HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7 - Action MWMC Fac. PlanEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: Resolution 4793 Adopting the 2004 Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List for the Eugene-Springfield Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Meeting Date: June 28, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 7
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Peter Ruffler
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8606
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This item is for action on a resolution adopting the 2004 Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) Facilities Plan and associated 20-Year Project List. The 2004 MWMC Facilities
Plan and 20-Year Project List, adopted by MWMC on May 6, 2004, is intended to address
improvements of the regional wastewater facilities needed to meet community growth through 2025,
state and federal requirements, and community expectations for protection of the public's health, safety,
and the environment. It is forwarded by the MWMC to the City of Eugene for adoption by resolution.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
· On February 9, 1977, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was
established by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) signed by the governing bodies of Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County.
· In 1977, the "208 Plan" was approved for the construction of the Eugene-Springfield regional
wastewater facilities which set out the original projections, requirements, and projects to serve the
wastewater treatment needs of the Eugene-Springfield community for a twenty-year period.
· In 2001, the commission, the City of Eugene, and the City of Springfield adopted the Wet Weather
Flow Management Plan (WWFMP) to address the peak flow capacity issues. This plan remains the
guiding policy document in setting the cities' annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for sanitary
sewer rehabilitation and replacement, as well as the commission's capital improvements and
operations for addressing peak flows to the regional wastewater facilities.
· On May 19, 2004, the Eugene City Council had a work session on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan.
· On June 14, 2004, the Eugene City Council received information on efforts toward public outreach
and involvement activities in attachments to an Agenda Item Summary (ALS) for that meeting,
including: 1) an historical chart of the foundational plans with corresponding public outreach and
involvement; 2) a summary table of the regional wastewater program's public awareness, education,
and involvement efforts; and 3) a comprehensive memorandum with detailed explanations of the
history and appropriate, representative samples of legal notices, press releases, media
announcements, public meetings, public hearings, mass mailings, workshops, and open houses.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406287.doc
· On June 14, 2004, a public hearing was convened. Written documentation submitted at the public
hearing was distributed in the Thursday, June 17, 2004, council packets. A brief summary of the
public hearing and a listing of related attachments included with this AlS follows.
Public Hearing
On June 14, 2004, the council held a public hearing on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year
Project List. Fourteen people signed up to provide oral testimony. Seven offered testimony in support
of the plan and list, two opposed the plan and list, and five were neutral or addressed the issue of
extending wastewater services to the City of Coburg.
In general, testimony in favor of approving the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List
commented on the justified need for the proposed projects, the appropriateness of the plan, and the
effectiveness of the Citizens Advisory Committee and public outreach processes. Testimony opposed to
approval of the plan and project list questioned whether the plan is the right one to address need,
whether the planning criteria (and related state standards) are overly conservative, whether there has
been sufficient public process, and whether coordination of the Facilities Plan and the SDC
methodology has been done correctly. Included as attachments to this AlS are the following: 1) a copy
of the transcript of oral testimony, including brief responses to some of the questions raised in the
testimony; 2) a memo to the council responding to questions submitted from the mayor and councilors
on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List, as time did not permit discussion by the
council following the public hearing; 3) technical and legal responses to several of the written letters
submitted at the hearing which were distributed in the Thursday, June 17, 2004, packet; 4) a list of
documentation submitted by staff for inclusion in the public record; and 5) a memo to the Lane County
Board of Commissioners on peak wastewater flows.
Policy Issues
The primary policy question before the council is: Does the council agree with the MWMC that the
2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List provide for the wastewater treatment needs of the
community in a cost-effective and responsible manner? A related issue is the financial implications of
the proposed 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and associated 20-Year Project List. Funding of the
improvements identified in the plan will come from user rates and systems development charges
(SDCs). Approximately two-thirds of the system's users are located in Eugene. Adoption of the 20-
Year Project List is required to establish a basis for the proposed SDC rates needed to fund growth's
equitable share of capital improvements.
Wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure are critical components in the support of community
and environmental health and well-being. Periodic updates to wastewater facilities are necessary to
ensure that the infrastructure remains adequate to handle the projected demands for wastewater
collection and treatment without an interruption or deficiency in service that can lead to public health
risks, damage to the environment, or economic restrictions due to sewer connection moratoriums.
Previous plans, established policies, strategies, significant modeling, evaluation, and citizen involvement
provide the foundation for the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List. The plan provides
the most cost-effective set of capital improvements to meet capacity and performance needs while
utilizing existing plant assets and building new plant expansions only where necessary. Existing
commission policies and guidance, the wastewater discharge permit requirements, and state/federal
regulations have provided the context for the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan. No new policies were
developed in connection with the proposed plan.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406287.doc
The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan is based on the least costly system-wide set of improvements needed,
addressing both the peak flow and treatment requirements. Failure to implement the 2004 MWMC
Facilities Plan in a timely manner would increase the probability of regulatory violations, pose risk to
public and environmental health, result in shorter planning and construction timeframes for reacting to
system shortfalls, and increase overall costs to sewer users and the community from less efficient
planning and financial management processes. It might also result in restrictions to the community's
ability to add new users to the system.
Council Goals
The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List is related to the City Council goals of:
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A community that retains a high quality of life and a healthy economy, effectively links land
use and planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment.
HEALTHY NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
A community that conserves and enhances the natural environment and provides an
attractive and healthy place to live.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
MWMC acquired $85,000,000 in federal grant funds to support the construction of regional wastewater
facilities that began in the early 1980s. The majority of the facilities were brought on line in 1984 at a
total cost of $105,000,000. General obligation bonds were issued by the Lane County Metropolitan
Wastewater Service District (CSD) for $29,000,000 and were repaid through property taxes. The bonds
were retired in 2002. Implementation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan will require a financial
investment which is most significant over the first five years of the 20-year planning period. In 2004
dollars, the 20-year total cost is projected to be $144,000,000. No grant funding is anticipated in the
projected capital financing. About $90,000,000 of this need will be realized in the first five years of the
CIP to reasonably assure compliance with peak flow management requirements by the year 2010, as
established by the DEQ. Revenues to support the anticipated capital project needs will be derived from
user rates and systems development charges. In order to mitigate potentially significant short-term
impacts to user rates, a significant amount of debt financing will be necessary. The MWMC Financial
Plan, adopted in 2003, anticipates this need and provides financial policies and tools which will serve
the commission in managing the revenue requirements over the coming years to minimize overall costs
and user rate increases. (The anticipated total increase for a typical residence over the first five years
would range from approximately $5.60 to $6.50 per month.) SDC rates will increase by approximately
79% to support growth's equitable share of necessary capital improvements.
Other Background Information
The Facilities Plan is the culmination of a year-long effort involving significant public review. Facility
planning analyses were conducted by CH2M HILL began in March 2003, with the oversight of a 12-
member Eugene-Springfield staff steering committee. The commission reviewed the draft 2004
MWMC Facilities Plan in a special, publicly advertised evening workshop on November 24, 2003, and
gave consensus instruction to finalize the 20-Year Project List to include the recommended preferred
solutions and new disinfection system. On January 8, 2004, the commission, after another review of the
draft 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and associated costs, gave direction to proceed with the finalization
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406287.doc
of the 20-Year Project List. A third public open house was advertised and held the evening of March 3,
2004. The commission held a public hearing on adoption of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-
Year Project List on April 22, 2004, and carried over the hearing to May 6, 2004, to allow time for
additional public review and testimony.
Except for the original 1977 "208 Plan," MWMC has not until this time updated the formal Facility Plan
to be approved by the DEQ. An approved Facilities Plan will incorporate the existing adopted plans (the
WWFMP and the Biosolids Management Plan), contain updated technical analyses and projections of
flows and loads, provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state and federal regulations and new
limitations and requirements in the NPDES permit (see next paragraph), and revise the capital
improvement projects to meet the needs for adequate operational facilities. Having a formally approved
Facilities Plans will also make MWMC eligible for public loans and grants.
As stated, the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan will help to ensure continued compliance with regulatory
requirements that govern the quality of effluent discharged from the treatment works as well as
conditions for the collection and transmission ofwastewater to the treatment plant. These regulations
present legal requirements for the provision ofwastewater services to the community and form the
foundation for the design criteria used in formulating the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and associated
20-Year Project List. The DEQ reissued MWMC's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit in May 2002, which prompted the commission to pursue a thorough, updated Facilities
Plan to include the new ammonia and thermal load limits of the renewed permit, as well as the new
requirements to implement a Temperature Management Plan (TMP) and the WWFMP. Furthermore, a
comprehensive analysis of the treatment plant's processes and hydraulic capacities has led the
commission to include an evaluation and recommendation of alternative disinfection systems to mitigate
worker safety and community risk concerns in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan.
The treatment plant also currently faces a significant peak flow capacity deficit, which was projected in
the earlier WWFMP and has been validated and updated to the year 2025 based on an updated modeling
using more recent 2003-04 data. The present facility effort is prompted by the original
intergovernmental agreement which specified that when the sewage loading into the treatment plant
reached 85% of the initial design capacity, the commission would institute a program to expand and/or
upgrade the treatment system beyond the initial design capacity. This trigger point is now being reached
for several of the unit process capacities.
In the mid-1990s, the regional wastewater treatment facilities were modified to improve their
performance, and the commission recognized that the facilities were experiencing capacity limitations
relative to original design specifications. As a result, additional expansions would be needed to
actualize the projected 2004 design life. In 1996, the commission responded with a directive to produce
a master plan to evaluate short-term and long-range improvements necessary to improve facility
operations and meet increasing capacity and evolving performance demands. The MWMC Master Plan
was completed in 1997. Although it is not as comprehensive as the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, it did
provide analysis of historic flows, pollutant loads, and reporting data to identify capital improvements
needed to resolve shortfalls in the capacity for biosolids processing and peak flow management.
Later in 1997, the commission adopted the Biosolids Management Plan, which was derived from a
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and engineering evaluation processes. This plan reflects the
commission' s adoption of strategy to resolve shortfalls in biosolids processing capacity and is based upon
an evaluation of available technologies, cost effectiveness, reliability, and public acceptance. The
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406287.doc
biosolids dewatering facility (completed in 2001), ongoing maintenance of drying beds, composting
operation, cooperative land application on private farms, and development of the Biocycle Farm are the
beneficial results of the commission's adopted biosolids management strategy. To address the peak flow
capacity issues, the commission, the City of Eugene, and the City of Springfield adopted the WWFMP in
2001. The objectives of this plan were to eliminate overflows and basement flooding and provide the
most cost-effective means to mitigate flows in excess of system capacity. The plan developed a
sophisticated hydraulic model that was calibrated and refined with actual system performance over
several years of the study. The Wet Weather CAC reviewed a wide mix of solutions and recommended
the policies and capital improvements included in the WWFMP, and the plan remains the guiding policy
document in setting the cities' annual CIP for sanitary sewer rehabilitation and replacement, as well as
the commission's capital improvements and operations for addressing peak flows.
