HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5: PH on Ordinance Concerning Amendments to Public Facilities and Services Plan
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Remanded Provisions of Appendix B to
Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326; Amending Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326 by
Adoption of a New Appendix B; Repealing Section 5 of Each Ordinance; and Providing
an Immediate Effective Date
Meeting Date: January 9, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 5
Department: Public Works Staff Contacts: Peter Ruffier, Jerry Lidz
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8606, 682-5880
ISSUE STATEMENT
In 2004, at the request of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), the City
Councils of Eugene and Springfield and the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted the 2004
MWMC Facilities Plan and associated amendments to the Metro Plan text and the text, tables and maps
of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). The Home Builders Association of Lane County
appealed all of those actions to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA upheld all of the City
Council/Board’s actions except for some of the project descriptions included in the PFSP, which LUBA
remanded for reconsideration.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) will fulfill the requirements of LUBA’s remand by
incorporating expanded project descriptions in the appropriate PFSP tables and maps, consistent with
information that is already in the record of the public hearing. The projects themselves are unchanged.
Due to the need to begin construction as soon as possible to assure compliance with pollution control
laws and permits, the proposed ordinance also eliminates the clause making the ordinance effective only
after acknowledgement by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. For the same
reason, staff will request that the council consider approving the proposed ordinance with an immediate
effective date at its January 23 meeting. The amendments proposed to address LUBA’s remand would
then become effective immediately upon adoption of identical ordinances by Lane County and the City
of Springfield.
BACKGROUND
In May 2002, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new and more stringent
discharge permit requirements on the regional wastewater treatment facilities. MWMC conducted a
comprehensive evaluation of the existing system to determine how to meet the new discharge permit
requirements. The result of that evaluation was the MWMC Facilities Plan. It determined that the
existing regional wastewater system does not have sufficient capacity to meet state and federal discharge
requirements and recommended $144--$160 million (in 2004 dollars) in capital improvement projects to
provide adequate treatment capability and capacity for growth through 2025.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601095.doc
The acknowledged Metro Plan and 2001 PFSP (the Land Use Plans) did not include the capital
improvement projects described in the MWMC Facilities Plan. The Land Use Plans needed to be
updated to include all existing regional wastewater facilities and planned regional wastewater projects,
so that the MWMC Facilities Plan would be consistent with them. Therefore, in 2004, MWMC
proposed several changes to the Metro Plan and PFSP. The proposed changes to the PFSP included
adding three tables (4a, 4b and 16a) to describe the projects recommended by the MWMC Facilities
Plan and their projected cost and timing, and modifying Map 2 to show the location of the planned
projects. Table 4a listed three anticipated wastewater treatment system projects: Project 300, WPCF
a
Treatment Project; Project 301, Residuals Treatment Project; and Project 302, Beneficial Reuse Project.
Table 4b listed three anticipated collection system projects: Project 303, Willakenzie Pump Station;
Project 304, Screw Pump Station; and Project 305, Glenwood Pump Station. Map 2 depicted the
general physical locations of these projects and Table 16a provided an estimate of the cost of each
project and its estimated completion date.
b
The Eugene City Council adopted the amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP on July 26, 2004, by
Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326 respectively. Springfield and Lane County adopted similar ordinances
adopting identical amendments.
The Home Builders Association of Lane County appealed the amendments to the Land Use Plans on
numerous grounds. Among other contentions, it argued that the ordinances violated Goal 11 land use
requirements because: 1) the list of projects in Tables 4a and 4b were “categories” of projects; not
projects; 2) the project descriptions were not sufficiently detailed; and 3) the cost estimates in Table 16a
were deficient because they were based on “categories” of projects and not individual projects.
Essentially, the Home Builders wanted the cities and Lane County to take the exact list of projects
recommended in the MWMC Facilities Plan and incorporate it verbatim into the PFSP. LUBA rejected
several other arguments that are not discussed here.
