New Search
I <br /> f <br /> Under Scenario Two, "the new user is charged the total project costs of new <br /> capacity...." (p. 9) <br /> - What is on the region's 20-year wastewater improvements project list? <br /> - Does it cover physical capacity improvements as well as improvements in <br /> process? <br /> - Will the MWMC Facilities Plan 20 Year Project List be funded through <br /> SDC's charged to existing (and new users) within the MWMC service area? <br /> Will state or federal funds be necessary and/or desirable? <br /> - Are costs of existing infrastructure being apportioned to Coburg? <br /> - Are costs of improvements for existing MWMC users being apportioned to <br /> Coburg? <br /> - Is Coburg being asked to pay for facilities improvements to allow MWMC to <br /> remain in compliance with discharge and permit requirements? <br /> - Are other jurisdictions requesting connection to MWMC being asked to do the <br /> same? <br /> L Is methodology used to identify SDC and other costs (under all three scenarios) contained <br /> in briefing materials for JEO and individual jurisdiction briefings authorized by state <br /> law? If so, what is the citation for that state law, regulation or policy? In addition, is it <br /> the standard methodology in the industry? Has the methodology been subject to any <br /> independent review, and if so, with what result? If it were subject to independent review, <br /> is it likely to be considered consistent with industry norms and standards? <br /> How .does this methodology compare to that used to determine costs of adding Turner to <br /> regional wastewater system in Salem? <br /> What if any allowance has been made to cost calculations to reflect that a significant <br /> population (more than 3000 workers) helping to create Coburg's wastewater capacity <br /> actually lives in Eugene andlor Springfield and inside the UGB? <br /> What is status of 2002 funding for MWMC contained in the 2002 VA/HUD/EPA <br /> r appropriations conference report for STAG grants (House Report 108-10, Item #374. <br /> $225,000 for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, Eugene and <br /> Springfield, Oregon, drinking and wastewater improvements.)? <br /> <br /> t <br /> OECDD sent a letter to Lane County on Apri15, 2005 regarding assistance with bond <br /> sales -what steps have been taken to follow-up on their offer of assistance? <br /> Planning <br /> If wastewater services are part of the Region 2050 Study and Coburg already participates <br /> in that study, why are additional planning costs, totaling as much as $1 million included <br /> in cost calculations? Why is the planning window 4 years? Why is an RFP and <br /> consultants necessary for this planning work? Can LCOG/Coburg staff assist MWMC <br /> work? Doesn't Coburg already retain a consultant, and if so, can they assist the <br /> jurisdictions? <br /> SDA - 1/11/06 2 <br /> <br />