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

Home Browse Search

In 2002~ MWMC directed staffto prepare a 20 year estimate of capital needs, · given that the design life of the water pollution control facility would be reached by 2004. When that analysis was completed, and reviewed by MWMC as part of its ordinary budget process for FY 2002-03, the capital needs were estimated at about $105 million, including the $36 million that remained in the previous planning efforts. This year's MWMC budget contains $13 million of capital improvements, none of which have received any public scrutiny or review by the elected officials except through the budget process. The only time that those projects were adopted by the elected officials was through the budget process. Presumably the governing bodies do not want the public to have to appeal their budgets in order for the Public to have a remedy for a specific wastewater project. The appropriate place for the public to apply for a remedy aRer the adoption of wastewater projects is LUBA. To the extent that the jurisdictions attempt to shut offthat remedy, the more difficult the process becomes for everyone- the public and the goveming bodies alike. The simple solution is to eliminate the bifurcated adoption process of the wastewater projects and follow the land use amendment process under OAK 660~011-000 to 660- 011-0065. Start over and let the public review the projects through the planning commissions and ultimately the elected officials. It may take a total of a couple of additional months, but the process is done as the state legislature intended. I have heard persons from MWMC say that they do not want to have the projects adopted through the comp plan amendment process because they don't want to have to.do a comp plan amendment every time they change a project. The Goal 11 process only requires amendments for significant public facility projects. If the change is insignificant, the amendment is not necessary. If the project is significant, the public should be given the opportunity to weigh in on it if they choose to do so. Last evening, the Springfield City Council had the following item on their agenda: ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP), TABLE 8 AND MAP 4: PLANNED ELECTRICAL FACILITIES TO SHOW A NEW 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM THE MARCOLA SUBSTATION SITE TO THE LAURA STREET SUBSTATION, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If Springfield Utility Board can act to amend the PFSF when it is appropriate to do so, presumably MWMC can also. A desire to avoid compliance with the Goal 11 requirements for the sake of convenience is not a justification for depriving the public of their right to review and comment on public facility projects. 5 1-5