Timing
Planning projections indicate that important capacity limitations and needs for upgraded treatment
capabilities will be realized in the relative short-term future. In addition, optimization of the various
capital projects to meet multiple objectives and maximize the capabilities of existing infrastructure
requires an integrated and synchronized process for design and construction. This process needs
appropriate lead-time in order to ensure that the necessary projects can be designed, built, and brought
on-line in time to meet regulatory deadlines and increased demands on the wastewater system. The
significant financial needs presented by the magnitude of the Facilities Plan Project List also require
careful planning for adequate cash-flow and implementation of revenue generation processes.
While the commission is assigned the responsibility of planning for plan upgrade/expansion, and for
constructing, operating, and maintaining them, the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project
List is being forward to the governing bodies for consideration, as it will result in expanded capacity and
provide for community growth through 2025. Therefore, the commission is formally requesting that the
governing bodies acknowledge their concurrence with the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan by adoption of
the resolution. The City of Eugene had a public hearing on June 14, 2004, with council action scheduled
for June 28, 2004. The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan will subsequently be submitted to the DEQ for
formal review and approval. If the DEQ requires changes, the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan will be re-
routed for additional consideration as needed.
Timing is also affected by the adoption of the MWMC FY04-05 Budget and CIP which must go through
the established approval process with MWMC and the governing bodies. The budget and CIP was
adopted by the commission on May 6, 2004, and is now scheduled for ratification by the Eugene City
Council on June 28, 2004.
Finally, timing is also affected by the establishment of new regional wastewater user rates and systems
development charges (SDC), which need to be adopted for FY 04-05 to provide adequate revenues for
MWMC operations, administration, and capital programs. The City of Eugene had a public hearing on
the SDCs on June 14, 2004, with council action scheduled for June 28, 2004.
OPTIONS
1. Adopt by resolution the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List.
2. Provide the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission with specific guidance for revising
the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406287.doc
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City of Eugene adopt the proposed resolution adopting the 2004 MWMC
Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List as adopted by MWMC on May 6, 2004.
The Regional Wastewater Program staff has had significant ongoing involvement in the development of
the Facilities Plan and project list, and continual guidance from the commission, as well as input from
public hearings, during this year-long planning process. The "preferred" Alternative 5 approved by the
commission in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan has been identified as the most cost-effective plan as it
has the lowest capital costs to achieve permit compliance and maximizes the use and effectiveness of the
existing facilities.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt Resolution 4793 adopting the 2004 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List for the Eugene-Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Proposed Resolution
B. Materials in the Records for the Adoption of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and SDC Methodology
C. Memo to City Council: "Responses to Council Questions on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year
Project List" (June 18, 2004)
D. Memo to the Lane County Board of Commissioners: "Peak Wastewater Flows, Response to Public Hearing
on the Regional Wastewater Facilities Plan" (June 11, 2004)
E. Minutes of oral testimony provided in June 14, 2004, public hearing, with brief responses to questions raised
F. Technical and legal responses to written letters submitted at June 14, 2004, public hearing which were
previously distributed in the Thursday, June 17 packet.
Note:
· 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan with 20-Year Project List was previously distributed for the work session on
May 19, 2004
· Frequently Asked Questions About the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and System Development Charge
Methodology was previously distributed for the work session on May 19, 2004
· Response to April 2, 2004, Questions from Eugene Chamber of Commerce - 2004 MWMC Facilities
Plan and System Development Charge Update was previously distributed for the work session on May
19, 2004
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Peter Ruffler
Telephone: 682-8606
Staff E-Mail: peter.j.ruffler~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S0406287.doc
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 4793
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2004 MWMC FACILITIES PLAN
AND 20-YEAR PROJECT LIST FOR THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List for the Eugene-Springfield
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities attached as Exhibit A is needed in order to identify
facility enhancements and expansions that are needed to serve the community's wastewater
needs and to implement solutions to address a full range of regional wastewater needs through
2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the above findings,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List for the Eugene-
Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities attached as Exhibit A is adopted.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the day of ., 2004.
City Recorder
Resolution
L:\CMO~2004 Council Agcndas2vi040628\S0406287-attA.do¢
ATTACHMENT B
MATERIALS IN THE RECORDS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2004 MWMC
FACILIITES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY
Eugene City Council: June 14, 2004, Public Hearing on Facilities Plan and SDC
Methodology
1. Letter from Michael H. Kortenhof, DEQ, Manager of Water Quality Permits
Section, to the Lane County Board of Commissioners; Subject: MWMC
Facilities Plan--Treatment Capacity Requirements; June 14, 2004.
2. Memo from Peter Ruffler and Susie Smith to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners; Subject: Peak Wastewater Flows, Response to Public
Hearing on the Regional Wastewater Facilities Plan; June 11, 2004.
3. Letter from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, Meg Kieran, Attorney for
City of Springfield, and Jerome Lidz, Attorney for City of Eugene; Subject:
MWMC Processes; May 27, 2004.
4. Letter from Matt Noesen, Project Manager and Mark Lasswell of CH2M
HILL; Subject: MWMC SDC Methodology; June 11, 2004.
5. Memo from Susie Smith and Peter Ruffler to the Eugene Mayor and City
Council; Subject: Council Assignment--Response to Request for Information
on MWMC's Public Involvement and Notification Activities; June 1, 2004.
6. Examples of Project Allocations--MWMC SDC Update; Prepared by CH2M
HILL, June 14, 2004.
7. Typical Costs per Residence--Wastewater Utility Rate and SDC Survey
Information; prepared by Eugene, Springfield and CH2M HILL, June 2004.
8. Email Response from Dave Jewett, MWMC Legal Counsel, to Roxie Cuellar,
Home Builders Association of Lane County to questions submitted by Ms.
Cuellar via email; June 10, 2004.
9. Contractual Agreement Between MWMW and CH2M HILL for Consultant
Technical Services to Update MWMC Facilities Plans and Develop Predesign
Work Necessary to Upgrade Certain Aspects of the Regional Wastewater
Facilities, Project PS0010, as amended by MWMC on October 27, 2003 to
include a Wastewater System Development Charge Methodology Update.
ATTACHMENT C
Public Works
Wastewater Division
City of Eugene
410 River Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97404
(541) 682-8600
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 18, 2004
To: Mayor Torrey and City Council
From: Peter Ruffler, Wastewater Division Director
Subject: COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT: RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MAYOR
AND COUNCILORS ON THE 2004 MWMC FACILITIES PLAN AND 20-YEAR
PROJECT LIST
Questions are written first as submitted with response following in italic print.
(1) Am I generally correct (though possibly simplistic) if I state that the three main reasons for
the projects in the project list are (1) added capacity for growth, (2) requirements of new state
and federal regulations, and (3)improvements to be a good neighbor for the surrounding
development (e.g., odor control)?
You are generally correct, although one of the primary reasons underlying the Project List that
is not included in your question is the need for expansion of capacity to handle peak flows in the
regional wastewater system. The need for peak flow capacity was extensively evaluated by a
Citizens Advisory Committee and the MWMC during the development of the Wet Weather Flow
Management Plan, which served as a precursor for the more comprehensive 2004 Facilities
Plan. There are other projects on the 20-Year Project List that are based upon meeting MWMC
objectives for the community and worker health and safety, such as the transition in disinfection
practices from gaseous chlorine to a safer liquid chlorine disinfectant. Improvements to
maintain a good neighbor relationship are not a major driving factor in the Facilities Plan and
Project List, but are addressed in relation to specific projects as appropriate (e.g. the need for
additional odor control as related to the modification or expansion of other wastewater
treatment units).
(2) Someone in the hearing (and others in emails) have said they worry the plant is being
overbuilt so as to account for a "worst case scenario" that "almost never happens". Is this the
case? How can this be evaluated? Is the capacity sized by considering a 5-year storm event? 10-
year? 50-year? What?
Design criteria are based, in part, upon regulatory requirements. The State of Oregon has
established a standard that sets the one-in-five-year storm event as the applicable size of rain
event that the sewer system must effectively convey and treat without any occurrence of an
overflow. This standard was developed with public input, adopted by the State's Environmental
Quality Commission, and approved by the U.S. EPA. It applies to all wastewater facilities in the
state operating under an NPDES permit. The MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan translates this
standard into design criteria, with an objective of preventing wastewater overflows under
conditions that do not meet the 5-year storm frequency. While there has been discussion in the
public forums that an overflow frequency of once every five years is too conservative, it is
nonetheless a legal, regulatory requirement. Since 1995 there have been 7 separate wastewater
overflow events from the MWMC system reported to the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), as required by the NPDES permit regulating the regional wastewater facilities. The
total volume of the overflows associated with these events has been estimated at over
260, 000, 000 gallons. It is important to note that most of the years since 1995 have been part of
a drought cycle, and that during this period the Eugene-Springfield area has experienced some
of the driest years on record. Modeling done for the Facilities Plan estimates that the peak flows
from the Eugene/Springfield system associated with the 5-year storm event will reach 277
million gallons per day (MGD) by the year 2025 (based upon the assumption of continuing
rehabilitation of public sewer pipe by Eugene and Springfield). The existing rated peak flow
capacity of the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility is 175 MGD. Statistical
analysis of the historical flow record also indicates that the 175 MGD current rated capacity
will be exceeded 4 days per year under existing conditions. DEQ requires adequate treatment
capacity by the year 2010 to prevent system overflows from winter storms, therefore in order to
meet the State standard, the peak flow capacity of the treatment facilities will have to be
increased from their current level.
(3) My work on Region 2050 has made me even more interested in the importance of
jurisdictions cooperating where possible. I thought Mayor Volta from Coburg made some
excellent points about their needs. I'm concerned about the groundwater mgmt area due to
nitrate pollution, and don't care for the fact that if Coburg builds their own plant, that will mean
an additional river outflow.
I'll be interested in the answers to the questions that the Mayor emailed about the Coburg issue,
and want to ask an additional timing question. I don't want to hold up Eugene's adoption of the
plan until the Coburg issue is resolved, but I would like to know how the Eugene City Council
could indicate our support for seriously studying the ability of Coburg to be linked to the plant.
Please see response to questions about Coburg, below.
(4) The executive summary of the plan says the capacity deficit in wet weather will be 102 mgd
(we have a capacity of 175 now, and need 277 in year 2025). Do the projects in the plan build
the capacity to cover that deficit? More than that deficit? Less? Why?
