New Search
<br /> ~~^I <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 58-96-06-F-1 <br /> of the <br /> City Manager Pro Tem of the City of Eugene <br /> AMENDING METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC) <br /> SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CREDITS, AND REPEALING <br /> ~4DMINISTRATIVE ORDER #58-95-06-F, AND ANY OTHER ORDER IN CONFLICT <br /> 'The City Manager Pro Tem of the City of Eugene finds as follows: <br /> ' A. Sections 2.020 and 7.705 of the Eugene, Code, 1971 authorize the City Manager of the City <br /> o~ Eugene to determine and set fees and charges to be imposed by the City for services, goods, use <br /> of ~unicipal property, and licenses and permits, and specifically systems development charges. <br /> ~{ect on 7.710 of the Eugene Code, 1971 further authorizes the City Manager to adopt and/or amend <br /> bey administrative order, the methodologies used for establishing the systems development charges, <br /> wind provides this may be effected concurrent with the establishment or revision of a systems <br /> dGev~lopment charge. <br /> B. In accordance with the procedures set forth therein, on May 09, 1996 I issued Administrative <br /> j Clydar No. 58-96-06 and notified the Mayor and City Coundlors that I intended to: (1) amend the City <br /> of Eugene SDC Methodology to allow the adjustment of SDC charges and credits after development <br /> ~ o~ccxars, to establish a systems development charge methodology dassification of "large Volume User" <br /> fdr commerdal and industrial development discharging more than 100,000 gallons per day; and (2) <br /> aimend the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Equalization Fees and Credits <br /> thereto, as calculated by MWMC, all as set forth in the Notice attached as Exhibit A thereto and <br /> ;incorporated therein by reference, including the attachments thereto; and to repeal any Administrative <br /> Qrders in conflict, induding Administrative Order Number #58-95-06-F. <br /> ' C. The current City of Eugene Systems Development Charges (SDCs) for each system, were <br /> siet forth in Table #1 of Exhibit A, to the Notice, and reflected a 2.15% increase based on the City <br /> 6ngirleer's review of the National Construction Cost Index, published by the Engineering News Record <br /> ' fear the preceding twelve months. These are automatically adjusted each year pursuant to Section 2.3 <br /> of the February, 1993 SDC Methodology and were included therein for ease of reference only, and <br /> therefore have not been replicated in Exhibit A hereto. <br /> D. The Notice was published on May 9, 1996 in the Register Guard, a newspaper of general <br /> circulation within the City, posted in four public places, and was made available for inspection by <br /> interested persons during normal business hours (8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, <br /> ejcdusive of holidays), as more fully set forth in the notice. In addition thereto, a public verbal comment <br /> srrssion was held on June 19th from 5:30 p.m. to 6:07 p.m. The Notice provided that written comments <br /> could be submitted thereon for a period of 45 days from the date of posting and publication, and that <br /> consideration would be given to verbal comments at the June 19th session. Numerous comments were <br /> 'i received, to which I make the following findings: <br /> Comments on MWMC SDC Fees and Credits: One comment asserted that the MWMC <br /> SDC fees were too high, while other comments objected to the proposed rates on the basis that <br /> they were too low to provide for a full cost recovery, and should be established in an amount that <br /> would recover the true costs. <br /> Administrative Order No. 58-96-06-F-1 Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br />