LUBA remanded the PFSP amendments on narrow grounds. The remand is limited to an instruction to
the cities and County that Project 300 (WPCF Treatment Project) should be described with greater
specificity. LUBA suggested that the cities and County also take a second look at the descriptions for
Projects 301 (Residuals Treatment Project) and Project 302 (Beneficial Reuse Project) to see if greater
specificity was warranted, but did not require that these project descriptions be revised.
In response to LUBA’s remand, legal counsel and staff recommend four modifications to the PFSP. A
complete copy of the amendments is attached, with the recommended remand revisions shown in
legislative format (Attachment B).
1) Table 4a. First, staff recommends the addition of Projects 300A to 300I to provide the
greater specificity expressly required by LUBA as to Project 300. Although not expressly required, staff
also recommends the addition of Projects 301A, 301B, 302A and 302B. Staff believes these additions
are advisable in light of LUBA’s directive to re-evaluate Projects 301 and 302.
2) Maps 2 and 2a. Staff recommends that Map 2 be modified to depict all of the projects
and sub-projects, including the projects shown on Map 2 of the 2001 PFSP. Map 2a was misprinted.
Staff also recommends that Map 2a be replaced with the correct map (from the Technical Background
a
A new Map 2a has been inserted to show the location of the existing regional wastewater system.
b
Other changes were recommended, but they were not part of the appeal to LUBA.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601095.doc
Report). The maps shown in Attachment B to this memo are the “misprinted” maps and are included for
comparison with the corrected maps depicted in Attachment A.
3) Table 16a. Because additional sub-projects were added to Table 4a, staff recommends
that corresponding additions be made to Table 16a. The appropriate cost and timing estimates are set
forth for each sub-project. The cost estimates for projects 300, 301 and 302 are lower than they were in
the 2004 amendments because several of the capital improvement projects recommended by the
MWMC Facilities Plan are not “projects,” as that term is defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules
governing public facilities planning. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the cost of those capital
improvement projects to be included in the PFSP.
4) Changes to the Text. Staff recommends the addition of text to the end of the “Treatment”
discussion on page 4 of the remand revisions to summarize the three treatment projects. Staff also
recommends adding a discussion of the regional wastewater system’s capacity, following the
“Conveyance” discussion on page 4 of the remand revisions. OAR 660-011-0020(2) requires that a
public facility plan describe the capacity of each public facility. Although the data regarding capacity
was contained in the record before the council, the adopted amendments were not as clear as they could
have been regarding this requirement. Therefore, an explicit description regarding capacity is
recommended.
All of the evidence required to make the remand revisions is contained in the record that was before the
cities and County when they adopted the 2004 amendments. Therefore, no additional analysis,
documentation, or Planning Commission review is required.
Ordinances 20325 and 20326 contained a clause stating that the amendments to the Land Use Plans do
not become effective until all three of the following have occurred: 1) the ordinance has been
acknowledged; 2) at least 30 days have passed since the ordinance was approved; and 3) both
Springfield and Lane County had adopted similar ordinances. Because of the LUBA appeal, the first
condition has not been met. Therefore, the 2004 amendments to the Land Use Plans are not yet in
effect.
Legal counsel and staff recommend adopting a new ordinance that makes the remand revisions
immediately effective so that MWMC has the ability to obtain the needed DEQ approvals and City
c
permits to commence the capital improvement projects over the next several months. Construction must
begin promptly in order to achieve regulatory compliance by the year 2010. A delay now would affect
all future stages of construction. If the projects are not completed on schedule, MWMC could violate its
NPDES permit.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The recommendations included herein are consistent with the council’s 2005-2006 goals of Effective,
Accountable Municipal Government, and Sustainable Development. Amending the PFSP is responsive
c
effectiveacknowledged
The council should be aware that, even if the remand revisions are immediately , they will not be until all
appeal periods have again passed. Therefore, interim permit approvals will not be issued pursuant to an acknowledged Metro Plan or
PFSP. However, staff believes that any risk created by the lack of an acknowledged plan is outweighed by the danger of MWMC not
.