The Facilities Plan outlines the need for additional peak flow capacity, and the 20-Year Project
List includes the specific capital improvements intended to alleviate the peak flow limitations
and to address the deficit--no more and no less. The need is established by State regulations
(overflow frequency related to the one-in-five-year storm event), and the capital projects on the
list will result in the peak flow capacity necessary to comply with this standard.
(5) Let me play devil's advocate. If (for example) the Eugene City Council didn't give our ok to
the project list/plan now, and instead did so five years from now, what would be the most likely
negative consequences?
The 20-Year Project list represents an extensive review and assessment of multiple options for
addressing the needs of the regional wastewater system for the next 20 years, and was developed
after significant evaluation of the timing and phasing of the different projects. A delay in
approval of the Project List that also delays implementation of the associated capital projects,
would have the following consequences: 1) inability to design and construct the necessary
facilities for handling peak wet weather flows on a schedule to comply with the State standard
restricting overflows to one-in-five-year storm events; 2) increased frequency of overflows from
the sanitary system and potential for adverse impacts to public health and the environment; 3)
greater difficulty in providing adequate wastewater treatment for ammonia and for mitigating
temperature impacts, leading to higher risks of permit violations and negative environmental
impacts for these parameters; 4) increased frequency of adverse impacts on neighbors of the
regional treatment facilities from odor emissions related to limitations in treatment process
capacity (e.g. in biosolids treatment). It should be noted that permit violations are subject to
fines and penalties, including moratoriums on new sewer connections or enforcement orders for
corrective actions. A history of permit violations will also have negative consequences on
insurance premiums, and on bond ratings for future capital projects. Delays in design and
construction will translate into higher project costs, cash-flow challenges, and stringent
enforcement deadlines most often reduce flexibility, limit options, and create project
inefficiencies ("haste makes waste ").
· How would we go about accommodating Coburg's request to be added to the MWMC
Wastewater System?
During the public hearing on the regional wastewater 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year Project
List testimony was given on the interest of the City of Coburg in joining the regional wastewater
system. The intergovernmental agreement that established the regional wastewater system and
the governing body of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
currently restricts the provision of services to the projected urban service area of the
Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area, and restricts the MWMC to provide service only to the
Governing Bodies. A change in these provisions of the IGA requires the unanimous consent of
the Governing Bodies. It is clear that significant public policy issues would have to be
addressed in considering a change in the service boundaries of the MWMC. The Governing
Bodies may initiate this discussion amongst themselves (in the MPC for example), or could
request the MWMC to coordinate or manage the evaluation that would be necessary.
· How could we legally limit growth between the two UGB(s) and within Coburg's UGB if we
added them?
This is a complex question that would need to be addressed by the City attorneys and staff of the
City's Planning and Development Department, within the overall context of the study on the
benefits and issues of adding Coburg to the regional wastewater system.
· Would it be possible to provide wastewater service to only their larger manufacturing
companies within their current UGB?
Technically it is possible, whether this would be a condition of the expansion of service to
Coburg is a policy decision that should be made by the existing members of the MWMC.
In terms of the Council's consideration of the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project
List, action on the plan and project list will not preclude any future considerations of extending
the service boundaries of the regional wastewater system to include the City of Coburg. The
possible addition of Coburg to the system will not significantly affect the phasing of the projects
on the 20-Year Project List, and the design work for the projects has yet to be done therefore the
addition of Coburg could be factored into the designs as they are developed
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
ATTACHMENT D
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 11, 2004
TO: Lane County Commissioners
FROM: Peter Ruffler, Director, Wastewater Division
Susie Smith, General Manager, MWMC
SUBJECT: Peak Wastewater Flows, Response to Public Hearing on the
Regional Wastewater Facilities Plan
On June 9, 2004 the Lane County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on the
Facilities Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission(MWMC) for
the regional wastewater treatment facilitiesserving the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area.
During this hearing questions were raised about the number ofwastewater overflows that have
occurred from the regional facilities. This memo isprovided in response to these questions.
Since '1995 there have been 7 separate wastewater overflow events reported to the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ), as requiredby the NPDES permit regulating the regional
wastewater facilities. Each of these eventswas associated with a period of significant rainfall,
and involved the discharge of untreated sewage to the Willamette River from multiple discharge
locations (which, depending upon the event, may have includedthe Old Springfield Plant Site
Pump Station at Aspen and Walnut in Springfield; the Glenwood Pump Station in Glenwood; the
Fillmore Pump Station in Maurie Jacobs Park, Eugene; and the Willakenzie Pump Station on
Goodpasture Lakes Loop Road in Eugene, as well as the surcharging of individual manholes in
each of the cities' sanitary sewer collection system).
The total volume of the overflows associated with these events has been estimated at over
260,000,000 gallons. It is important to note that most of the years since 1995 have been part of
a drought cycle, and that during this period the Eugene-Springfield area has experienced some
of the driest years on record.
The State of Oregon has established a standard that requires the conveyance and treatment of
all sanitary sewer flows that occur during a 5-year, 24-hour rainfall event.~ Modeling done for the
Facilities Plan estimates that the peak flows from the Eugene/Springfield system associated with
the 5 year storm event will reach a peak of 277 million gallons per day (MGD) by the year 2025
(based upon the assumption of continuing rehabilitation of public sewer pipe by Eugene and
Springfield). The existing rated peak flow capacity of the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution
Control Facility is 175 MGD. Statistical analysis of the historical flow record also indicates that
the 175 MGD current rated capacity will be exceeded 4 days per year underexistin.q conditions.
While there is not a direct correlation between flows exceeding the rated capacity and overflows
from the system since the use of redundant pumping and treatment equipment, precipitation
~ Note: The U.S. EPA is in the process of developing a national standard for overflow events. The current
proposal is more stringent than the Oregon standard, and would prohibit any overflow events except in
exceptional circumstances such as earthquakes, tsunamis, or severe, widespread flooding.
L:\CMO~2004 Council Agendas~,1040628\S0406287-attD.doc
patterns and rainfall intensities, and river flows and levels all influence whether an overflow
occurs, there is an increasing probability of overflows anytime the flows in the system go above
the 175 MGD level. Finally, as base flow and infiltration/inflow from newlydeveloping areas in
the coming years are added to the system, the instances of overflows would increase unless
abated in accordance with the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan that was adopted by the
MWMC and the Cities in 2001. An indicator of this trend seems to have occurred in December
of 2003 when the sanitary system experienced a bypass event under conditions less than the
one-in-five year storm event. Attached as further information are two tables which present the
historical exceedances of both Dry Season and Wet Season maximum month flows (existing
rated capacity) to the regional treatment facilities.
In order to meet the State standard, equivalent to no more than one overflow in five years, the
peak flow capacity of the treatment facilities willhave to be increased from the current level of
174 MGD to 277 MGD before the year 2025. DEQ requires adequate treatment capacity by the
year 2010 to prevent system overflows from winter storms. The Facilities Plan outlines the
capital improvement projects, derived from an extensive analysis of options andphasing
considerations, which are necessary to provide the higher peak flow capabilities.
Attachment 1: Dry Season Maximum Month Flow Fact Sheet
Attachment 2: Wet Season Maximum Month Flow Fact Sheet
c: Susie Smith, MWMC General Manager
L:\CMO~004 Council AgendasWI040628\S0406287-attD.doc
ATTACHMENT E
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall
June 14, 2004
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David
Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon.
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted
that Ms. Solomon was excused for the first part of the meeting.
(NOTE: Portions before and after the public hearing for the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year
Project List are not included in this transcript.)
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
2004 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project
List
Peter Ruffler, Public Works Wastewater Division director, noted that Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) members were available to respond to questions. Mr. Ruffler explained that the
MWMC was comprised of members representing the three jurisdictions. He said the City of Springfield had
held a public hearing on the facility plan and project list on May 17, 2004, and had adopted the plan on the
same day and the Lane County Board of Commissioners held a work session on the facility plan and project list
on May 19, 2004, a public hearing on June 9, 2004, and were scheduled to take action June 23, 2004.
Mr. Ruffler requested that the following be entered into the record:
· A letter from Michael Kortenhof, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) manager, water
quality permit section, addressed to the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding the
MWMC facilities plan -treatment capacity requirements dated June 14, 2004;
· A memorandum from MWMC general manager, Susie Smith, and himself to the Lane County
Board of Commissioners on peak wastewater flows in response to the public hearing held before
the commissioners dated June 11, 2004;
· A letter from Dave Jewett, attorney for the MWMC, Meg Kieran, attorney for the City of Spring-
field, and Jerome Lidz, City Attorney for Eugene, on the subject of MWMC processes dated May
27, 2004;
· A letter from Matt Noesen, project manager, and Mark Lasswell, of CH2M Hill, on the subject of
MWMC systems development charge (SDC) methodology dated June 11, 2004;
· A memorandum from Ms. Smith and himself to the Mayor and City Council on the council as-
signment response to request for information on MWMC public involvement and notification ac-
tivities dated June 1, 2004;
· Examples of project allocations, MWMC SDC update prepared by CH2M Hill dated June 14,
2004;
· Typical costs for residents wastewater utility rate and SDC survey prepared by Eugene, Spring-
field, and CH2M Hill dated June 2004;.
· An email response from Mr. Jewett, MWMC legal counsel, to Roxie Cuellar, president of the
Homebuilders Association of Lane County, providing answers to questions submitted by her dated
June 10, 2004;
· The contractual agreement between the MWMC and CH2M Hill, consultant technical services to
the update of the MWMC facilities plan and predesign work necessary to upgrade certain aspects
of the regional wastewater facilities, project PS0010, as amended by MWMC on October 27, 2003,
to include a Wastewater System Development Charge Methodology Update.
Mr. Ruffler noted that the Board of Commissioners held the record open until June 16 at 5 p.m., and he
encouraged the City Council to do the same.
In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mayor Torrey stated that, given the time, there would likely be
no time for the Council to respond to testimony. Councilor Kelly asked how council questions would be
addressed. Mr. Taylor suggested the councilors submit questions by email, with copies to all councilors, and
staff would answer the questions also providing copies to all councilors.
Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing.
Anne Ballew, 225 5th Street, Springfield, chairperson of the MWMC, said there was a need for a new facilities
plan as it was 27 years old and the facility itself was 20 years old. The commission, made up of elected and
appointed citizens from the cities of Springfield and Eugene and from Lane County, saw a need to evaluate the
entire plan. She related that the commission's consultant, CH2M Hill, and staffhad worked diligently over a
one-year period to produce the plan, designed to meet new national pollution discharge elimination system
requirements. She noted the new elements the facility was required to address, the ammonia, the temperature
of effluent in the warmer part of the year, and a status quo on discharged solid waste. Additionally, she said
the plan had to improve the ability to handle stream flow increases in wet weather periods and accommodate
future population increases and possible businesses that would settle here. Ms. Ballew reported that numerous
opportunities for public involvement had been provided. She stated that the commission had spent many hours
reviewing the document before the council. She recommended the council adopt the Facilities Plan and 20-
Year Project List.
