Item 4 - Ord./Metro Plan Amend. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The second problem involves the information that has been available to the public about the comp plan and PFSP amendmentS themselves. : As we have previously pointed out, the actual amendments to the comp plan and PFSP do not discuss the proposed projects with sufficient specificity to allow the public to understand what projects are being proposed. Are they the projects in the proposed MWMC Facility Plan? If so, why not make that clear to people who are looking at either the staffmaterials or the amendments themselves? The only reference in the staff materials for the planning commission hearings that made any note to the MWMC Facilities Plan is found under the first section, entitled Issues. It says that the amendments are being proposed for five reasons. Reason #3 is to "reflect current conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC Facilities Plan." There is nothing in that sentence that would suggest to the public that the proposed projects in the comp plan and PFSP amendments are the same projects being proposed in the proposed MWMC facilities Plan. Instead, the opposite impression is given - that the MWMC Facility Plan is an adopted document and the proposed amendments are intended to make the new proposed projects consistent with the existing Plan. At the time of the joint planning commission public hearing on April 20, 2004, the proposed MWMC Facility Plan- a very large and technical document- was not yet available for the public to review, let alone to digest and comment upon. However, even now, it is not clear what projects are being proposed in the Comp plan and PFSP amendments. For example, the proposed MWMC Facility Plan and 20-Year Project list is being submitted to the elected officials and adopted through a totally different process that does not involve the planning commissions at all. If the proposed projects in the amendments before the elected officials tonight are essentially large buckets made.up of the actual projects in the MWMC Facility Plan, why not use the comp plan process to discuss the actual projects? Instead, MWMC is using a bifurcated process. MWMC sent the proposed Facility Plan and its projects, directly to the elected officials for adoption, bypassing the planning commissions. Springfield city council adopted the Facility Plan and 20-Year Project List before the planning commissions began their consideration of the proposed amendments. How is the public supposed to understand what projects are being proposed in the comp plan and PFSP amendments if the projects that are presumably the Subject of the amendments are being adopted through a different process entirely?. Bifurcating the process also makes public comment'more difficult. Instead of having two public hearings, there have been five public hearings on these projects - two public hearings before the joint planning commissions and the joint elected officials on the amendments, and three public hearings before the three groups of elected officials on the Facility Plan. Because the issues are different in the amendments than the facility plan, the public had to participate in both processes rather than a single process. The more . difficult the process becomes, the more the public is discouraged from participating. 3 1-3