being able to meet its permit requirements
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601095.doc
to the remand from LUBA and will provide additional clarification about the projects necessary to
provide for the future wastewater treatment needs of the community.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Not applicable; this is a public hearing only. On January 23, 2006, the council will have options related
to the substance of the ordinance to implement the LUBA remand and related to its effective date.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The city manager recommends that the Mayor and City Council convene the public hearing and
schedule the ordinance for adoption on January 23, 2006
SUGGESTED MOTION
Not applicable; this is a public hearing only.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed ordinance, including the proposed amendments to Appendix B to Metro Plan and PFSP.
B. Proposed amendments in red-lined format.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Peter Ruffier (for information about the MWMC projects)
Jerry Lidz (for information about action on remand from LUBA)
Telephone: Ruffier: 682 8606; Lidz: 682 5880
Staff E-Mail: peter.j.ruffier@ci.eugene.or.us; jerome.s.lidz@harrang.com.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601095.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. ______________
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING REMANDED PROVISIONS OF
APPENDIX B TO ORDINANCE NOS. 20325 AND 20326;
AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 20325 AND 20326 BY ADOPTION
OF A NEW APPENDIX B; REPEALING SECTION 5 OF EACH
ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE
DATE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326 were passed by the City Council on July
26, 2004 and approved by the Mayor on July 31, 2004. Ordinance 20325 amended the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section G, Public
Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V, Glossary, as set forth in Appendix A and
Appendix B to the Ordinance. Ordinance 20326 amended the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) by incorporating those
same amendments, which were also attached to that ordinance as Appendix A and
Appendix B.
B.
Section 5 of both Ordinances provided that each would become effective
upon the date that all of the following occurred: the Ordinances were acknowledged as
provided by ORS 197.625; at least 30 days had passed since they were approved; and
both the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council adopted
ordinances containing substantively identical provisions.
C.
The City of Springfield and Lane County both adopted substantively
identical ordinances in July 2004. In late July 2004 the adoption of Ordinance Nos.
20325 and 20326 (and the ordinances adopted by Springfield and Lane County) was
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On September 2, 2005 LUBA
Appendix B Page 1
issued its decision rejecting all of the appellant’s arguments except one and remanded the
adoption of the PFSP amendments. The remand was limited in that LUBA directed only
that the three jurisdictions describe Project 300 with greater specificity and consider
describing Projects 301 and 302 with greater specificity.
D.
In response to LUBA’s remand, a new Appendix B, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein, has been prepared containing the additional detail and
specificity as directed by LUBA, and Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326 should be
amended by replacing the Appendix B attached to each ordinance with the Appendix B
attached hereto.
E.
The new Appendix B, attached hereto, is based on the record that was
before the City Council when it adopted Ordinances 20325 and 20326 in July, 2004.
F.
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) will
be unable to proceed with timely construction necessary to meet the new and more
stringent discharge permit requirements imposed by the state Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) if the revisions to the Metro Plan and the PFSP as effected
by Ordinance Nos. 20325 and 20326 and amended herein do not become immediately
effective. Section 5 of each ordinance should therefore be repealed, and an effective date
established as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Based on the above findings, which are hereby adopted, Ordinance
Nos. 20325 and 20326 are hereby amended by replacing the Appendix B attached to each
with the Appendix B attached hereto, which is hereby adopted.
Appendix B Page 2
Section 2.
Section 5 of Ordinance No. 20325 and Section 5 of Ordinance 20326
are hereby repealed, and the unamended portions of those ordinances shall become
effective as provided in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
Section 3.
Except as amended herein, all other provisions of Ordinance No.
20325 and Ordinance No. 20326, and the attachments thereto, remain in full force and
effect, and the City Recorder is requested to attach a copy of this ordinance to each.
Section 4.