Walt Myer, 3987 Brae Burn Drive, citizen appointee to the MWMC and Eugene resident, stated that the City
had a responsibility to plan, build, and operate wastewater treatment facilities so that wastewater discharged
into the river was clean and protected the river. He asserted the Facilities Plan laid out such a plan. He shared
that he worked for an environmental engineering firm that worked on facilities plans for Portland, Clean Water
Services, Clackamas County, Salem, Albany, Medford, Grants Pass, and others. He assured the council that
the plan before it was the right plan and met important goals. He said it would allow the City to protect the
water quality of the river and would plan for growth so we can move ahead in this community. He underscored
that the plan maximized existing investment as many of the improxements were retrofits and fixes of facilities.
He urged support for the plan.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, expressed uncertainty as to whether this was the right plan for the area. He
indicated he had received notice and attended the first evening workshop and was able to ask questions and
receive informational handouts from the session. He related that the public hearings were held at 7:30 a.m. and
were not well attended. He felt this hampered public input. Mr. Biggs thought the gravel facility north of
Beltline Road, rumored to be closing, could be utilized as a bio-swale which would reduce the temperature and
act as another filter. He said that the lagoon at the cannery waste site should be considered as a possibility to
assist in meeting future needs. He recommended the council oppose the plan.
RESPONSE: When Mr. Biggs attended the first evening workshop, he was added to the interested parties list.
He received direct-mailed notices of additional evening and morning sessions the MWMC conveyed to review
the plan. Additionally, the MWMC public hearing record, which opened on April 22, was left open until the
second hearing on May 6, to provide ample opportunity for the public to provide oral or written testimony.
This information was published in the paper and provided to the members of the interested parties list.
Preparation of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List included an extensive evaluation of
alternatives for meeting the needs of the regional wastewater system over the next twenty years. A key element
of the evaluation was to achieve the least cost approach by utilizing all existing facilities where possible,
improving or upgrading them where needed, to meet future needs. An evaluation of the seasonal industrial
waste site, including the lagoon was conducted as part of this evaluation. Continued use of the site is
identified as an integral part of MWMC's long-term beneficial re-use (of biosolids and reclaimed water)
program. Regarding Mr. Biggs' comments about the use of the gravel pits, there have been some very
preliminary evaluations and discussions regarding the use of gravel~aggregate sites for the purpose of
temperature mitigation. These options will be further considered and compared with available water reuse
opportunities, as part of the reclaimed water use projects listed in the 20-Year Project List. The final set of
viable alternatives considered along with the comprehensive matrix of criteria used to rate and prioritize the
alternatives, is provided in Chapter 6 of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan.
Joshua Skov, 2089 Garfield Street, said he was a member of the SDC committee, a citizen of Eugene, and a
business owner. He noted his comments would address both items subject to public hearings. He had three
points. First, he stated that the proposed facility would protects the quality of life in that it addressed
continued population growth. A close look at our population growth, energy needs, agricultural development,
land use, and the potential impacts of global climate change leads to a simple conclusion: we can no longer
take water for granted. Second, he underscored that the MWMC had met its charge to its constituents with
responsive, thorough, and transparent public process. It had done "excellent work" in engaging a number of
constituencies, and that if some views had not prevailed it was not due to lack of representation. Third, the
SDCs generated by the methodology and Facilities Plan are low by any reasonable standard or benchmark. He
alleged every comparable community in Oregon had higher SDCs. He attributed the lack of higher SDCs to
the past good work of the MWMC. He felt the current SDCs to be abnormally low and, as such, they provided
poor context for comparison to the proposed changes to the SDC methodology. He supported "getting on with
the improvements."
Judy Volta, 91070 South Willamette Street, Mayor of Coburg, spoke in support of the MWMC 20-Year
Project List. She noted that Coburg had a population of 2,000, but employed 3,500. She related that it was one
of the last cities of its size in the State that did not have its own wastewater system. Industries ran on septic
systems. She said Coburg had recently been declared a regional groundwater management area due to nitrate
contamination. She shared that Coburg had gone to Washington, D.C. with the United Front lobbying trip and
was asked if it was working as a region to solve the problem. She stated that, of necessity, Coburg was
working on a stand-alone wastewater facility. She conveyed the desire of the Town of Coburg to work with the
region to resolve wastewater issues. She said assurance had been received from the Governor's Economic
Revitalization Team that they would look for funding for a feasibility study to look into the possibilities and
whether it would be a good idea for Coburg be a part of the MWMC. She asked the council to allow this
discussion to take place. She emphasized that Coburg was willing to pay its way and was projected to only
raise the amount of effluent by one percent.
RESPONSE: Please see responses to Mayor Torrey's questions on this subject.
Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association, submitted testimony in
writing. She alleged the Facility Plan to be tied too closely to SDCs. She predicted the addition of Coburg
would affect the project list and, as such, thought a decision should be deferred until it was known whether
Coburg would join. She thought the SDC issue could be settled without the Facility Plan. She asserted the
public had not adequately weighed in on the plan and urged the City Council to call for more public examina-
tion of it. She asserted that the community was only just getting involved.
RESPONSE: The development of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan was undertaken independently and prior to
the update of the SDC methodology, to address the needs identified by the Commission. However, to ensure
consistency with statutory requirements, the development of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan, the 20-Year
Project List, and SDC Methodology has been carefully coordinated The timing of the SDC methodology
update was the result ora settlement agreement among the Home Builders Association of Lane County, the
MWMC, and the two cities. The settlement agreement directed the use ora Citizen's Advisory Committee,
which included a representative of the Home Builders Association and which approved the SDC methodology
adopted by the MWMC. The settlement agreement also established the timeline for completion of the work
effort on the SDC methodology and its implementation - July 1, 2004. This was agreed to by the Home
Builders Association. The extensive processes employed for public outreach and involvement in the develop_
ment of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and SDC methodology have already been documented in a memo to
the Council in the AIS for the ratification of the MWMC Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital
Improvements Program for FY05, and will be attached to the AIS for the June 28, 2004, Council meeting for
concurrence on the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List.
In addition, please see responses to written materials submitted by Ms. Cuellar.
Mike Hudson, 2760 Chuckanut Street, spoke as the City administrator for Coburg. He echoed the comments
of Ms. Volta, and reiterated the desire of Coburg to be a part of a new facility. He suggested that Coburg could
hold back its flow during peak hours if necessary. He said it was ecologically and economically appropriate
for a partnership, and that Coburg had no interest in "punching a hole" in the urban growth boundary (UGB).
He noted the Town of Turner had successfully formed a regional wastewater district with the City of Salem.
RESPONSE: Please see responses to Mayor Torrey's questions on this subject.
Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, Chamber of Commerce, asserted that the MWMC Facility Plan and
20-Year Project List were very complex and technical. He said, post a review of the plan, the Chamber was
uncertain whether the plan was too much, too little, or too soon. As such, the Chamber did not support or
oppose the project list, but was not indifferent to it as the $144 million price tag was the type of infrastructure
expense that warranted the attention of the Chamber and of the public. He listed questions that could illustrate
items needing explanation before the public, as follows:
· How often does the region currently fail to meet 100 percent peak wet weather flow treatment and
would any of those occurrences have required a capacity expansion anywhere near the magnitude of the
102 million gallons per day called for by the Facilities Plan?
· Is DEQ requiring the MWMC to build to the worst case scenario that may never occur and, if so, have
those assumptions been challenged?
· In terms of capacity size and system performance relative to population and total numbcrof uaers~ does
the MWMC plan exceed, do le~ than, or be on par with what other communities were having to do?
Hc rclatcd the Chambcr~s rcqucst that thc council gct as much information as it needed to make an informed
decision, given that the plan represented a substantial investment.
RESPONSE.. M-WMC provided a briefing to the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs
Committee on April 2, 2004, at their request. The questions noted by Mr. Connolly and others were posed as
part of that meeting, and responses were provided to the Chamber in response to all of their questions.
(Please see M-WMC Wastewater Facilities Plan and System Development Charge Update- Response to April
2, 2004, Questions from Eugene Chamber of Commerce.) MWMC representatives met later with Mr. Connolly
and other Eugene Chamber of Commerce representatives and with the Executive Director of the Lane Metro
Partnership to address any questions/concerns that remained MWMC representatives also provided
information directing the Chamber to specififc sections of the Facilities Plan that addressed their questions.
That meeting enable the Chamber of Commerce to get additional information and clarifications as needed
Information on the frequency of overflows and the State's standards in relation to peak wet weather controls is
provided in a memo submitted to the Lane County Board of Commissioners, (Peak Wastewater Flows,
Response to the Public Hearing on the Regional Wastewater Facilities Plan, June 11, 2004) a copy of which is
attached to the AIS for the June 28, 2004, Council meeting. DEQ responses to inquiries regarding the state
standards and planning requirements for facilities plans have also been provided to the City Council.
Craig Costello, 481 Ventura Street, expressed great respect for the MWMC Facilities Plan and hope that
Coburg could be a partner in it.
RESPONSE: Please see responses to Mayor Torrey's questions on this subject.
Phil Barnhart, 182 Sunset Drive, State Representative for House District 11, spoke in support of Coburg
position on the issue of the potential expansion of the MWMC to include them. He called Coburg an
"economic engine" for the area with people moving back and forth over the "artificial boundaries" created by
government all of the time. He urged the City Councils of Eugene and Springfield and the Lane County Board
of Commissioners to consider an expansion, over the course of this project, to include the City of Coburg. He
felt a pipeline between Coburg and Eugene would not be a difficult undertaking and would ultimately provide
cost savings.
RESPONSE: Please see responses to Mayor Torrey's questions on this subject.
Diana Abernathey, 2620 Oak Street, expressed appreciation for the councilors service to the community. She
averred there may not be adequate protection of the water quality of the Willamette River. She urged support
for the plan before the council. She said a great deal of money had already been spent in determining technical
options, costing them out, and selecting the best of them. She called the process efficient and effective and
said the staff members, with input from citizen advisors, had selected the least cost alternative that would meet
the new federal guide lines. She commented that, while some complain of the high cost of the proposed
infrastructure, the health of the river was priceless. She said it was shocking to consider that the City would
plan to violate the discharge permit and pay the fines. She called this "highly irresponsible stewardship." She
stated that, due to a history of effective and forward thinking planning of infrastructure, the current SDC rates
were among the lowest in the State. She underscored that the best plan had been identified and any "foot-
dragging" would only result in a greater cost to the public.
