JEO 131204 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 4, 2013 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 6 of 7 Councilor Clark said these were government initiated, but many things relied on getting things done efficiently. They were now in the seventh year of their new urban growth boundary (UGB) in Eugene and it was still not completed. He would be in favor of a set timeline. Board Chair Leiken noted an amendment in the past that involved a lot of conflict. Since then, there hadn't been an issue where one jurisdiction tried to stop another jurisdiction from moving forward, in part because of some language changes made at that time. He noted the time it took to get changes made in order to get PeaceHealth RiverBend in Springfield as an example. He felt they didn't want to put themselves in a bind, plus there was no enforcement. Commissioner Farr said the nature of some people was to drag things out in hopes it would go away. He was concerned about the possibility of a third party lawsuit that could halt a project. He asked if there was a possibility of a project going away if it didn't meet the timeline. Mr. Metzger said they currently had timelines with no enforcement and some things did get delayed. Commissioner Farr said a timeline was great if there was enforcement. Mr. Metzger said it was helpful to hear objections from the other parry in the beginning in order to address those from the start. There was always a possibility of failure of an amendment if no agreement could be reached, with or without a timeline. Commissioner Farr said in the future it could be issue. Councilor Ralston said he was satisfied with the explanation and was fine removing timeline. Commissioner Stewart said most recently Lane County initiated a Metro Plan amendment regarding the co- terminous boundary with Springfield's UGB. That process took in excess of two years and not due to any one jurisdiction dragging their feet. If there was a 120 -day timeline, it could have signaled that process had gone past that date. This was a very complicated process and a lot of work was done between the City of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board and the County. He was hesitant to put in timelines because these amendments were often very complicated. He said in the nine years he had served, they had tried to move things along the best they could. They had limited staff who worked very hard. Mayor Piercy said perhaps a 120 -day check -in would be more appropriate than a timeline. That didn't put a limit on when something had to be completed. Councilor Brew said he felt that if they included the extension process in their individual documents, they should have it in the shared Metro Plan as well. Mayor Lundberg said no one initiated something in a frivolous manner, but with a goal and purpose in mind. She was fine with check -in points as long as it was not burdensome on staff. Sometimes constituents did ask about the process. She didn't want to include specific timelines. She referred to the process they went through for the co- terminous boundary and the time it took. Mr. Metzger asked if there was consensus of setting a 120 -day check -in and leaving off the timeline.