The Council specifically finds that in order for MWMC to proceed
with timely construction necessary to comply with state and federal discharge permit
requirements and achieve mandatory compliance with certain regulatory requirements by
the year 2010, an immediate effective date is necessary for this Ordinance and Ordinance
Nos. 20325 and 20326 as amended herein. Therefore, notwithstanding the effective date
of ordinances as provided by the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance, and Ordinance
Nos. 20325 and 20326 as amended herein, shall become effective immediately upon the
passage and approval of this Ordinance, or the adoption of an ordinance containing
substantively identical provisions to those contained herein by the Springfield City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, whichever date is the latest.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2005 ____ day of _______________,
2005
___________________________
_______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Appendix B Page 3
APPENDIX B
CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
1.Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
, .
Planned wastewater system improvement projects are listed in tables 3, 44a and 4b The
,
general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2: Planned Wastewater Facilities
[NOTE: This
and Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems.
map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical Background Report: Existing
Conditions and Alternatives and should be incorporated without change.]
2.Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
1. PROJECT PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION
#
300 WPCF Treatment Includes several construction
Project packages designed to manage and
treat wastewater at the WPCF to the
year 2025.
300A (a)Preliminary Increase preliminary treatment capacity
Treatment of headworks to meet anticipated 2025
peak wet weather flows
300B Primary Treatment Enhance existing primary clarifiers and
add primary sludge thickening facilities
to increase primary treatment capacity
to meet anticipated peak wet weather
flows
300C Secondary Treatment Convert aeration basins, enhance
existing secondary clarifiers, and add
secondary clarifiers to increase
secondary treatment capacity to meet
anticipated peak wet weather flows
300D Disinfection/Outfall Convert disinfection system, and
increase bankside outfall capacity
300E Biosolids Treatment Increase digestion capacity by
enhancing existing digesters and sludge
thickening capacity and/or adding a
digester
300F Filtration Add filtration and build related
infrastructure and support facilities
300G Reuse Facilities Expand effluent reuse capacity
Appendix B Page 4
300H Odor Control Expand and/or add odor control
facilities
300I Flow Management Piping, pumping and related
Facilities infrastructure improvements to allow
parallel operation of primary and
secondary treatment facilities
301 Residuals Treatment Includes several construction
Project packages designed to manage and
treat residuals.
301A Lagoon Rehabilitation Rehabilitate lagoons at Biosolids
Management Facility
301B Composting Facility Expand composting facility at Biosolids
Management Facility
302 Beneficial Reuse Project Includes several construction
packages designed to expand reuse of
effluent.
302A Biocycle Farm Expand biosolids land application area
302B Effluent Reuse Expand effluent reuse at Biocycle Farm
(including former Seasonal Industrial
Waste site)
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System Improvement Projects
Project Project Name/Description
Number
303 Willakenzie Pump Station
304 Screw Pump Station
305 Glenwood Pump Station
3.Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a.
Appendix B Page 5
4.
Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying the
subdivision entitled “Wastewater System condition Assessment” (presently on page 82) to
read as follows:
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed during
operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing programs to help plan for and
implement equipment replacement and major rehabilitation of existing systems. With these on
going programs used to detect existing problems, the infrastructure can be maintained and
preserved to help extend its useful life for future years.
In March of 2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater
capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban growth boundary into year
2025. MWMC will need to implement the recommended improvements to meet regulatory
requirements based on projected pollution loads and flows. CH2M HILL as part of its work to
evaluate and plan for regional wastewater improvements has prepared a technical memo related
to “Flow and Load Projections” dated April 12, 2004. This historical and projected information
is being used to plan for needed MWMC capital improvements based on engineering evaluation
methods and by comparing technology options. It is estimated that approximately $160 million
dollars (in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC projects to address regulatory requirements and
growth through year 2025.
The Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), located on River Avenue in Eugene, replaced the
separate plants previously owned and operated by Eugene and Springfield. Its function is to
Ordinance - 6
meet the region’s needs for increased sewerage service and ensure compliance with the facility’s
NPDES discharge permit.
The Residuals Treatment Project is located at the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) on
Awbrey Lane in Lane County. The BMF’s function is to store, further stabilize, and dry digested
biosolids received from the WPCF.