RESPONSE: The intergovernmental agreement establishing the MWMC expressly requires the MWMC to
"Comply with state and federal standards." The 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List are
intended to maintain compliance with all applicable state and federal standards, the MWMC has not ever
planned to violate the discharge permit and pay fines.
Steve Greenwood, 2169 Essex Lane, introduced himself as a former State regulator and a member of the
Willamette Restoration Initiative Board of Directors and a public policy consultant. He echoed the last
speaker's sentiments and underscored that all of the effluent eventually went into the river. He stated that
much of the Willamette River had very poor quality as defined by DEQ standards, with some areas of the main
stem violating the levels for temperature, bacteria, and mercury levels. He stated that significant regulatory
changes had taken place since 1977 and it was time to update the Facilities Plan. Regarding the cost, he agreed
that $144 million sounded like a lot of money, but emphasized that it was in line with what other communities
were spending. He added that, as a professional in the field, he found the staff and organization of the MWMC
was one that tried to reduce their costs as much as possible.
Camilla Pratt, 120 Westbrook Way, explained that she had served on a citizens advisory committee for the
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan for two years. She related that the committee had studied many aspects
of the plan and, in addition to meeting the requirements of State and Federal agencies, the committee was
concerned with the fairness of the plan, including its ability to be understood by various customer classes and
its ability to be administered effectively. She stated that the plan, completed in 2001, had been adopted by the
MWMC and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield. Since then, she said several more years of careful
investigation and analysis had been invested in other aspects of the MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year
Project List. She called it the obligation and responsibility of Eugene to ensure a high quality water resource
for the needs of all downstream users.
Larry Gunn, 32555 Beymer Road, spoke in support of the MWMC Facilities Plan. He opined that the cost
seemed reasonable and that it seemed the time was right for the Council to endorse the plan. He recommended
doing the work now and not in the future when it would cost more.
Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to keep
the record open until June 16 at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Message Page 1 of 3
From: PERKINS MaryBeth
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 4:09 PM
To: PERKINS MaryBeth
Subject: FW: For the Public Record, Council Deliberation on Wastewater Plan
..... Original Message .....
From: TORREY Jim D
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:57 AM
T :'Jim Maloney'
Subject: RE: Council Deliberation on Wastewater Plan
dim:
Thank you for these thoughtful comments.
dim Torrey
..... Original Message .....
From: Jim Maloney [mailto:jimgmal@comcast. net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:42 PM
To: Betty. L.TAYLOR@ci.eugene.or.us; jim.d.torrey@ci.eugene.or, us; pso@ci.eugene.or, us
Subject: Council Deliberation on Wastewater Plan
Dear Mayor Torrey, and Council Person Taylor:
Regarding the meeting scheduled for Monday, June 14th.
I am sorry I cannot be personally present at the public hearing on the Metro Wastewater
Facilities Plan, but I have provided this email to put my comments on record. I would like
it read into the public record and be considered as my public testimony. I will try to be
brief and to the point.
My full name and address is Jim Maloney and I live at 4391 Shadow Wood Drive in
Eugene.
As an employee of Eugene Water & Electric Board, and because I hike and enjoy the
upstream McKenzie area, I am very familiar with the water supply for both Eugene and
Springfield - the McKenzie River. I am professionally and personally glad to be able to
call it my watershed and my family's supply for pure and clean water.
I believe we have a set of obligations - both legal and ethical - to minimize our negative
fi~e://C:\D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\CEEXELF\L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~~nt... 6/23/2004
Message Page 2 of 3
impact on the McKenzie/Willamette river systems as we dwell in and develop our
communities. We owe it to other human communities downstream like Corvallis, Salem,
and others and to the in-stream inhabitants and to birds and other wildlife that depend on
the system.
Because of that sense of obligation, I served, as a private citizen, on the wet weather
flow citizen advisory committee. That process, lasting more than a year was an
educational and very positive experience for me. I learned a great deal about our
communities and the system that deals with the second half of our "public water cycle" -
the waste end.
The citizen members of that group were able to ask probing questions of staff and the
consultants, and to provide our feedback on assumptions and how trade-offs should be
made, because trade-offs were required to select an optimal plan.
I also know that it was only one of the avenues for citizens to learn about what was going
on with respect to our wastewater systems. (Thank goodness we are not facing
Portland's problems with a combined sewer and stormwater system.)
In a simple statement let me say - I have reviewed the proposed master plan and
offer my endorsement for the proposal.
Not only did it incorporate the recommendations of the citizen members of the committee
I served on, it went on to address new requirements put on the system by the regulatory
authorities trying to enhance and restore what is one on Oregon's vital assets.
I believe the Wastewater staff, management, and commission have always endeavored
to find cost-effective and technically sound approaches for our communities to deal with
our wastes. My committee's work on dealing with the wet weather influence on system is
an example - we were presented with many options that could have cost more but staff
was able to show how flow management changes and some capital investment could
deal with the issues for the next several of decades.
I believe timing is crucial to the successful implementation of the proposed plan - not
only for environmental compliance reasons, but for financial reasons as well. Interest
rates on municipal and other public obligation bonds are at their all-time or near all-time
fi~e://C:xD~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\CEEXELF\L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~~nt... 6/23/2004
Message Page 3 of 3
lows. Any significant delay in putting the plan into action is likely to cost our communities
millions of dollars in additional interest payments.
We simply must reduce to an absolute minimum, the overflow of untreated wastewater
into our river systems. It is unconscionable for us to take relatively pristine water from the
McKenzie River and related aquifers and discharge, on an occasional basis, the
untreated wastes of our communities because we find it inconvenient or "too costly" to
deal with the fact that we continue to build and develop in this watershed. With
development comes public obligation to our children and to communities downstream.
I don't think this topic would be receiving nearly as much criticism if it were about a
community upstream from Eugene and Springfield. Imagine a community of 200,000
people, 10 miles upstream from us, that was quibbling over whether they would deal
appropriately with their wastewater.
Thank you for this opportunity to encourage a positive action on the part of our local
government.
Jim Maloney
4391 Shadow Wood Drive
Eugene, OR 97405
fi~e://C:\D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\CEE~ELF\L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~~nt... 6/23/2004
ATTACHMENTF
MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL
Response to Written Testimony at Eugene City
Council Public Hearing on the MWMC Wastewater
Facilities Plan and SDC Methodology
TO: Troy McAllister/MWMC Project Manager
FROM: Matt Noesen/CH2M HILL Project Manager
DATE: June 18, 2004
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to some of the questions and comments that
were submitted into the public record at the June 14, 2004, Eugene City Council Public
Hearing on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewater
Facilities Plan and SDC Methodology.
June 13, 2004, Letter from Home Builders Association of Lane County,
Re: MWMC System Development Charge Methodology
Page 3, Last Paragraph, Last Sentence; Page 4, First Paragraph, First Sentence: 'The
question is "How was that capacity determined?"?'
The text in Appendix C of the SDC Methodology provides a detailed derivation of these
capacity numbers presented in Table C-1 of the SDC Methodology. The development of
these numbers was presented and discussed at numerous SDC Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) sessions from January through March 2004, and modifications were made based on
the CAC's input. The CAC provided a majority recommendation on the "Existing and
future capacity needs" topic (see March 31, 2004, memorandum from CAC to MWMC).
Capacity Assessment (Pages 4 through 12)
Regarding the issue of capacity assessment, please refer to the following documents that
have previously addressed this issue:
· Facilities Plan Question 10 of Attachment 3 - Frequently Asked Questions (pages 8 and
9) of the April 16, 2004, Memorandum from MWMC General Manager to MWMC
· Draft Meeting minutes from May 6, 2004, MWMC Commissioner meeting (beginning at
the last paragraph on page 6)
· May 4, 2004, letter from DEQ to CH2M HILL
· June 14, 2004, letter from DEQ to Lane County Board of County Commissioners
To summarize all of these previous materials, CH2M HILL has conducted the Eugene-
Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) capacity assessment consistent with
DEQ guidelines, with standard accepted engineering principles and practices, and with
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELF\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~AIS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804. DOC 1
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY
capacity assessments that CH2M HILL has recently conducted for other wastewater utilities
in Oregon.
Page 9 - General Issue Raised - Why is growth required to pick up 100% of the I/I bill for
the dry season flow?
They are not. Existing users' dry season maximum month flow includes estimated dry
season I/I. Therefore, existing users are allocated capacity costs that include their
associated dry season I/I. The difference is that existing users' dry season maximum month
capacity needs are assumed to be met through existing capacity, whereas new users will
require new facilities to meet a portion of their needs.
Furthermore, existing customers are paying for the costs to reduce I/! through the local
wastewater portion of rates charged by Eugene and Springfield. These investments are not
included in the SDC calculations. Future facilities are sized consistent with the assumption
that these investments will be made and I/I reductions will occur accordingly. Additional
discussion of this issue is found on page 7 of the Response to April 2, 2004, Questions from
the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, which has been distributed to the Eugene City Council.
Page 10 - General Issue Raised - Growth is being double-charged for average flow
capacity - through allocation of average flow costs and again through allocation of peak
flow costs that include average flow as a component of overall peak flow contribution.
This assertion is incorrect. As required by State law, the SDC improvement fee
methodology is "calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need
for available system capacity for future users." To recognize the multiple functions of the
system and increase the equity of the charges, multiple capacity measures are employed in
the determination of existing and future system capacity needs, and ultimately cost
responsibility. Therefore, one of the first steps in the improvement fee development process
is to break out the improvement costs into the relevant capacity parameters and then to
allocate the costs to growth based on their projected capacity needs.
The first point to understand is that the total costs are split up among the capacity
parameters, such that the total costs by parameter equal the total costs of the projected
improvements. Take, for example, a $1 million project that is allocated 50 percent to
average flow and 50 percent of peak flow. Assume further that this project is 100 percent
capacity related (as opposed to performance). The allocated costs are thus $500,000 average
flow and $500,000 peak flow. In this case, growth's share of the $500,000 related to average
flow is determined in proportion to their share of required average flow capacity expansion
-100 percent based on the SDC Methodology. For the peak flow portion, growth is again
allocated the costs in proportion to its share of required capacity expansion, which in this
case is 29 percent (30 mgd/102 mgd). Yes, the 30 mgd of peak flow includes base flow, plus
I/I, but this is not a double charge, as the peak flow portion of the project costs has yet to be
allocated. The allocation to system parameters results in the project being divided into two
discrete elements. In one case, the costs are allocated in proportion to average flow alone,
and in the other case, costs are allocated in proportion to base flow plug peak season I/I.
