Laserfiche WebLink
the projects; an estimate of when each project Will be needed; <br />and a discussion· bf the possible funding mechanisms for each <br />project. " <br /> <br /> B. Inventoz~. <br /> <br />The £FSP as amended by the proposed amendments includes a <br />complete inventory of the region's sanitary sewer system. Again, <br />Home Builders attempts to restate it's ~'project list" is not a <br />'~project list." argument. 'Clearly, the existing list, which'. <br />passed muster prior to the proposed amendments without the <br />addition of the new projects, satisfied LCDC's definition of <br />"project list." It is hard to imagine how the addition of <br />projects Somehow makes an'already sufficiently descriptive list <br />no longer s~fficient within the meaning of the rule. <br /> <br />Home Builders argument here is not really about timing, .but about' <br />the definition of "project list:" "Where, as here, the proposal <br />is to approve categories of projects, rather than a list of <br />projects, it is not possible to comply with the rule." (Home <br />Builders .letter, p.5). MWMC has responded to that argument <br />above. <br /> <br /> D. Rough Cost Estimates. ' <br /> <br /> As explained above', the cost estimates provided in proposed Table <br /> 16a satisfy the rule's definition of rough cost estimates. <br /> <br /> E. Elements of the cc~rehensiVe plan. <br /> <br /> Home Builders again re-state their unsupported "project list" <br /> argument: "Again, a project listing is required, not a <br /> description of.categories of projects." The Metro Plan and'PFSP, <br /> as amended, satisfy OAR 660-011-0045. <br /> <br /> Conclusion'. <br /> <br /> The proposed amendments comply with state statutes, statewide <br /> planning goalS, and the administrative rules 'that implement Goal <br /> 11. The proposed amendments to Chapter III, Section G, and. <br /> Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are necessary additions concerning <br /> proposed improvement and capacity to the conveyance and treatment <br /> facilities. This information should have been included with the <br /> recently adopted amendments to 'Chapter III that occurred as a <br /> requirement of Periodic Review. The amendments to the PFSP are <br /> also a compilation of information that should have.been included <br /> with the adoption of the PFSP in 2001. Such additional <br /> information has no effect on policies of the-Plan either specific <br /> <br /> <br />