Admin Order 58-95-05-F (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

A • ;~D~111VIS 1 12:1`f IVf: OIZI)I;1Z \'(). 58-95-()~_!: of the City ~1,rna~e.r oi' the City n1' Eugene ESTARL[SI-lING 1~'AS"t'E~~~ATER USER FEES AND REPEALING ADvIiN[STR;tTIVE ORDER NO. >8-94-.1.1-F "!'he Cily ~'i~tnai~~r ~!' the C'itr' of i~u<~er~c• Iind~ .ts i'ollows: A. Section 6.411 (formerly Section 7.021)) of•the Eugene, Code, 1971 authorizes the City 1\%lanager to determine and set fees and char~~es to be imposed by the City for wastewater service and for regional ~,vastet~~ater service. [3. In accordance ~-vith the procedures set forth therein, on April 28, 1995 I issued Administrative Order No. ~~-95_05 proposinv~ an increase in wastewater user fees as set forth in the Notice attached thereto, and the re.pe;t) of ;'~dn~ia~istl-ative Order No. SS-94-1 i -F. C. Copies of the. \otice were pt"oyided to the \1~+yor and City Councilors, the news media, any person ~-~-ho had requested notice, to interested governmental a~=encies Including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental .Quality, M~~~MC, and the Eugene \\'ater R Electric Board), and posted at two locations at Cit<~ .Half on May 1, .1995. The Notice was also published on )\9 ay 1 and May 7, 1995 in the Register Guard, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and made available for interested persons at the offices of. the Public ~~~orks Department, 858 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, during normal business hours {8:Q0 a_m. to 5.00 p.m., h~tonday th+-ough Friday, exclusive of holidays). 1). The Notice provided that ~wr-itien comments thereon could be submitted for a pe+-iod of I5 dr+ys from the first date of puhllcat+on and piistin~" or at a public hearing to be held on i\~iay 1 S, 1995: No ~~-ritten conu+l~nts ~wer~ received ~~~ithin the time or in dhe manner reduired by the notice. E. Pursuant to Subsection 6.41 1(1) of the Eugene Code, 1971, I have conducted an investigation of the revenue needs of the City in providing these services and reviewed the recommendation of the Metropolitan «~astewater 1\~'fanagement Commission (MWM.C). a' F. The 1\•1~V>\-1C has revised the method used to allocate costs among cc+stomer cla-sses, a.nd ha.s also +-e<tllocat~d costs het~t-een the. flat monthly co+3~ponent of the M~t'MC fee and the flow based coml+rn~ent oi~ that i'~e. '1'hc• cost<~n,~r service charges r-ecol~~mended by M\~~t~~tC reflect this +-,_vi~cl cost allocation. D. Based on that investi<~ation and recommendation, and the findings set forth herein, I find the proposed fees are in compliance with the Council's directive that the costs of providing such services be recovered from the beneficiaries of the services, and other applicable policies and directives of the Council; are consistent ~vlth applicable federal and state regulations and the recommendations of M«~)\~iC; are comparable to the amounts charged by the City of Springfield rltiministraiit~c Or•dcr• - 1