Item B: Coordinated Population Projections

Home Browse Search

M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date:May 23, 2008 To:Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL From:Bill Van Vactor/Greg Mott BRIEFING Subject:Population Forecast MEMORANDUM ISSUE: Authorize staff to pursue Safe Harbor procedure for required new population projection and subsequent adoption into the Metro Plan. BACKGROUND: During 2007 LCOG (at the request of several cities) processed a coordinated Lane County population forecast that slightly increased the total for several of the 12 cities in Lane County. At the same time, towards the end of 2007, the Board of County Commissioners began considering the option of having the County assume the responsibility of coordinated population projections in lieu of LCOG. At a proceeding before the Board of County Commissioners to consider these issues the Mayor of Springfield informed the Board of County Commissioners of the requirements of HB 3337, and of the Safe Harbor approach (ORS 195.034). The Mayor pointed out this approach would have minimal impact or cost to Lane County (Attachment 3). Safe harbor simply extends the existing projection to the new later date or projects the urban share of the county, as determined by the State Office of Economic Analysis, will remain constant to the new later date. On April 28th the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) sent a letter to the Board of County Commissioners encouraging them to adopt LCOG’s coordinated forecast (Attachment 4). However, on April 30, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners rejected LCOG’s population forecast and indicated that it would assume responsibility for preparation of coordinated population forecasts and would do so as part of the next periodic review process (Attachment 5). At this point in time Springfield staff is aware that the periodic review process is not yet scheduled; that new rules may eliminate the requirement for counties to undergo periodic review; and in either case, is not sure that waiting for the county to undertake periodic review would comply with the City’s required schedule for implementation of HB 3337. Fortunately, there are alternative methods to develop a coordinated population forecast and the most direct method is “Safe Harbor.” Under ORS 195.034 (Attachment 2) there are several predicates to the successful use of the Safe Harbor approach. First, the existing coordinated forecast must be more than 10 years old when the City initiates an evaluation or amendment of its urban growth boundary. In our particular circumstance the forecast used by Lane County and Springfield was prepared by LCOG in 1995, and therefore that requirement is met. Additionally, this 1995 forecast was for a single metropolitan UGB and not for the respective UGB’s mandated by HB 3337. The city has contracted with ECONorthwest to prepare our residential, commercial and industrial buildable lands analysis. This analysis requires a population projection for at least a 20 year period beginning with the initiation of the analysis. Consistent with this need, and with the provisions of ORS 195.034, ECONorthwest has performed the calculations described in the statute. A copy of the adopted LCOG population, proposed LCOG projections and the Safe Harbor calculation is attached (Attachments 7, 8 & 9 respectively). The statute also provides that if Lane County does not take action on the City’s proposed forecast within 6 months, the City may adopt the coordinated forecast with notice to the other local governments in the County. The City needs to include the adopted forecast in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the post acknowledgment plan amendment (PAPA) process. If all of those predicates are met, then the forecast is deemed to satisfy the requirements of statewide land use planning goal 14 relating to urbanization to establish a coordinated 20 year population forecast for Springfield’s urban area. The City may then rely on its forecast as the appropriate basis upon which the City and County will conduct the evaluation of the City’s urban growth boundary. Attachment 1, Page 1