Item A - PH on MWMC/Metro Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

testimony submitted on the May 7th deadline was not distributed until the evening of May 18th when the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions had scheduled deliberation. Both Planning Commissions rescheduled their deliberations until June 1, 2004. The Eugene Planning Commission received all staff responses in time for their May 24th session and forwarded a recommendation of support (unanimous) of the amendments to the Eugene City Council. Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions concluded their deliberations on June 1, 2004, and forwarded similar recommendations of support to their respective elected officials, also by unanimous vote. It is fair to note that an extraordinary amount of time has been taken, in the processing of these amendments, discussing matters that, while they are, in a strict legal sense, irrelevant to the consideration of the narrow issues upon which a decision on the amendments is properly based, they nonetheless spark substantial interest. Because the elected officials may be intrigued by matters beyond the narrow conditions of approval specified in the Metro Plan and the relevant administrative rule, we comment on those matters. The concerns fall into two broad categories. The first is the relative level of specificity required for the project titles to be included in the PFSP. The Homebuilders appear to be arguing, for a level of specificity below the site level (i.e., where multiple activities are estimated to occur at a given geographical location, they appear to suggest that each of those activities is a separate and independent "project" which must be called out in the PFSP). Were this to be done, the list would clearly be at variance with other lists in the PFSP or on similar functional plans - all of which aggregate the activities at a physical location into one project title. A detailed explanation of why the listed projects have the specificity required by the rules is set forth in the memorandum dated May 6, 2004 that was submitted by the Springfield City Attorney's office (Attachment 2). ' The second concern is a claim that the cost estimates lack required precision and suggests that there has been inadequate prior public participation given the magnitude of the estimates. The required precision of the cost estimates is specifically set forth in the rules. Basically, they are only to be "rough" estimates. It is not intended that project cost estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes such as those that are to be found in local facilities plan or capital improvement plans. The other aspect of the second concern is the claim that somehow there has not existed sufficient oversight over staff development of proposed capital expenditures, to the effect that the $144 million capital need described in MWMC's 2004 Facilities Plan has appeared, as if out of nowhere, without adequate review and public discussion. The historical record proves otherwise. In 1996 MWMC completed a master planning process. That-process, based on 1995 and 1996 data, identified some $20 million in needed plant improvements and upgrades. As time has passed, most of the needs identified in that document have been incorporated into the regional capital improvement program and, through the normal budgetary processes, approved by the governing bodies. Although some are already under construction, about $2 million (adjusted to 2004 dollars) remain to be programmed in the budgeting process. Later, in 1997, MWMC undertook to develop a Biosolids Management Plan. This planning effort, guided by a citizen advisory committee, resulted in a planning document that was reviewed by the governing bodies. That plan contemplated $12.5 million in capital needs. As with the previous master plan effort, most of the projects have been programmed in the ordinary budgeting processes, approved by the several governing bodies, and have been constructed. In 1998, MWMC commissioned a similar more detailed look at issues surrounding wet weather flow. This effort, likewise guided by a citizen's advisory committee, led to another planning document which was reviewed and approved by the governing bodies. After accounting for some needs identified in this latter report which had also been identified in the 1997 master plan, the WWFMP added another $33 million in capital needs to those previously identified, bringing the cumulative need to $36 million. After completion of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, MWMc continued to fulfill its responsibility, under its founding intergovernmental agreement, to plan for needed capital improvements to maintain and expand capacity of the regional system, In 2002, MWMC directed staff to prepare a 20 year estimate of