This is not a double-charge, it is a means of allocating costs to growth in proportion to
capacity needs that is consistent with state law.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELRLOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~AIS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804.DOC 2
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY
Improvement Fee (Bottom of Page 12 through Middle of Page 16)
The development of the improvement fee methodology was presented and discussed at
numerous SDC Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) sessions from January through March
2004 and was modified to incorporate their input. The CAC provided a majority
recommendation on the "Existing and future facility cost allocation" topic (see March 31,
2004, memorandum from CAC to MWMC.)
The June 13, 2004, HBALC letter attempts to discredit the SDC Methodology by stating that
the capacity that has been identified to serve growth in Table C-1 of the Methodology is not
used in the SDC rate calculation. However, the capacity needs are used directly in the SDC
rate calculation as illustrated by:
· Presentation to the CAC at the February 25, 2004, meeting (see meeting minutes)
· Presentation to the CAC at the March 10, 2004, meeting (see meeting minutes)
· Packet provided to the Eugene City Council June 14, 2004, Public Hearing
These examples demonstrate that the capacity needed to serve growth for each capacity
parameter as presented in Tables C-1 and C-3 of the SDC Methodology is explicitly used in
the SDC rate calculations.
From the middle of page 13 through the middle of page 16, the June 13, 2004, HBALC letter
discusses a specific project - Headworks Expansion. A similar discussion was presented in
the May 3, 2004, HBALC letter addressed to MWMC. CH2M HILL responded with a
written point-by-point response to the May 3rd letter. This response was submitted into the
public record at the May 6, 2004, MWMC meeting and pointed out many flaws in the
HBALC assessment. One error that the Home Builder's representative continues to make is
to attempt to add average flow capacity to peak flow capacity to obtain a "total capacity."
As we have previously indicated, this addition is meaningless and adds unnecessary
confusion to the issue of MWMC's SDC discussion. The Home Builder representative's
approach would be analogous to mixing 1 cup of water with 3 cups of oil and saying you
have 4 cups of wateroil. Well of course you don't have wateroil you have a mixture of 1 cup
water and 3 cups oil. It is inappropriate to add Average Flow and Peak flow together and
say you have "Total Flow;" the sum has no meaning. The example presented in the HBALC
attempts to do this math and it does not make sense. The units of measure are the same,
million gallons per day (mgd), but what you are measuring is different. As indicated
previously, we pointed this out in detailed response to the May 3, 2004, HBOLC letter,
which contained numerous errors and mis-informed statements.
Accordingly, as noted in our letter dated June 14, 2004, we have deferred to MWMC legal
counsel with respect to compliance with legislative requirements for fee adoption.
June 14, 2004 Letter from Home Builders Association of Lane County,
Re: MW-MC Facility Plan and SDC List
Page 3, first full paragraph, second sentence: 'The cost of the project allocated to growth
are not based on the actual capacity needed to serve growth '
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELI--~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~AIS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804.DOC 3
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY
The June 13, 2004, HBALC letter attempts to discredit the SDC Methodology by stating that
capacity that has been identified to serve growth in Table C-1 of the Methodology is not
used in the allocation of projects to support the SDC rate calculation. However, the capacity
needs of growth are directly used in the SDC rate calculation, as illustrated by:
· Presentation to the CAC at the February 25, 2004, meeting (see meeffng minutes)
· Presentation to the CAC at the March 10, 2004, meeting (see meeting minutes)
· Packet provided to the Eugene City Council June 14, 2004, Public Hearing
These examples demonstrate that the capacity requirements to serve growth for each
capacity parameter (as presented in Tables C-1 and C-3 of the SDC Methodology) are
explicitly used in the SDC rate calculations.
Headworks Expansion, Middle of Page 3 through Top of Page 6
A similar discussion was presented in the May 3, 2004, HBALC letter addressed to MWMC.
CH2M HILL responded with a written point-by-point response to the May 3rd letter. This
response was submitted into the public record at the May 6, 2004, MWMC meeting and
pointed out many flaws in the HBALC assessment. This material has been distributed to the
City Council.
Additional Odorous Air Treatment, Middle of Page 6
Growth is allocated 26 percent of this project as was presented previously via:
· Slides 22 through 26 of presentation given to SDC CAC on February 25, 2004 (at that
time 28 percent of the project was allocated to growth; minor refinements/rounding
issues have reduced that allocation to approximately 26 percent)
· Page 12 of June 7, 2004, letter from Fred McVey to Mayor Torrey and Eugene City
Council
Filtration Allocation to Project Type, Last Paragraph of Page 6
The June 14, 2004, Home Builders letter states that Filtration allocation was changed from
25/75 to 50/50 between Capacity and Performance project types, respectively. However,
this is not correct. Table PL-2 from the packet submitted to both Eugene (Posted April 15,
2004) and Springfield (Posted April 15, 2004) states that the allocation is still 25/75 as was
previously presented to the CAC at numerous CAC meetings.
Peak Flow Allocation, Last Paragraph of Page 6
With respect to the allocation of the project list to peak flow, the June 14, 2004, Home
Builders letter incorrectly states that" ... the number has dropped to $11,000,000 and much
of the original cost redistributed to other components for which growth pays much more."
From Table I-1 from the packet submitted to both Eugene (Posted April 15, 2004) and
Springfield (Posted April 15, 2004), the amount of the $144 million project list allocated to
the Peak Flow capacity parameter is $47,329,925 or approximately 33 percent of the total.
Growth's share is $12,654,487 of that $47 million or just under 9 percent of the total 20-
year project list costs. The costs have not been shifted from peak flow to other parameters
as the June 14, 2004, Home Builder letter suggests.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELF\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~IS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804,DOC 4
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY
Digestion Expansion/Class A Capability, First Full Paragraph Top of Page 7
All of the projects in the 20-year project list are required either to meet specific regulatory
and/or capacity requirements, involve implementation of adopted policies by the MWMC
as recommended to them by Citizen's Advisory Committees, were specifically directed by
the MWMC for worker and community protection (i.e., conversion of the disinfection
system), or some combination of the above.
The $13.8 million Digestion Expansion/Class A Capability project is an example of a project
that meets multiple criteria as it contains both a component to meet specific capacity needs
and a component to address a long-term policy goal of the Commission to achieve a higher
level of biosolids quality (the Environmental Protection Agency's Class A criteria). As
documented on page 8-12 of Section 8 of the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan:
"This project provides additional digestion capacity (approximately one third of the cost) and would
convert MWMC to a Class A biosolids program (remaining two thirds of the cost) which would provide
additional enhanced capability to address higher community performance standards. The allocation is
split one third/two thirds between Capacity and Performance."
By spending the $9.2 million (two thirds of $13.8 million), MWMC will receive the benefit of
achieving a higher quality biosolids product that will give them more flexibility in terms of
ultimate disposal/reuse options, and which reduces operational costs associated with
administering the biosolids management program. Also, because of the higher level of
performance being provided by the Class A process, MWMC is able to avoid spending $6
million on a fifth biosolids storage lagoon at the remote Biosolids Management Facility
(BMF). Therefore, the net additional incremental cost of going to Class A is $3.2 million ($9.2
million minus $6 million). Finally, if MWMC chose not to convert digestion to Class A and
instead opted to construct the fifth biosolids storage lagoon, the SDC rate would increase
because the lagoon would be allocated to "Capacity" instead of "Performance." Referring to
the 'General' column of Table C-3: Capacity Summary of MWMC Biosolids Facilities of the
SDC Methodology, 100 percent of the lagoon project would be allocated to growth while
only 31.8 percent of the Class A portion of the Digestion Expansion/Class A Capability
project would be allocated to growth.
If MWMC does not implement Class A: 100 percent of $6 million = $6 million
If MWMC does implement Class A: 31.8 percent of $9.2 million = $2.9 million
This example illustrates a core feature of the 2004 Facilities Plan to existing and future users.
Because of the approach to enhance existing facilities that address multiple issues instead of
constructing new facilities, this Plan saves MWMC money, thereby keeping sewer rates and
SDCs well below the State averages.
Finally, with regards to digestion technology assessment as recommended in the 2004
Facilities Plan, digestion technology advancements are a work-in-progress and will continue
to evolve as additional research and development occurs. Detailed design of a Digestion
Expansion/Class A Capability project is not scheduled to commence until 2011 or in 7 years.
It would not be prudent to lock MWMC to a certain technology approach at this time.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELF~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~AIS HBALE~rERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804.DOC 5
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY
Rehabilitation and Replacement, Fifth Paragraph of Page 8
There are seven projects on the 20-year project list that are allocated 100 percent to
rehabilitation:
1. River Avenue Improvements
2. Biosolids Management Facility (BMF) - Line Lagoons Phase 1
3. BMF - Line Lagoons Phase 2
4. BMF - Line Lagoons Phase 3
5. BMF - Line Lagoons Phase 4
6. Repairs/Partial Replacement of Biosolids Force Main
7. Support Development of Private Lateral Program
Although other projects on the list, such as Primary Clarifier Enhancements, Secondary
Clarifier Enhancements, and Digester Mixing Improvements, involve work on existing
facilities to retrofit or upgrade them with new equipment and technologies, this work is
expressly intended to create more capacity by upgrading/enhancing the capability and/or
performance of the existing infrastructure. They are not rehabilitation projects. It is this
approach system-wide, which maximizes the use and improvement of existing facilities as
opposed to the more costly alternatives that would rely on construction of additional new
facilities, that has enabled MWMC to adopt the least cost alternative. "Rehabilitation"
projects are projects that are intended to extend the life of an existing facility. These projects,
such as concrete sealing, roof rehabilitation, etc., are not conducted to provide increased
capacity. They simply maintain the current facilities. Except for the projects noted in the list
above, rehabilitation and equipment replacement activities are planned and funded
separately from the Facilities Plan. For example, as part of implementing the 2001 Wet
Weather Flow Management Plan, Eugene and Springfield are spending $21.5 million in local
(not MWMC) sewer funds on collection system rehabilitation to implement the Cities'
commitment to the most cost-effective infiltration and inflow removal work. The MWMC
will spend approximately $26 million on treatment rehabilitation (primarily replacing worn
out equipment), which is implemented through MWMC's Major Rehabilitation and
Equipment Programs. These projects and funding are managed by Eugene and are reviewed
and approved by the MWMC through the annual capital improvements planning process.
