costs of the Eugene-Springfield efforts/resources that would be needed is
difficult to assess, and would depend on the amount of assistance needed by Coburg to enact,
implement, and enforce a program that is identical to Eugene’s and Springfield’s under the
governance of MWMC. A rough estimate is provided in Attachment A.
Collection System Construction, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Requirements
If Coburg were to connect to the MWMC system, collection system design, operation,
maintenance, and long-term rehabilitation would be another set of program parameters where
regulatory conformity with Eugene, Springfield and MWMC, along with ongoing resource
allocation, would be required. MWMC, Eugene, and Springfield (as co-signators to the NPDES
permit and co-operators of the overall system) are obliged to meet system performance standards
under peak wet weather flow conditions. These standards, which prohibit sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs) except under extreme storms or catastrophic events, are met in the Eugene-
Springfield area through several regulatory vehicles.
The NPDES permit incorporates the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, adopted by MWMC
and the two Cities in 2001, including policies for system performance and level of treatment, as
well as ongoing system hydraulic modeling, and targets for infiltration and inflow reduction
through system rehabilitation and regulatory enforcement. Although Coburg would connect to
the MWMC system with a newly constructed collection system, it would need to be built to
standards approved by MWMC, and the City would need to ensure conformance with standards
established in the Eugene-Springfield area for ensuring compliance with the NPDES permit, as
well as State and Federal rules prohibiting SSOs. The Governing Bodies and/or MWMC would
need to address whether sanctions would need to be determined in the event that Coburg failed to
comply, resulting in greater amounts of peak flows that planned.
If wastewater services are extended to Coburg, the Eugene-Springfield staff would need to plan
and conduct the following work activities:
?
Review and process for approval, Coburg’s collection system design specifications;
?
Ensure that Coburg maintains a duly authorized and certified System Operator or that
Eugene-Springfield personnel are contracted and authorized in that capacity; and
?
Provide assistance to Coburg to establish ongoing system maintenance, management and
rehabilitation programs, including system monitoring and reporting (this program will
Page 17
ultimately be required to meet federal “CMOM” requirements), and to develop data
collection and reporting necessary to provide annual NPDES reports, and to support
future updates to the regional Wet Weather Flow Management Plan.
The scope, timing and costs of the Eugene-Springfield efforts/resources needed to complete
these activities is difficult to assess, and would depend on the amount of coordination and
assistance needed to enact and implement Coburg programs that are consistent with Eugene’s
and Springfield’s under the NPDES permit. A rough estimate is provided in Attachment A.
NPDES Permit Limits, TMDLs, and Waste Load Allocations
The NPDES permit contains numerous pollutant limits and a Temperature Management Plan
(TMP), which was required by the DEQ pending completion of the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) process. The Willamette River TMDLs (currently in draft form) address specific water
quality problems, which locally include temperature, mercury, and bacteria. Upon completion of
the TMDL process, and through renewal of our NPDES permit, we will be issued a Waste Load
Allocation (WLA) for the total amount of thermal load the treatment plant can discharge, and
will eventually be issued limits on mercury as well.
The MWMC Facilities Plan includes projects to implement reuse of treated effluent as a means
of achieving temperature limitations during the summer months. Facilities intended to support
up to ten million gallons per day of reuse are planned, however, it is anticipated that this will fall
short of meeting MWMC’s temperature reduction requirement. Further regulation of
temperature should be anticipated, which would necessarily extend to the regulation of
temperature/thermal load of Coburg’s discharge. This could be anticipated in the form of
increased Pretreatment Program and/or PMP requirements, as well as the potential for Coburg to
participate directly in a prorated share of additional reuse projects that are not currently included
in the MWMC Facilities Plan.
Similarly, Coburg would need to plan to participate in the regulation and prevention of mercury
discharges to the MWMC system. While the current levels of mercury in the MWMC system
are extremely low, the treatment facilities are not designed to remove mercury from the
wastewater stream. MWMC will necessarily rely on local regulation of mercury through
Industrial Pretreatment Program and pollution management requirements.
Finally, because MWMC has no land use or growth management authorities, further evaluation
would need to be conducted to determine whether total mass, and potentially other effluent limits
would need to be applied to Coburg’s discharge. This would be a possible measure to ensure
that growth in Coburg would not result in unanticipated increases in wastewater loadings that
may compete for treatment plant capacity and performance that is planned to serve the Eugene-
Springfield urbanizable area.
Insufficient information is available at this time to estimate the scope, timing and costs of
addressing the various regulatory program and permitting issues described above. A placeholder
work task and time line is included in Attachment A to recognize that this work would need to be
undertaken.
General System Administration, Monitoring and Compliance Requirements
In addition to the specific programs outlined above, the connection of Coburg to the MWMC
system would necessitate that certain authorities and specific regulations be established within
Coburg’s municipal code, enabling sewer utility administration in a manner parallel to Eugene
and Springfield. Coburg would also need to establish programs, including providing the staff
Page 18
and financial resources to implement city code provisions and to provide monitoring and
reporting activities, as well as system performance and compliance assurance. At a minimum,
Coburg ordinances and programs would need to be established to:
?
Protect the MWMC system from inappropriate discharges;
?
Establish standards for design and operation of the local collection system in compliance
with MWMC-approved standards;
?
Define and authorize lawful extension of sewer services within Coburg’s city limits and
to prohibit extraterritorial sewer extensions/connections;
?
Assure Coburg compliance with NPDES permit and MWMC requirements, including all
provisions necessary to implement and enforce an Industrial Pretreatment Program and
Pollution Management Practices consistent with the MWMC model ordinance;
?
Establish and fund programs that will provide for operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation of the collection system over time to achieve established system condition
and performance standards;
?
Ensure accurate flow metering, characterization, monitoring, and timely reporting;
?
Provide for sewer user customer services, billing and collection;
?
Ensure timely collection and remittance of monthly user fees and connection charges; and
?
Provide enforcement and fining authorities, associated inspection and enforcement
programs consistent with Eugene and Springfield.
If wastewater services are extended to Coburg, the Eugene-Springfield staff would need to plan
and budget to provide technical assistance and legal review in coordination with Coburg staff,
legal counsel and the city council. Staff support and processing of MWMC review and approval
of the relevant aspects of Coburg’s program would also need to be considered. However,
insufficient information is available at this time to estimate the scope, timing and costs of
addressing these activities. A placeholder work task and time line is included in Attachment A
to recognize that this work would need to be undertaken.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
This report identifies many of the issues that would need further consideration and follow-up
work if the elected officials direct staff to implement a path intended to extend wastewater
services to Coburg. Taken together, the tasks and decision-making process are likely to take up
to four years (assuming that staff can be freed up from other work to manage the project
expeditiously), and may cost as much as $650,000 to 1,000,000 or more in consulting, legal, and
agency staff costs. Attachment A provides ball park estimates of the staff, consultant, and legal
hours and associated costs, and depicts a range of $520,000 to $795,000. The cost estimates do
not include costs other than labor costs, which could be expected to include copying, printing,
and other materials and supplies. The costs and time lines also do not estimate any time or labor
that would be added in the event one or more of the land use planning decisions were to be
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Any appeals could be expected to add
significant costs and time to the process.
The next steps regional staff would anticipate taking in response to an affirmative direction to
proceed would include the following:
Page 19
1.Gain unified direction from the three Governing Bodies on as many of the base line
assumptions, conditions and scenarios under which Coburg would be permitted to
connect, as this would give Coburg officials better information about whether pursuing a
regional option or constructing dedicated facilities is their preferred option;
2.Gain agreement from the Governing Bodies regarding how the follow-up work would be
funded--issues such as equitable allocation of funds from each agency to this project, and
direction to prepare supplemental budget requests for the work, and/or how Coburg
would be assessed for the costs would need to be considered;
3.Gain agreement from the Governing Bodies regarding how the follow-up work would be
staffed;
4.Refine a scope of work and develop requests for proposals for consulting services to
assist agency staff in conducting analyses and supporting the decision processes;
5.Develop a schedule and budget for managing the project that is feasible given existing
agency work plans and budget priorities, and schedule follow-up review and approval by
the elected officials to proceed.
REQUESTED DIRECTION
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County staff request the JEOs to consider and provide direction
on the following questions:
1.Do the Governing Bodies choose to continue to work on an evaluation of Coburg’s
request for regional wastewater services?
2.What is the direction of the Governing Bodies regarding Junction City’s recent
expression of need and interest in requesting wastewater services?
3.What is the scope of activities staff are directed to undertake regarding questions #1 and
#2?
4.Which scenario represents the Governing Bodies’ acceptable level of cost-recovery as the
conceptual model for refinement of “buy-in” costs Coburg would be expected to pay?
5.Which customer/service relationship scenario would the Governing Bodies expect to
pursue?
6.How will the up-front work be funded, will the Governing Bodies authorize sufficient
staffing to conduct the work, and will Coburg be expected to fund the effort whether or
not it becomes an MWMC customer?
7.Is there an alternative direction the Governing Bodies wish to provide?
RECOMMENDATION
If there appears to be consensus among the Governing Bodies to move forward with further
review of this matter at the conclusion of the October 11, 2005 JEO discussion, the following
“next steps” are recommended.
1.Each jurisdiction should convene a work session to review and formulate desired
approaches relative to the questions posed above under “Requested Direction.”
Page 20
2.Following the individual work sessions, the chief elected officials and the chief executive
officers of each jurisdiction should meet to report on the outcomes of the work sessions,
and to determine an a appropriate process for reaching common agreement among the
three jurisdictions.
Page 21