The Beneficial Reuse Project is located at the Biocycle Farm along Highway 99 in Lane County.
The Biocycle Farm’s function is to apply biosolids from the adjacent BMF to poplar trees, which
absorb the water and nutrients contained in the biosolids.
Conveyance:
Conveyance capacity and inflow and infiltration (I/I) ratios are important criteria by which to
assess the performance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance capacity is a function of
adequate pipe sizing and measures a system’s ability to move effluent efficiently. Inflow and
infiltration ratios express the amount of stormwater entering a sewer system through defective
pipes and pipe joints, or through the cross connection of stormwater lines, combined sewers,
catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous stormwater entering the wastewater system
unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and treatment facilities.
Capacity:
The capacity of the wastewater system is expressed in four measures: average flow, peak flow,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The system’s current
capacities and projected 2025 needed capacities are:
Capacity Measure Current 2025
Average flow 49 mgd 59.3 mgd
Peak flow 175 mgd 277 mgd
BOD 66,000 lbs/day 74,000 lbs/day
TSS 71,600 lbs/day 87,600 lbs/day
Projects 300 through 305, described in Tables 4a and 4b, are designed to work together to
increase the overall system capacities to meet the projected 2025 need.
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying the
discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled “Long-Term Service Availability Within
Urbanizable Areas” (presently on page 97) to read as follows:
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20
years) assuming that public infrastructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be addressed. Appropriate
engineering design practices must be used during the development and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for development
(ex. – hillside construction, etc.). Expansion of the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time
period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area treatment facilities will require facility improvements to address
both dry and wet weather regulatory requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. Regional and local wastewater
improvements to the collection and treatment systems are being planned for and will be implemented to allow for growth within the UGB
and for regulatory compliance.
Ordinance - 7
6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
Project Project Name/Description Cost* Estimated
Number ($000,000) Completion Year
300WPCF Treatment Project$120.3
300A Preliminary Treatment ($12.8) 2010
300B Primary Treatment ($4.8) 2012
300C Secondary Treatment ($24.7) 2017
300D Disinfection/Outfall ($5.6) 2010
300E Biosolids Treatment ($18.3) 2013
300F Filtration ($20.2) 2020
300G Reuse Facilities ($16.) 2018
300H Odor Control ($6.9) 2012
300I Flow Management Facilities ($11.) 2010
301 Residuals Treatment Project $5.2
301A Lagoon Rehabilitation ($4.5) 2012
301B Composting Facility ($.7) 2017
302 Beneficial Reuse Project $4.6
302A Biocycle Farm ($0.6) 2008
302B Effluent Reuse ($4.) 2017
303 Willakenzie Pump Station $6. 2010
304 Screw Pump Station $2. 2010
305 Glenwood Pump Station $0.5 2012
TOTAL: $138.6
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter VI., reading
as follows:
2.VI. Amendments to the Plan
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or appropriate to
modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and Services Plan (“the
Plan”).
1.Flexibility of the Plan
Ordinance - 8
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will necessarily
change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement programs, environmental
impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The Plan is not designed to either
prohibit projects not included in the plan for which unanticipated funding has been obtained,
preclude project specification and location decisions made according to the National
Environmental Policy Act, or subject administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-
acknowledgement review or review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications require amendment of the Plan:
1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as represented by
Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility projects which
significantly impact a public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan,
and which do not qualify as administrative or technical and environmental
changes, as defined below. Amendments are subject to the administrative
procedures and review and appeal procedures applicable to land use decisions.
2. Adoption of capital improvement program project lists by any service provider
does not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements of
subparagraph 1 above are met.
B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan:
1. Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project which
are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project’s general
description, location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristic of the project.
2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public facility
project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project or those
which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or
state agency project development regulations consistent with that Act and its
regulations.
2.Process for making Changes
A.Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may make an
administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein, by forwarding
to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council of Governments a copy
of the resolution or other final action of the governing board of the jurisdiction
authorizing the change.
