New Search
Cost Equity <br /> Recovery of Capital Asset Investments, New Capital Expansions, and Planning and Study <br /> Process Costs <br /> This section addresses the costs a prospective sewer customer outside the UGB could expect to <br /> be assessed assuming existing and future Eugene-Springfield sewer customers would not absorb <br /> or subsidize the costs of providing service outside the planned service area. Eugene-Springfield <br /> <br /> - area sewer customers and property owners have paid for the locally-funded share of the <br /> planning, permitting and construction of existing facilities through a combination of property <br /> taxes user rate <br /> sand connection fees over tune. The .facilities have been built to serve current <br /> .populations and future growth within the UGB. Because Coburg is outside the UGB, its <br /> wastewater demands have not been planned for as part of the MWMC service district or the local <br /> collection systems. While sufficient average dry weather capacity is currently available to <br /> connect new customers, an increment of capacity and facilities equivalent to Coburg's increment <br /> f <br /> o demand woul <br /> d need to be added to th <br /> ere Tonal wastewaters stem at some oint. <br /> g Y P <br /> In order to establish equity among Eugene-Springfield customers and Coburg, Coburg would <br /> need to be assessed for a prorated share of the local (Eugene) and regional (MWMC) system <br /> capacity used, as well as for the facilities, buildings, planning, permitting, etc. that are necessary <br /> to run the overall regional wastewater program. To assist Coburg in determining whether <br /> connection to the regional system would be cost effective in comparison to building its own <br /> system, and to provide the elected officials with a starting point for determining potentially <br /> appropriate connection (or "buy-in") costs,. SEL directed staff to prepare a rough analysis. The <br /> analysis was. directed under the premise that costs would-be captured in a manner that avoids <br /> "subsidies." .This underlying premise reflects sentiments expressed by the elected officials at the <br /> June, 2004 JEO meeting, and the requirements under the MWMC IGA; which states that <br /> connection fees be charged to create equity among existing and future sewer customers. <br /> To provide a "ball park" analysis, but keep it as simple and objective as possible, the scope was <br /> limited to the following areas: <br /> 1. The capital assets/facilities addressed in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and SDC <br /> methodology; <br /> 2. The capital assets (existing support facilities) that are not addressed in the MWMC SDC <br /> methodology. <br /> 3. The Eugene collection system connection costs; , <br /> 4. The contract costs for major long-range planning studies conducted since 1996 to address <br /> future capacity needs through 2025; and <br /> 5. The elected officials' decision-making process and adoption of necessary Metro Plan and <br /> MWMC IGA amendments. <br /> The simplest approach to this rough analysis was to apply the MWMC SDC methodology to <br /> Coburg's actual and planned wastewater profile, which was provided by Brown and Caldwell <br /> engineers. The methodology was applied first to show the actual total of SDCs that-would be <br /> paid if the equivalent set of customers was located inside the UGB. The Eugene local <br /> wastewater SDC methodology (in effect in 2004) was applied similarly, under the assumption <br /> Coburg would connect to the Eugene collection system. This analysis resulted in charges <br /> summarized below as a "Baseline Comparison." <br /> i <br /> City Council page 443 Page 7 <br /> <br />