HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWE 3/31/2008
,
Page 1 of2
,
..
MOTT Gregory
From: STOUDER Matt
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:35 AM
To: LEAHY Joe (HL)
Cc: 'BillVan Vactor'; VOGENEY Ken; MaTT Gregory
Subject: FW: Springfield's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Hi Joe,
Below is anemail sent by Greg Moll regarding updates to the PFSP and Metro Plan as a result of updating our
Wastewater Master Plan. At this point, we have confirmation from Eugene that they feel this would be a Type II
process, but are still waiting to hear back from the County. This update is time sensitive, and in order to move
forward, we need to find out where the County is regarding Type I or Type amendments. We've been working
with Stephanie Schulz, who was coordinating with Steve Vorhes for a decision, Since we haven't heard back
from Steve, we were hoping you could contact his office as we discussed this morning on the phone, Please let
me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thanks for your help,
Matt
From: MOTT Gregory
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 S:S5 PM
To: SCHULZ Stephanie E; MCKINNEY Lydia S
Cc: VORHES Stephen L; JEROME Emily N; Bill Van Vactor; STOUDER Matt
Subject: Springfield's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Lydia and Stephanie are more up to speed than the rest of you, so some of this will bore everyone, just some
more than others. The questions that I've posed to date have been around the involvement of Eugene and Lane
County EO's in the adoption of the Springfield Wastewater Master Plan and concurrent amendments to the
project lists and maps in the PFSP and related amendments in the text of the Metro Plan, Chapter III-G being the
most likely suspect, but I'll make no claim to certainty on that one. I mention this because Policy G,3 of the Metro
Plan requires amending the PFSP and the Metro Plan for "modifications and additions to or deletions from the
project lists in the PFSP planned facilities Maps 1,2 and 3," At no place does the Metro Plan contain these
project lists or maps, so I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to amend in the Metro Plan; there are
Appendices listed at page 1-3, and Appendix A is the Public Facilitv Plan Proiect Lists and MaDS for Water,
Stormwater. Wastewater. Electricitv and TransDortation, Maybe we need to amend this appendix? Maybe we
need to reference the existence of this new WW Master Plan?
What we're up to over here is updating a 20+ year old sanitary sewer master plan, Much of what's being
proposed does a better job of describing basin-specific projects (lines, manholes and pump/lift stations) and
whether or not these projects are new or are upgrades, As best as I can tell, the PFSP sanitary sewer projects
are limited to lines 24 inches and larger and pump/lift stations (no regard to .Iine size are associated with these
. facilities), We have three 24 inch lines proposed: one is parallel to an existing 24" line that goes from Centennial
@12th to Hayden Bridge @ 10th; another goes from 21st and E to 14th and Centennial; and the last 24" project will
upgrade 15 and 18 inch pipes in Main Street between 52nd and 69th, We're building two new lift stations, one at
Deadmond Ferry and International Way in Gateway and one in South Second Street near Harbor Drive, That is
the sum total of all our new and upgrade projects that qualify for inclusion in the PFSP, We've completed two lift
stations on the existing project list so I assume we should delete those but that too is an amendment identified in
Policy G,3,
Now that I've gone around the barn twice without going through it, I'll pose the question of participation based on
the above descriptions and citations and the following text in the PFSP regarding the ~f~~inqi\lQ""
Chanoes: "For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amend~~Tht!flWbA
classes:
L1AR ii 1 2008
4/7/2008
Planner: BJ
,.
Page 2 of2
Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a list, location or provider of
public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified here, which project
serves more than one jurisdiction. .
Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of public facility projects
which significantly impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves only the
jurisdiction proposing the amendment."
What's your pleasure regarding classification; are the p"rojects as I've described them (if this is enough
description) Type I or Type II? Type I amendments are forwarded to the respective agencies for adoption; Type II
amendments are the exclu'sive jurisdiction of the initiating agency, I can fax you a copy of the map if that would
help,
a.
b,
If you see a similarity to the Metro Plan amendment process you are correct.
gmott
Date Received
MAR ;q 2008
Planner: BJ
4/7/2008