B.Amendments
Ordinance - 9
For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are divided
into two classes.
a.Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a list,
location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public
facility project identified herein, which project serves more than one jurisdiction.
b.Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of public
facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified
herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the amendment.
C.Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate an
amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a citizen.
a.Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the
respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be considered by
the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I amendment is not adopted by all
agencies, the amendment shall be referred to MPC for conflict resolution.
Subsequent failure by agencies to adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat
the proposed amendment. If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt
substantively identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of the
initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be considered
by the governing board of the initiating agency.
Ordinance - 10
ATTACHMENT B
APPENDIX B
CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
PLAN (PFSP)
1.Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows:
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
, .
Planned wastewater system improvement projects are listed in tables 3, 44a and 4b The
,
general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2: Planned Wastewater Facilities
[NOTE: This
and Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems.
map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical Background Report: Existing
Conditions and Alternatives and should be incorporated without change.]
2.Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows:
Table 4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT #
300 WPCF Treatment Includes several construction packages
Project designed to manage and treat wastewater at
the WPCF to the year 2025.
300A Preliminary Treatment Increase preliminary treatment capacity of
headworks to meet anticipated 2025 peak
wet weather flows
300B Primary Treatment Enhance existing primary clarifiers and add
primary sludge thickening facilities to
increase primary treatment capacity to meet
anticipated peak wet weather flows
300C Secondary Treatment Convert aeration basins, enhance existing
secondary clarifiers, and add secondary
clarifiers to increase secondary treatment
capacity to meet anticipated peak wet
weather flows
300D Disinfection/Outfall Convert disinfection system, and increase
bankside outfall capacity
300E Biosolids Treatment Increase digestion capacity by enhancing
existing digesters and sludge thickening
capacity and/or adding a digester
300F Filtration Add filtration and build related
infrastructure and support facilities
300G Reuse Facilities Expand effluent reuse capacity
300H Odor Control Expand and/or add odor control facilities
300I Flow Management Piping, pumping and related infrastructure
Facilities improvements to allow parallel operation
Appendix B Page 1
of primary and secondary treatment
facilities
301 Residuals Treatment Includes several construction packages
Project designed to manage and treat residuals.
301A Lagoon Rehabilitation Rehabilitate lagoons at Biosolids
Management Facility
301B Composting Facility Expand composting facility at Biosolids
Management Facility
302 Beneficial Reuse Project Includes several construction packages
designed to expand reuse of effluent.
302A Biocycle Farm Expand biosolids land application area
302B Effluent Reuse Expand effluent reuse at Biocycle Farm
(including former Seasonal Industrial
Waste site)
Table 4b
MWMC Primary Collection System Improvement Projects
Project Project Name/Description
Number
303 Willakenzie Pump Station
304 Screw Pump Station
305 Glenwood Pump Station
3.Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a.
Appendix B Page 2
4. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the subdivision entitled “Wastewater System condition Assessment”
(presently on page 82) to read as follows:
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System
MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed
during operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing programs to help
plan for and implement equipment replacement and major rehabilitation of existing
systems. With these on going programs used to detect existing problems, the
infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend its useful life for future
years.
In March of 2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional
wastewater capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban growth
boundary into year 2025. MWMC will need to implement the recommended
improvements to meet regulatory requirements based on projected pollution loads and
flows. CH2M HILL as part of its work to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater
improvements has prepared a technical memo related to “Flow and Load Projections”
dated April 12, 2004. This historical and projected information is being used to plan for
needed MWMC capital improvements based on engineering evaluation methods and by
comparing technology options. It is estimated that approximately $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC projects to address regulatory requirements and
growth through year 2025.
Appendix B Page 3
The Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), located on River Avenue in Eugene,
replaced the separate plants previously owned and operated by Eugene and Springfield.
Its function is to meet the region’s needs for increased sewerage service and ensure
compliance with the facility’s NPDES discharge permit.