They are not part of the Facilities Plan or the 20-year project list. They are funded only by
user fees, and have no bearing on SDC calculations.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELRLOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~AIS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804.DOC 6
THORP 1011 HARLOW ROAD, SUITE 300
PURDY SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477
JEWET]" & PHONE: (541)747-3354
FAX: (541) 747-3367
URNESS
EoMAIL ADDRESS:
WILKINSON, P.e. June 23, 2004 Ithorp@thorp-purdy.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MARV~NO. SANDERS (1912-1977)
Laurence E. Thorp JACK B. LIVELY (1923-1979)
JILLE. GOLDEN (1951-1991)
Susie L. Smith
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 N. 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Re: MWMC / Systems Development Charges
Our File No. 434-122
Dear Ms. Smith:
The attorney for the Home Builders Association of Lane County, Andrew H. Stamp, submitted a
lengthy letter dated June 14, 2004 to the Eugene Mayor and City Council urging rejection of the
Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission ("MWMC") Facilities Plan and Capital
Improvement List and the proposed Methodology (Methodology) for determining System
Development Charges. You have asked for comments on that letter. A number of the issues
raised in the letter have previously been addressed. No attempt will be made in this letter to
respond to those issues. This letter will summarize the Staff's position and respond to
allegations for which responses have not been previously given.~
In reviewing Mr. Stamp's letter, readers should be mindful of its failure to distinguish between
the Methodology used to determine rates and the rates themselves and the unstated assumption
that if the City adopts a policy with which he disagrees, the policy must be illegal. Also bear in
mind that contrary to Mr. Stamp's assertion, the City did not send the Methodology "back" or
suggest that MWMC "go back to the drawing board" last year. MWMC and the Homebuilders
entered into an agreement to try to work out their differences. A copy of that agreement is
attached. Unfortunately, it appears that the Homebuilders have not made a good faith attempt to
live up to the commitments it made in the agreement.
I. Introduction.
Mr. Stamp's analysis proceeds from a fundamentally flawed perception both as to the
state of the law and as to the actions of the MWMC.
With respect to the state of the law, Mr. Stamp asserts that the statute contemplates that an "SDC
methodology" is a unitary and indivisible statement of the process for determining the basis for a
charge, the projects to be funded by revenue raised through the charge, and the rates of the
charge. Mr. Stamp is perhaps confusing the statute as enacted, with House Bill 2983 (2003) as
originally introduced. That original bill incorporated the project list into the methodology by
l This letter was prepared in cooperation with MWMC Staff and consultants and Eugene Staff.
Letter to Susie L. Smith
June 23, 2004
Page 2
proposing to amend ORS 223.309(2) to prohibit amendment of the project list if the amendment
would result in the deletion of a project or an increase in the charge. As enacted, however, the
law is far different. The methodology and the project list are still dealt with separately in the
statute (compare ORS 223.304 and ORS 204.309). Each has a distinct process, both for creation
and amendment (compare ORS 223.304 (7)(a) with ORS 223.309(2)).
MWMC has carefully complied with these two independent sets of requirements. In doing so,
MWMC has followed a process of establishing a System Development Charge which includes
three essential, independent but interrelated components. These components, and their essential
elements, include:
A. Methodology. A Methodology required by ORS 223.304(1) and (2) which
establishes the policy and procedure needed to calculate the fee under the System Development
Charge Ordinance composed of the elements:
1. The parameters to measure system capacity and the demands of existing
and projected new users upon that capacity. (Page 5)2
2. The procedure for valuation of the existing system and the actual valuation
of the existing system using that procedure. (Page 7, and Table A-1 attached to the Methodology)
3. The parameters upon which the proportion of the existing system capacity
available to meet the needs of growth is to be calculated. (Page 8)
4. Calculation of the capacity available in the existing system, based upon
those parameters. (Page 8, Table 4)
5. The processes, means and methods of evaluating proposed additions to the
system to determine the portion of the proposed additions needed to meet growth. (Pages 9-11)
6. The processes, means and methods used in determining unit costs of
capacity and in developing the System Development Charges schedule through application of the
Methodology to the project list (Page 12.)
7. The processes, means and methods used in determining how to credit
entities paying Systems Development Charges for (a) taxes previously paid which were used to
fund capacity improvements and (b) the portion of future user rates that will be applied to service
debt used to fund additions to the system paid for whole or in part by System Development
Charges. (Page 13)
2 Page references are to page numbers in the Methodology adopt by MWMC on April 16, 2004.
Letter to Susie L. Smith
June 23, 2004
Page 3
8. The basis for determining the impact on capacity of a particular
development which is to be subject to a System Development Charge. (Appendix D)
B. Plan and List. A Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List required by
ORS 223.309(1) consisting of proposed additions to the system which describes each addition
and its costs and which includes the following material specifically related to the determination
of Systems Development Charges:
1. Calculation of the capacity added by the proposed addition.
2. Calculation of the portion of the added capacity that is available to meet
the needs of growth.
3. Calculation of the portion of the costs of the proposed addition that are
related to the added capacity which is available to meet the needs of growth.
4. A summation of the capacity added by the proposed additions to the
system, calculated on the basis of the parameters set forth in the Methodology..
B. A System Development Charge ordinance required by ORS 223.299(4) for
adoption by Eugene and Springfield, which applies the Methodology to calculate System
Development Charges using the following steps:
1. Determination by type of development of the reimbursement charge to be
imposed.
2. Determination by type of development of the gross improvement charge to
be imposed.
3. Determination of the adjustments to the gross improvement charge to be
made on account of the credits for prior payments or future debt service.
These three components are being separately submitted to the City for
approval.
II. Legal Analysis.
A. Specific Agreements.
1. Mr. Stamp's fundamental argument is that the City should not and legally
cannot approve a System Development Charge Methodology unless it specifically includes the
Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List for the projects to be funded by the System
Development Charge within the Methodology. We respectfully disagree. Oregon's System
Letter to Susie L. Smith
June 23, 2004
Page 4
Development Charge law (ORS 223.297 et seq) simply does not contain such a requirement. It
merely requires approval of both.
2. Mr. Stamp argues that if the Methodology is approved independently from
the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement List more judicial appeals of Systems Development
Charges are likely than if the two were combined and, the public would not have any input to
any change in the amount of System Development Charges actually assessed. Both statements
are patently false.
(a) If Mr. Stamp's recommended approach is utilized, anytime there is
any change in the Facilities Plan, the System Development Charge Methodology, or the Capital
Improvements List, all three areas would be open for review and subject to judicial appeal. On
the other hand, if the Methodology is adopted independently from the Facilities Plan and Capital
Improvements List, future changes could be made to the Facilities Plan or Capital Improvement
List to adjust System Development Charges without affecting the Methodology. In that case,
only the changes to the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List would be subject to
judicial review and the Methodology itself would not. Consequently, the scope and number of
legal challenges using the procedure recommended by the Homebuilders would undoubtedly be
greater than the challenges which are likely to occur under the approach recommended by
MWMC. Apparently that is what the Homebuilders want without explicitly saying so.
(b). The statement that the procedure proposed by MWMC would
allow staff to adjust System Development Charge rates without any public process or input is
simply wrong. Once the Methodology, Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements List are
adopted, rates will be fixed. Under the Systems Development Charge statutes, the Facilities Plan
and Capital Improvements List must be approved by the cities imposing the System
Development Charges. Consequently, if circumstances necessitate a change in the Facilities Plan
or Capital Improvements List, MWMC and Eugene and Springfield would all have to hold
public heatings on the changes, allow for citizen input and the ultimate decisions would be
subject to judicial review under the writ of review procedure. No change could be made without
going through that process.
3. Mr. Stamp's argument is largely based upon his interpretation of what he
perceives to be the intent of the Oregon legislature in enacting the System Development Charge
law. He cites as authority for the legislature's intent, quotes from lobbyists who appeared before
legislative committees. That is not evidence of legislative intent, that's evidence of the
lobbyist's intent. Furthermore, legislative intent is totally irrelevant unless the statute being
analyzed is ambiguous. The statutes dealing with System Development Charges are not
ambiguous and in his 25 pages, Mr. Stamp fails to identify any specific ambiguity except the
ones he has attempted to create.
4. Mr. Stamp also suggests some dishonest motive on the part of MWMC
and City Staff and ulterior motives by elected and appointed officials who serve without
Letter to Susie L. Smith
June 23, 2004
Page 5
compensation and make the hard decisions related to issues such as System Development
Charges. Such allegations don't even warrant a response.
5. Mr. Stamp frequently cites court decisions and other authorities related to
Oregon's land use law. The legislature specifically provided in the System Development Charge
statute that the "establishment, modification or implementation of a system development charge,
or a plan or list...or any modification of a plan or list is not a land use decision." See ORS
223.314. Oregon land use laws are irrelevant.
B. Allocation of Wet Weather Flow Costs. Mr. Stamp's comments in this section
reflect incorrect assumptions and a lack of understanding of how infiltration and inflow (I/I) have
been addressed in the local and regional collection systems. While the existing wastewater
collection system does allow a much greater percentage of the total wet weather flow to enter the
system, some I/I unavoidably enters the collection system in newly developing areas. That
amount of I/I increases over time. Existing customers pay for the costs to reduce I/I through the
local wastewater portion of rates charged by Eugene and Springfield. These investments have no
relationship to the MWMC System Development Charge calculations.
The I/I that occurs and increases over time must be addressed and accounted for by
planning and constructing adequate peak flow capacity at the treatment plant. New
developments connecting to the facilities are responsible only for a share of the peak flow
capacity that is attributable to the I/I contribution of their development over time. It is a much
smaller share than that borne by existing system users. While the Iii generated may be a small
amount immediately after construction, the design life of a pipeline can be 50 years or greater,
and the wet weather flows received by the treatment plan must be estimated to meet the demands
of future conditions. Therefore, future facilities are sized to meet estimated peak flows after
subtracting out the projected I/I removal achieved through the local system maintenance and
rehabilitation programs.
Nationwide experience over the last 25 years has shown that I/I cannot be considered
simply a collection system deficiency resolved through ongoing collection system repair and
rehabilitation. That is why wastewater treatment plants must be designed with capacities to
handle a projected peak flow. The MWMC Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, completed in
2001, determined the most cost-effective combination of I/I work in the collection system and
treatment capacity at the regional wastewater facilities. To estimate the amount of I/I from
future developments, MWMC analyzed the FI contribution from selected, existing developments
that were constructed within the last 20 years using construction techniques and materials similar
to those used today. That analysis and the experience of other agencies resulted in the
establishment of the I/I contribution amount from future developments.
C. Allocation of Quality Improvement Cost. Mr. Stamp states that growth should
only be assessed for the portion of the cost of meeting new and more stringent regulating
requirements. He does not state, but implies, that is not what is happening. In fact it is. The cost
Letter to Susie L. Smith
June 23, 2004
Page 6
of items on the Capital Improvement List which are required as a result of more stringent
regulations are allocated between existing users and new users in an equitable manner. A careful
analysis of the Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement List as well as the Methodology and the
underlying data makes it clear that the proposal does not require new users to bear a
disproportionate share of the costs associated with more stringent regulatory requirements.
