New Search
r ~7 ~ ~ ~ - as~, <br /> ~ tz <br /> ~ mQ ~ Q~ nli ~ "h~ _ - <br /> QQ _ _ _ <br /> CITY OF COBURG • P:O. BOX 8316 • COBURG . ~ ~,aG OREGON 97408 • .541-682-7850 FAX 541-485-0655 <br /> O R E G,O N <br /> Mayor Kitty Piercy, <br /> Eugene City Council <br /> City of Eugene ~ ® ~ <br /> c®~~f ~o~ Y~u~~ - 200 <br /> INFORM~TfO~~ <br /> Dear Mayor Piercy and Council 'Members <br /> Thank you for your consideration of the question of Coburg's connectionto MWMC at your <br /> October 26, 2005, Council work session. I understand that there was a great deal going on at that <br /> work session, which limited the time that you had to consider the many issues that surround the <br /> question of Coburg's possible connection to MWMC. Probably because of those other pressrng <br /> matters, there were many questions raised during your discussion of Coburg and the 1VIWMC <br /> which were. not'answered. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with Coburg's <br /> perspective on some of the' outstanding questions.that still exist with regard to Coburg's <br /> connection, to the MWMC... <br /> Perhaps the biggest question le$ unanswered is the question of why there.is such a disparity <br /> between the time and-cost estimates developed by Eugene staff and Coburg staff. I think that <br /> behind the complexities, there is a simple answer: the estimates are for different processes. As I <br /> understand the Eugene staff analysis, they are thinking in terms of a comprehensive study that <br /> identifies all the possible applicants in the future that might connect to MWMC and identifies a <br /> uniform process for dealing with all such applicants, including a comprehensive change to the <br /> MWIVIC IGA and a comprehensive change to-the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area <br /> Comprehensive Plana They are thinking about using. Coburg's request to establish a process that <br /> would let them answer the next request for connection as soon as it is raised. <br /> Coburg was not seeking this approach, and, as you have been told, Coburg cannot. afford the <br /> time or the cost of this approach. Maybe if these questions had been. answered when they were <br /> raised in the January i 970 Sewerage System Master Pk~n for the Eugene-Sprin~eld Urbanizing <br /> Area, or in the 1990s when Coburg first began asking about the feasibility o£ connecting to <br /> MWMC, Coburg could have participated and would have had an answer to use now. Coburg <br /> believes that it would not be appropriate to delay an answer to~ Coburg's request. for an additional <br /> four years.. C:Qburg would argue. that it is.not right to seek a uniform answer., because it will not <br /> work.:: The details of. each proposed connection will be so different that taking the time. to <br /> develop a uniform process would just be a waste of time that Coburg does not. have: As an <br /> <br /> . .example; State planning rules specifically allow a connection between two UGBs, but they do <br /> not have the same provisions for: others. So .no solution that would deal :with Coburg could also <br /> work for the LCC basin. <br /> ~_Qnn_~a~_~ann r-rriv„„-o~ <br /> _ <br /> <br />