Item 5: PH on Ordinance Concerning Amendments to Public Facilities and Services Plan

Home Browse Search

Report). The maps shown in Attachment B to this memo are the “misprinted” maps and are included for comparison with the corrected maps depicted in Attachment A. 3) Table 16a. Because additional sub-projects were added to Table 4a, staff recommends that corresponding additions be made to Table 16a. The appropriate cost and timing estimates are set forth for each sub-project. The cost estimates for projects 300, 301 and 302 are lower than they were in the 2004 amendments because several of the capital improvement projects recommended by the MWMC Facilities Plan are not “projects,” as that term is defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules governing public facilities planning. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the cost of those capital improvement projects to be included in the PFSP. 4) Changes to the Text. Staff recommends the addition of text to the end of the “Treatment” discussion on page 4 of the remand revisions to summarize the three treatment projects. Staff also recommends adding a discussion of the regional wastewater system’s capacity, following the “Conveyance” discussion on page 4 of the remand revisions. OAR 660-011-0020(2) requires that a public facility plan describe the capacity of each public facility. Although the data regarding capacity was contained in the record before the council, the adopted amendments were not as clear as they could have been regarding this requirement. Therefore, an explicit description regarding capacity is recommended. All of the evidence required to make the remand revisions is contained in the record that was before the cities and County when they adopted the 2004 amendments. Therefore, no additional analysis, documentation, or Planning Commission review is required. Ordinances 20325 and 20326 contained a clause stating that the amendments to the Land Use Plans do not become effective until all three of the following have occurred: 1) the ordinance has been acknowledged; 2) at least 30 days have passed since the ordinance was approved; and 3) both Springfield and Lane County had adopted similar ordinances. Because of the LUBA appeal, the first condition has not been met. Therefore, the 2004 amendments to the Land Use Plans are not yet in effect. Legal counsel and staff recommend adopting a new ordinance that makes the remand revisions immediately effective so that MWMC has the ability to obtain the needed DEQ approvals and City c permits to commence the capital improvement projects over the next several months. Construction must begin promptly in order to achieve regulatory compliance by the year 2010. A delay now would affect all future stages of construction. If the projects are not completed on schedule, MWMC could violate its NPDES permit. RELATED CITY POLICIES The recommendations included herein are consistent with the council’s 2005-2006 goals of Effective, Accountable Municipal Government, and Sustainable Development. Amending the PFSP is responsive c effectiveacknowledged The council should be aware that, even if the remand revisions are immediately , they will not be until all appeal periods have again passed. Therefore, interim permit approvals will not be issued pursuant to an acknowledged Metro Plan or PFSP. However, staff believes that any risk created by the lack of an acknowledged plan is outweighed by the danger of MWMC not . being able to meet its permit requirements L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601095.doc