D. Timing of Adoption. Mr. Stamp argues that the MWMC Facilities Plan and
Capital Improvements List must be adopted 60 days prior to the time that it adopts the SDC
methodology. That is a misstatement of the law. There is no such legal requirement.
E. Standard of Review. An appeal of a City's decision related to System
Development Charges would be to Circuit Court under Oregon's writ of review procedure. That
procedure states among other things, that a court may overturn a city's decision regarding
System Development Charges if the decision is not supported by "substantial evidence". Mr.
Stamp's argument implies that there is no substantial evidence to support the City's decision if it
follows Staff's and MWMC's recommendation and approves the System Development Charge
Methodology and Facility Plan and Capital Improvements List. That is simply untrue. If the
Homebuilders truly believe that its position is correct, Mr. Stamp should point out the specific
parts of the recommendation which are not supported by substantial evidence.
F. System Valuation. Mr. Stamp asserts that the system valuation must be made as
part of the Methodology and that has not been done. Mr. Stamp is incorrect. The system
valuation is contained in Table A-1 attached as supporting material to the Methodology when it
was released to interested parties and the public. That table clearly demonstrates that the assets
were valued at original cost, net of grants, inflated by the ENR index, as recommended by the
CAC and as approved by MWMC. While Mr. Stamp is entitled to disagree with the CAC and
MWMC decision to endorse that method of system valuation, which is one of several different
methods used throughout the State, his disagreement on a matter of policy does not make the
method illegal.
G. Adjustments. As noted above, Table A-1 explicitly sets forth, by individual
asset, the portion funded from federal grants and specifically excludes that amount in calculating
the system valuation.
H. Assumptions. Mr. Stamp challenges the assumptions regarding future
population growth, current population, household size and per capita contribution to the loading
on the treatment facility used by MWMC and its consultants in developing the Methodology.
Mr. Stamp argues that because he disagrees with those assumptions, they are necessarily wrong
and a court would refuse to approve the Methodology using those assumptions.
Assumptions by definition cannot be guaranteed for accuracy and it would be foolish to
assume that they are totally accurate. Assumptions in any kind of model necessarily require the
exercise of professional judgment.
Letter to Susie L. Smith
June 23, 2004
Page 7
That is why experts are hired to make assumptions since their likelihood of being
correct is far greater than someone who is not an expert. MWMC employed a qualified,
independent consultant with the necessary expertise to make realistic assumptions.3 The mere
fact that the assumptions may prove to be less than 100% accurate (and probably will to some
degree) does not make the assumption invalid or illegal. So long as the expert making the
assumptions has reasonable grounds for doing so, the assumptions will not be subject to
successful legal challenge.
III. Conclusion.
The Homebuilders seem intent on linking the Methodology with the Facilities
Plan and Capital Improvements List so that every change will open up all parts of the program to
review and legal challenge. If that is done, it will add to the cost and time necessary to make
even the most minor changes to the Capital Improvements List. It's a policy matter whether to
combine them. But, combining everything is not legally required.
Very truly yours,
THORP, PURDY, JEWETT,
URNESS & WILKINSON, P.C.
Laurence E. Thorp
LET:mkf
00085544.000.DOG
3 That is what the agreement between MWMC and the Homebuilders required. Mr. Stamp takes the position that
because the consultant hired by MWMC used assumptions that the Homebuilders dislike, the assumptions are
necessarily wrong as a matter of law. That is not tree. A copy of the Agreement is attached.
O~cer
2OO3
. ~:. ~,~. m~~; ....... ~ ~ m m .~ .....__, ~
I
,::~ :~]~ ' ~' :t~ 4to ~ ~ ;,, ~ ::~ ~
.. '. .. ~~:' :.'.. ',:. ..... ~ .. - ,.. ~.,,. ...:~ ..:.:~::':' .... : :~ F-:~ ::.~-
':~:..~:~I~ L ..... L .... ~ ......
' ~:a ~~l ~ F: :'.'.'~..' .....
~ :,~~ j '.. ':~ .
i.~ ~ ~ ::. ~. ~~~: : :.~ ' .... ' ........
' ~ ~' ~:~ ~.:".~ .~:. ~' L. ' ~: ..... I
~'~ ~:~~~: :I ' ' ', ' :: ','.' :,' ~ .... .~
CITY OF EUGENE
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT
To: Mayor James Torrey and Eugene City Councilors Date: June 22, 2004
Subject: MWMC SDC Methodology and SDC Rates
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION - NOT
SUBJECT TO RELEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
This memorandum responds to several legal issues raised by Andrew Stamp's letter to you
dated June 14, 2004. It supplements the letter from Laurence Thorp to Susie Smith, dated June 18,
2004, which also addresses Mr. Stamp's letter. In prior memoranda, staff has addressed the
engineering and tectmical issues raised in Mr. Stamp's and Roxie Cuellar's correspondence.
Misguided Assumptions and Inferences
Mr. Stamp's arguments rely substantially on numerous assumptions and inferences about
staff's intentions and the effects of adopting the MWMC SDC Methodology as proposed. For
example, on page 3 of his letter, he describes the "apparent purpose" and the "apparent goal" of the
approach to the Methodology. Sinfilarly, on page 4, he asserts that MWMC "seeks to" disregard
certain protection afforded by the SDC statutes; on page 6, he states that "as an unstated corollary,
MWMC seems to be operating .... "The Methodology and supporting documents do not support the
assumptions and inferences that follow these statements. To the extent that they form the basis for
Mr. Stamp's analysis, his arguments are based on false premises. Here, I address only the more
substantial errors.
Mr. Stamp's letter asserts that MWMC is asking you to adopt an incomplete shell formula,
to which it would "add the facts and data input later, at some as-of-yet-undisclosed time, in order to
arrive at the complete SDC." He asserts that staff wants to usurp Council's legislative power.
Page 3. A similar argument appears on page 6. In fact, staff has applied the Methodology to the
relevant data to produce the SDC rates, and the SDC rates are before you for adoption at the same
time as the Methodology. In addition, the proposed SDC rates were provided for public review with
the Methodology 60 days before the first public hearing on the Methodology. See Table S-1.
On pages 3, 4 and 18-19, Mr. Stamp asserts that MWMC intends to evade meaningful
judicial review of the SDC Methodology and rates. As a matter of law, neither the Methodologynor
the SDC rates will or could be insulated from judicial review. These points are discussed in more
detail below.
Re: MWMC SDC Methodology and SDC Rates
Jun 22, 2004
Page 2
Relationships Among Facilities Plan~Project List, Methodology and SDC Rate
Mr. Stamp asserts that the Facilities Plan and Project List mnst "be adopted and in place"
prior to adoption of the SDC, citing ORS 223.309. Actually, that statute provides in pertinent part:
"Prior to the establislunent of a systems development charge by ordinance or resolution, a local
government shall prepare a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan or
comparable plan ..." (Emphasis added.) The purpose of the statutory requirement is that the
facilities plan and project list should precede adoption of the SDC rate. Here, the facilities plan and
project list were prepared - even if not formally adopted - before the Methodology was presented
to Council. The statute does not require the plan/list to be adopted before work on the Methodology
begins. In terms of adoption, Council is being asked to approve the facilities plan and project list
prior to approving the Methodology and SDC rate.
The SDC statutes treat the Methodology and the SDC rate as closely related, but not
identical. Although ORS 223.304 clearly requires that the reimbursement and improvement fees to
follow frown the Methodology, it is also clear that not all changes to a reimbursement fee or
improvement fee are changes to the Methodology. For instance, ORS 223.304(8) expressly
provides: "A change in the amount of a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee is not a
modification of the systems development charge methodology if the change in amount is based on
... [changes in cost of materials, labor, real property or similar factors]." Similarly, ORS 223.309(2)
discusses the procedure to be followed when a proposed amendment to the facilities plan/proj ect list
will result in an increase to the SDC rate. That statute makes no mention of mnending the
Methodology. Incidentally, however, it does provide for judicial review of plan/list changes that
would increase the SDC rate.
Scope of Judicial Review
At pages 3-5 of his letter, Mr. Stamp infers that MWMC seeks to avoid meaningful.judicial
review of the Methodology or SDC rate. This argument is based on incorrect legal and factual
assumptions: Staff has not intended to avoid judicial review and we recognize that the statutes
would not permit it.
Even if adoption of the l~lethodology and the SDC rate were temporally separated, which
here they are not, the 60-day period to file a challenge to the Methodology would begin to run only
when the Council adopted the SDC rate. See ORS 223.304(7)(b). In addition, contrary to Mr.
Stamp's assertion that, "Surely, the city does not want to give individual property owners the
opportunity to appeal the individualized assessment," Eugene Code section 7.735 authorizes appeals
of case-by-case applications of the Methodology.
Mr. Stamp's letter makes much of Mr. Jewett's written statement that certain exercises of
professional judgment should not be subject to judicial review unless the action were arbitrary and
capricious. Mr. Stamp argues that, because the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review is not
Re: MWMC SDC Methodology and SDC Rates
Jun 22, 2004
Page 3
part of the writ of review statutes, therefore the "substantial evidence" test is the proper standard.
Pages 19-20. This analysis is incorrect. The tenn "arbitrary and capricious" is commonly 'used to
describe an abuse of discretion, which is the term used in Oregon administrative law. It refers to a
type of decision involving judgment, as distinguished from factual findings which must be supported
by substantial evidence. As Mr. Stamp acknowledges in other parts of his letter, developing a
methodology involves considerable discretion. Mr. Jewett's letter referred to the "exercise of
professional judgment inherent in selecting the conversion ratio" as not subject to review for
substantial evidence. That is correct, because matters of professional judgment necessarily are not
purely factual matters that can be proven or disproven by evidence. For decisions that depend
primarily on professional.judgment or a choice among competing policies, the court will not review
the exercise of judgment for substantial evidence.
There are, of course, numerous l~actual determinations that underlie the Methodology. A
court would review those determinations to see if they are supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Mr. Stamp implies that the evidence to support those factual determinations must be in the
Methodology itself. See pages 22-24. In fact, the substantial evidence must be in the record, and
staff has provided voluminous information containing that evidence.
Other Issues
Mr. Thorp's letter addresses a number of other issues pertaining to allocation of wet weather
flow costs, quality improvement costs, system valuation and other matters. In those areas, our
disagreement with Mr. Stamp's letter is less with the applicable legal standard than with technical
aspects of its application to the needed MWMC system improvements. Those issues involve
engineering expertise outside the scope of this legal memorandum.
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.e.
- City Attorneys
Jerome Lidz
JL:lke
J:'~e_main\00096\001 a\00089720 W PD