New Search
COREY Kurt A <br /> 1 From: RUFFIER Peter J <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:18 AM <br /> To: KELLY David S <br /> Cc: COREY Kurt A; TAYLOR Dennis M <br /> Subject: RE: questions on MWMC item from Monday night <br /> Thank you Councilor Kelley, we'll provide responses to your questions in the AIS for the <br /> meeting on the 28th. <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: David Kelly, Eugene City Councilor [mailto:david.s.kelly@ci.eugene.or.us] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:18 PM <br /> To: Peter Ruffier <br /> Cc: Kurt Corey; Dennis Taylor; Mayor and City Councilors <br /> Subject: questions on MWMC item from Monday night <br /> <br /> i <br /> Peter <br /> Per the city manager's direction, here are my questions from Monday <br /> night's hearing that I didn't have a chance to ask. I look forward to <br /> responses in our packet when we next consider the item. <br /> (1)Am I generally correct (though possibly simplistic) if I state that <br /> the three main reasons for the projects in the project list are (1)added <br /> capacity for growth, (2)requirements of new state and federal <br /> regulations, and (3)improvements to be a good neighbor for the <br /> surrounding development (e.g., odor control)? <br /> (2)Someone in the hearing (and others in emails) have said they worry <br /> the plant is being overbuilt so as to account for a "worst case <br /> scenario" that "almost never happens". Is this the case? How can this <br /> be evaluated? Is the capacity sized by considering a 5-year storm <br /> event? 10-year? 50-year? What? <br /> (3)My work on Region 2050 has made me even more interested in the <br /> importance of jurisdictions cooperating where possible. I thought Mayor <br /> Volta from Coburg made some excellent points about their needs. I'm <br /> concerned about the groundwater mgmt area due to nitrate pollution, and <br /> don't care for the fact that if Coburg builds their own plant, that will <br /> mean an additional river outflow. <br /> I'll be interested in the answers to the questions that the Mayor <br /> emailed about the Coburg issue, and want to ask an additional timing <br /> question. I don't want to hold up Eugene's adoption of the plan until <br /> the Coburg issue is resolved, but I would like to know how the Eugene <br /> City Council could indicate our support for seriously studying the <br /> ability of Coburg to be linked to the plant. <br /> (4)The executive summary of the plan says the capacity deficit in wet <br /> weather will be 102 mgd (we have a capacity of 175 now, and need 277 in <br /> year 2025). Do the projects in the plan build the capacity to cover <br /> that deficit? More than that deficit? Less? Why? <br /> (5)Let me play devil's advocate. If (for example) the Eugene City <br /> Council didn't give our ok to the project list/plan now, and instead did <br /> so five years from now, what would be the most likely negative consequences? <br /> Thanks for any light you can shed on these questions. <br /> David <br /> 1 <br /> <br />