Laserfiche WebLink
moved within the UGB. He underscored that there had been no construction on the site and there was an <br />agreement that if it was not to be used for wastewater facilities it could be sold back to the previous owners. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz surmised that it could not be developed into tract homes. Mr. Detweiler affirmed that it was not <br />zoned for any other use. Ms. Ortiz suggested that whoever purchased the property could apply for a zoning <br />change and would likely be granted such a change. Mr. Detweiler replied that he was unable to answer land <br />use questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly wanted more clarity on the motion itself. He interpreted it as saying that a model would be <br />developed for a response to Coburg. He did not perceive this to include an IGA. He suggested that the <br />motion include the following sentence: <br /> <br />“This motion does not imply that Coburg will eventually connect to the regional wastewater facilities.” <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said in terms of regional cooperation he was happy to help Coburg. He did not think the two <br />conditions, i.e. that such a connection should not cost the City of Eugene and no environmental impact <br />would be incurred, could be met. He also noted that the staff report indicated no funds were available to <br />study the issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey responded that this was the reasoning behind suggesting $1 million and then refunding any excess <br />at the end of four years. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly averred that he would not support moving forward with the proposal without a firmer sense of <br />costs and the environmental impacts. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor supported regional cooperation in principle but he was not enamored of every community looking <br />to Eugene to resolve wastewater treatment issues. He said while he recognized the cost issue, it would not <br />prevent him from supporting a motion to further explore the issue. He wanted to know what it would cost. <br />He stated that with parameters in place he would support proceeding, but one parameter would be that it <br />should not cost the City of Eugene. He supported the motion because it moved the council toward getting a <br />“whole lot more answers” to the questions that needed to be asked. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling related that he had attended an earlier meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners and <br />the commissioners unanimously approved, 5:0, the concepts of the draft IGA and directed their staff to move <br />forward working in conjunction with the other agencies on this project. He also had spoken with MWMC <br />member, Susie Smith, and she indicated to him that in her opinion, the Coburg estimate was not far from the <br />mark. He reiterated that Coburg hired a consultant who specialized in this kind of work. He speculated that <br />the real figures lay somewhere between the City of Eugene’s estimate and the City of Coburg’s estimate on <br />the cost and the timeline. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling underscored that the proposal was in response to Coburg’s request to be an additional wastewa- <br />ter customer. He also stressed that Coburg was willing to reimburse the City of Eugene $175,000 for the <br />initial work. He called this a good starting point. <br /> <br />Additionally, Mr. Poling averred that protections were in place to keep property that would be included <br />within the UGB between the two cities for the purposes of connecting Coburg to the Wastewater Treatment <br />Facility from being used for other purposes. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />