Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 05/19/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 19, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List City Manager Dennis Taylor said Public Works Director Kurt Corey and Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) General Manager Susie Smith would summarize the Facilities Plan and the 20-Year Project list. Mr. Corey provided a brief synopsis of the development of waste treatment in the city of Eugene. He stated that prior to 1952, wastewater had been discharged directly into the Willamette River. At that time, communities, based on minimal regulatory guidance, implemented individual wastewater treatment systems that would be considered primitive by today's standards. He related that the initial wastewater treatment facilities did not meet requirements set forth in federal legislation within the Clean Water Act in the 1970s. He said communities joined together at that time to treat wastewater at a regional level and, as a result, the MWMC had been formed in 1977. Its purpose was to provide regional policy oversight, with an initial focus on administration of approximately $85 million in federal grant money. He indicated, with a graph, the financing and general obligation (GO) bonds that were in the budget. He reiterated that the charge to citizens had not been increased in ten years. Mr. Corey said the facilities plan had been guided by the previous planning efforts with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, renewed in 2002. Mayor Torrey turned the gavel over to Council President Bettman, as he had another obligation which would require him to leave prior to the end of the meeting. Ms. Smith stated that what was before the council was the first rigorous comprehensive facility plan update which was intended to support the community through the year 2025, to support both growth and required environmental performance. She outlined the regulatory drivers that guided the resulting project list, as outlined in the attachment entitled Frequently Asked Questions About the 2004 MWMC Wastewater Facilities Plan and System Development Charge Methodology. She highlighted the treatment alternatives that were evaluated and their estimated costs. She said Option 5, the $144 million package, provided the same level of environmental compliance and performance as Option 1, the $233 million package. Subsequently, the MWMC had proceeded with its recommendation for Option 5. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Smith to acknowledge the MWMC members that were present. She introduced them to the council. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was tertiary treatment. Ms. Smith responded that the plant was a secondary plant, but the installation of tertiary filtration was necessary to meet the new requirements. Matt Noeson, Project Manager for CH2M Hill, explained that the tertiary filters would enable the plant to handle 30 million gallons more per day over the 20-year study period, but not 100 percent of the plant flow would be filtered during that time. In response to another question from Mr. Pap~, Eugene Wasterwater Paint Manager Dave Breitenstein stated that ambient water quality tests were conducted both downstream and upstream of the plant. He reported that the plant did not have a significant impact downstream. Ms. Smith clarified, in response to Mr. Pap~, that Mouse was the hydraulic modeling software that determined how the system behaved in peak wet weather. Mr. Pap~ noted there was a process for improvement of porous sewer line and wondered if making the lines impervious to stormwater would eliminate some of the need for improvements. Mr. Corey affirmed the plan took into consideration the wet weather flow and identified strategies for reduction inflow. Ms. Smith added that the desired outcome of the wet weather flow management plan was to come up with the most cost- effective combination of system rehabilitation and building capacity at the plant. She said it had been determined that system rehabilitation was not cost-effective. Ms. Smith affirmed for Mr. Pap~ that the City of Springfield was contributing its proportionate share. Mr. Kelly noted that CH2M Hill had allegedly analyzed the system earlier and determined that there was much dry weather capacity left, but that more recent analysis said there was none left. He asserted this resulted from a change in the methodology. Ms. Smith attributed the change to new discharge requirements for how the effluent was treated and also to an increase in load. Mr. Noeson stated that there had been a series of changes that had occurred since 1996, when the study had been conducted, not the least of which was an increase in population in the area of about 10 to 11 percent. Also, he said a limit had been included on the release of ammonia, and meeting the new limit required twice the amount of tanking. Mr. Kelly asked how this related to Goal 11. Dave Jewett, legal counsel for the MWMC, responded that in order to comply with Goal 11, facilities had to be constructed that would meet the requirements. In response to another question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Jewett stated that adoption of the facility plan and the related 20-year project list was not a land use decision, as per ORS 223.297(s). He related that part of the statute required that a City adopt a facilities plan and project list prior to development of a systems development charge (SDC). Ms. Smith added that there was a separate process proposed to the MetroPlan and the Public Facilities Plan to update information on the wastewater treatment system pursuant to Oregon administrative rules. She underscored that this was a separate process, to be brought before the council after having been considered by the Planning Commission. Compliance with Goal 11 was ongoing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Smith explained that there was an ongoing cycle of maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal, as the ~perfect pipe" that would last forever had yet to be developed. Ms. Bettman asked if pipes were being built to standards so that they would be easier to rehabilitate. Mr. Corey responded that the department was only in charge of facilities installed in the public right-of-way. He said pipe that led from the City facilities to private homes was also responsible for the infiltration of stormwater and there was no ongoing regulatory authority over such pipes. He stated that pipes installed today were no more or less facile to rehabilitate than older pipes. Mr. Corey said, in response to question from Mr. Pap~, the department did have standard location and construction specifications. Mr. Pap~ shared his concern that people could not afford the increase in fees to cover the cost of the projects. He wondered if the MWMC could seek out loans and grants to cover some of the needed work. Ms. Smith responded that there was little federal money available, though the MWMC had secured a small amount of United Front money for a minor project. She related that the commission had just approved the rate increase for the next year. In evaluating a range of options between a 12.5 and 38 percent increase, the commission had opted to increase the fee by 24 percent. She thought the combination of phasing, wherein all projects were pushed out until the very last minute, and the commission setting itself in a good position in the bond market would benefit the rate-payers. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Smith said there was not a typical increase for a business customer, but the percentage of the increase would be the same as that for the residential customers. Mr. Poling commented that 20 years without doing an update on a facility such as this was ~'just asking for trouble." He related that the members of the MWMC had struggled to arrive at the proposed improvements and fee increases. He expressed appreciation for the work the staff of the MWMC had done. He predicted the dollar amount would be the only stumbling block. B. WORK SESSION: Proposed Modifications to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commis- sion Regional Wastewater System Development Charge Methodology and Rates Mr. Taylor stated that a public hearing on the modifications was scheduled for June 14 and it was scheduled for council action on June 28. Fred McVey, Data Services Manager for the Public Works Department, explained that the council would be presented two resolutions for action, one that would adopt the proposed SDC methodology forwarded to the council by the MWMC, and the other to adopt the SDC rates that would result from the application of the methodology to the Facility Plan and 20-Year Project List. Mr. McVey provided a brief overview of the attachment entitled Systems Development Charge Method- ologies included in the agenda item summary (ALS). He averred that the work of the consultants, legal counsel, and the commission and contributed to the development of a very solid defensible methodology that complied with all statutory requirements and sufficiently addressed issues of equity. With the aid of a flipchart, he discussed Fee Structure Development, Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis, Improvement Cost MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Basis, and Methodology. Mr. Kelly believed in the need for SDCs. He opined that the increase did not seem out of line given the magnitude of capital improvements that were required, but having read the methodology, found it difficult to decipher. He asked how it could be made more comprehensible. He wondered if there were other jurisdictions whose wastewater SDCs looked like this. Mr. McVey said it was complex primarily because different elements of capacity in the system were being considered. He thought it would be difficult to accomplish what was needed with a simple methodology, but a more complex methodology, though more difficult to fathom, provided more equity. Mr. McVey asked Debbie Galardi, a consultant in the development of the methodology, to speak to it. Ms. Galardi agreed it was complex, but noted that other cities had similar levels of complexity. She cited the City of Albany, which had SDCs that considered flow valves. She averred it was complicated, in part, to provide more equity. Mr. Kelly requested more material on the methodology prior to the public hearing as he would not be able to vote on something he did not completely understand. He felt the work should be readily comprehensible for the people who would be charged the SDCs. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Smith stated that the NPDES permit had to be renewed quinquennially and would next expire in 2007. Mr. Pap6 thought additional requirements could be placed on the system due to a need for greater capacity and wondered if the SDC methodology was designed with this in mind. Mr. Noeson replied that, to the best ability of the MWMC, in developing the facilities plan, the regulatory assessment had been projected through the 20-year study period to anticipate as much as possible what the regulatory requirements could be. Mr. Pap6 asked if it was thought that the regulations could become more stringent. Mr. Noeson did not foresee this happening. Ms. Bettman asked, and Mr. McVey affirmed, that it was assumed that the mass limits would stay the same. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that slower population growth than projected could cause a shortfall in available funds from SDCs and would affect the project list. She though the numbers for installation of water infrastructure projected by EWEB were lower and possibly more realistic. Ms. Noeson replied that at the same time less population growth brought in less in SDC revenue, it would create less need for expanded capacity and would require less investment, so the absolute accuracy of the population projections was not of great concern. Ms. Bettman asked staff to provide a more in-depth look at how the increase would affect SDCs for commercial customers. Mr. Kelly suggested that adoption of the project list first would provide a better gauge by which to create a more accessible methodology. Mr. McVey said the downside of delaying the adjustment was that it would negatively impact the required revenue to build the capacity that was anticipated. He added that staff was trying to meet the commitment to the Home Builders Association to complete the review and adopt the new SDCs by July 1. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Jewett stated that the actual numbers, based on the facilities plan and the 20-year project list, were available and the commission had adopted both the plan and the list including the cost and the allocations of the cost between the various components. He stressed that those numbers could be applied to the proposed methodology as it stood and would provide real results. Mr. Kelly asked why the numbers, if known, were not embedded in the methodology. Mr. Jewett responded that the statute did not require it. He related that the statute placed the SDCs in a different place from systems methodology. He said there was not consistent treatment of all the terms. Mr. Pap~ also found the methodology difficult to comprehend. He thought Mr. Kelly made a good point, in terms of presentation to the public. He suggested adopting the 20-year plan first and then working on educating the public in regard to the proposed SDC methodology. Ms. Bettman recommended that staff take some example developments and work out what the SDC would be for them on paper in order to clarify the methodology for councilors. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 2004 Page 5 Work Session