The Residuals Treatment Project is located at the Biosolids Management Facility (BMF)
on Aubrey Lane in Lane County. The BMF’s function is to store, further stabilize, and
dry digested biosoldis received from the WPCF.
The Beneficial Reuse Project is located at the Biocycle Farm along Highway 99 in Lane
County. The Biocycle Farm’s function is to apply biosolids from the adjacent BMF to
poplar trees, which absorb the water and nutrients contained in the biosolids.
Conveyance:
Conveyance capacity and inflow and infiltration (I/I) ratios are important criteria by
which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance capacity
is a function of adequate pipe sizing and measures a system’s ability to move effluent
efficiently. Inflow and infiltration ratios express the amount of stormwater entering a
sewer system through defective pipes and pipe joints, or through the cross connection of
stormwater lines, combined sewers, catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous
stormwater entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and
treatment facilities.
Capacity:
The capacity of the wastewater system is expressed in four measures: average flow, peak
flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The
system’s current capacities and projected 2025 needed capacities are:
Capacity Measure Current 2025
Average flow 49 mgd 59.3 mgd
Peak flow 175 mgd 277 mgd
BOD 66,000 lbs/day 74,000 lbs/day
TSS 71,600 lbs/day 87,600 lbs/day
Projects 300 through 305, described in Tables 4a and 4b, are designed to work together to
increase the overall system capacities to meet the projected 2025 need.
5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying
the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled “Long-Term Service
Availability Within Urbanizable Areas” (presently on page 97) to read as
follows:
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that public
infrastructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be
addressed. Appropriate engineering design practices must be used during the
development and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for
development (ex. – hillside construction, etc.). Expansion of the existing
Appendix B Page 4
collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time
period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area treatment
facilities will require facility improvements to address both dry and wet weather
regulatory requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Regional and local wastewater improvements to the collection and treatment
systems are being planned for and will be implemented to allow for growth within
the UGB and for regulatory compliance.
6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as follows:
Table 16a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate
Project Project Name/Description Cost* Estimated
Number ($000,000) Completion Year
300WPCF Treatment Project$120.3
300A Preliminary Treatment $12.8 2010
300B Primary Treatment $4.8 2012
300C Secondary Treatment $24.7 2017
300D Disinfection/Outfall $5.6 2010
300E Biosolids Treatment $18.3 2013
300F Filtration $20.2 2020
300G Reuse Facilities $16. 2018
300H Odor Control $6.9 2012
300I Flow Management Facilities $11. 2010
301 Residuals Treatment Project $5.2
301A Lagoon Rehabilitation $4.5 2012
301B Composting Facility $.7 2017
302 Beneficial Reuse Project $4.6
302A Biocycle Farm $0.6 2008
302B Effluent Reuse $4. 2017
303 Willakenzie Pump Station $6. 2010
304 Screw Pump Station $2. 2010
305 Glenwood Pump Station $0.5 2012
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter
VI., reading as follows:
VI. Amendments to the Plan
Appendix B Page 5
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan (“the Plan”).
Flexibility of the Plan
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject
administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications require amendment of the Plan:
1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in
the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or
technical and environmental changes, as defined below. Amendments are
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
applicable to land use decisions.
2. Adoption of capital improvement program project lists by any service
provider does not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subparagraph 1 above are met.
B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan:
1. Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project
which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project’s
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
characteristic of the project.
2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project
or those which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment
or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations.
Process for making Changes
Appendix B Page 6
A.Administrative and Technical or Environmental Changes. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of Governments a copy of the resolution or other final action of the governing
board of the jurisdiction authorizing the change.
B.Amendments
For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are
divided into two classes.
a.Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves
more than one jurisdiction.
b.Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of
public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project
identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment.
C.Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate
an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a
citizen.
a.Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the
respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the proposed amendment.
If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt substantively
identical ordinances
b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
considered by the governing board of the initiating agency.
Appendix B Page 7