Item A: City of Coburg Request for Connection to Regional Wastewater Facilities

Home Browse Search

It is unclear if the IGA should contain provisions addressing goal compliance regarding future actions that may invoke Goal 11 questions, particularly since the IGA establishing the Commission restricts all land use and community growth decisions to the purview of the Governing Bodies. It is unclear if the IGA per se is a land use document or would become a land use document if conditions related to goal compliance were included as provisions of the IGA. None of the existing MWMC IGAs are considered land use documents for the reasons listed here. Lane County Boundary Commission Requirements The final local land use process involves the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. The Boundary Commission has approval authority for changes, mergers, dissolutions, and creation of service districts; and annexations and extra-territorial extension of sewer if: a) the line is a “forced main” or, b) the line is a gravity line 8” or larger. This proposal could be accommodated without a change in the Metropolitan Wastewater Management District boundary (which is currently specified in the MWMC IGA as the UGB) provided Coburg is a customer and not a partner. However, since Coburg’s Wastewater Facilities Plan specifies that the discharge to the MWMC system would be by way of a force main, the Boundary Commission has approval authority of the extension of this line. An extension of a sewer line outside of the city limits of Eugene or Springfield, but within that city’s UGB, is defined as an extra-territorial extension if not accompanied by an annexation of the land over/under which the line is extended. An extension of the sewer line beyond the UGB is similarly categorized. The Boundary Commission may not approve an annexation proposal of any classification that does not comply with the policies of the applicable comprehensive plan (ORS 199). Without the necessary and appropriate changes to the Metro Plan, RCP, and Coburg Comprehensive Plan, the Boundary Commission could not approve the sewer line extension. State Agency Involvement All post-acknowledgment land use decisions are referred to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for comment. The Department’s authority to approve or deny an amendment is limited to the Periodic Review process. It does not appear that the statute considers this proposal to be an application requiring the Periodic Review process The Department would send a copy of the proposal to affected state agencies (DLCD, DEQ, OEDD, for example) for comment on program consistency issues. It is difficult to project the nature or content of those comments. Time Line and Direct Costs for Processing Required Amendments and Approvals Attempting to quantify time lines and costs associated with the various processes necessary to complete this proposal is uncharted territory. Although the history of the Metro Plan does include some extraordinary amendment proposals (Short Mountain sanitary sewer extension; Prison siting, etc.) none were ever adopted and none involved the variety of issues, participants or coordination demanded by this proposal. The time line for the land use decision (Metro Plan and PFSP only) would begin with the formal initiation process. One of the three governing bodies would be required to adopt a motion or resolution initiating the action. Assuming the initiating government has enough information to take this action, approximately a month would be necessary to accomplish this first step (scheduling, report preparation, meeting action). The ideal time frames, and steps required by the Metro Plan, for processing the proposed amendments is outlined below. Page 13