New Search
I doubt that the public (include me) has enough understanding of the goals and reasons for this <br /> programs existence to give it strong support. The same goes for the understanding needed to <br /> gain support for a strict enforcement program. <br /> FLEXIBLE: I'm not really sure what this term is looking for. <br /> On on -site facility could be designed specific to deal with the EXACT situation on a parcel (a <br /> different facility for sheet street runoff as compared for piped roof drains). A regional facility <br /> would need be designed to deal with larger quantities which arrived from many sources. <br /> FORGIVING: Assuming both systems are designed for the same type of storm intensity and <br /> duration, for flood control a failure or overflow of an on -site system is likely to be of much <br /> smaller magnitude than with a regional system. I believe damage would be contained more on <br /> an on -site facility. Liability for damage from an on -site failure would rest first with the <br /> responsible party and secondly with the city as a regulator. <br /> An argument could be made that a failure on a regional facility would be less likely, but if both <br /> were properly designed and maintained that shouldn't be the case. In reality I suspect the on -site <br /> would be more prone to failure due to limited size and likelihood of poor maintenance but I have <br /> no idea of how to quantify this nor how to quantify the damage potential. <br /> For water quality the regional system might be more forgiving due mostly to the amount of water <br /> (dilution) and area used for treatment. <br /> 4. Low INITL4L COST: <br /> 5. Low CONTINUING COSTS: <br /> While the concept that a single large facility is cheeper to both build and maintain is likely true, I <br /> think another factor is involved here. Continuing the theme from previous items, I don't feel the <br /> average citizen in Eugene is interested in subsidizing new development. Therefore the fact that <br /> the initial cost paid by the developer was somewhat higher per unit managed than would be the <br /> case for a regional facility likely would not be an issue of strong citizen concern. <br /> I also don't believe we have much success in convincing anyone that when development <br /> participates in staff program costs or infrastructure asset development costs that they pay their <br /> full share. Even if they did (which I don't believe they do) I doubt we could convince most <br /> people of this fact. Therefore, I hesitate to support "shared" programs. While the Maintenance <br /> Division could tool to maintain any asset this program could come up with, the monetary and <br /> political issues for us to hire, equip, house, and mobleize additional staff are considerable and <br /> can be avoided through starting the program assuming private maintenance. Then if over time <br /> the PUBLIC finds that the private maintenance with city enforcement isn't working, we can then <br /> 6 <br />