Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asked when the County’s next periodic review was scheduled. Ms. Gardner said it would begin in six <br />years. Ms. Jerome added that the current population forecast was a combined number for Eugene and Springfield <br />and it only went to 2013. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what process would be used to distribute population figures among the cities in Lane County and <br />what role the council would have in reconciling those numbers. Ms. Gardner said the council would not have a role <br />in reconciling the numbers because it was a County function to develop a coordinated population forecast. The <br />recommendation from staff was to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, which could be coordinated with <br />Springfield to achieve some efficiencies. She said the County had several actions it could take at its June 25 work <br />session; however, most of those options would take considerable time and increase Eugene’s need for a safe harbor <br />number to comply with HB 3337. She said none of the County’s options would change Eugene’s safe harbor <br />number. She said Eugene’s safe harbor number would be conservative and she was not certain what process the <br />County would use to redistribute any additional population from a coordinated forecast. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome explained that the Division of Land Conservation and <br />Development (DLCD) had appealed on behalf of small cities, Lane County’s original resolution to postpone the <br />population forecast until the next periodic review. She said the appeal had the intended effect as the County had <br />withdrawn that decision. <br /> <br />Referring to a memorandum from Ms. Gardner, Ms. Bettman asked what specific Eugene-related planning items <br />would be delegated to regional staff. She asked who the regional staff was. Ms. Jerome said that Eugene and <br />Springfield staff would be assigned to the project and a single amendment package, with a population forecast for <br />each city, would be presented to the County. She said the project would be coordinated between Eugene and <br />Springfield staff, but no other staff would be involved. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the same growth rate would be assumed for both jurisdictions. Ms. Gardner replied that the <br />growth rate of 1.31 percent would be assumed for each jurisdiction based on currently adopted population figures <br />and that trend would be extended over a 20-year period. She said each city would develop its own population <br />number. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the adopted population number, or the 2005 number that was not adopted, would be used. Ms. <br />Jerome stated that the formula for establishing population forecasts was in the statute and cited the relevant language. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that the 1.31 percent was a combined growth rate for the Eugene and Springfield areas. She <br />asked if that would be broken down into an actual growth rate for Eugene and a growth rate for Springfield. Ms. <br />Gardner cited a Portland State University 2007 study that estimated Eugene’s population at 153,690 and Spring- <br />field’s at 57,320. She said, assuming a safe harbor approach at 1.31 percent growth rate, those figures would be <br />221,000 and 82,000 respectively. She understood that 1.31 percent reflected both cities’ existing growth rates. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if there was any advantage to separate Metro Plan amendments. She thought it would be more <br />work to coordinate the efforts of two staffs. Ms. Gardner said the population forecast processes would be separate <br />and result in a forecast for each jurisdiction; they would be packaged in one amendment to present to the County, <br />although that was not necessary if the council preferred a separate amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what option the City had if it decided not to use the safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner replied <br />that the City would have to wait for the County to establish a coordinated population number and that could take <br />longer than the City had to meet its statutory requirements under HB 3337. She said the City had 18 months to <br />comply and the analysis would take that long; it could not afford to wait. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />