Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked if the City could choose a one- or two-percent growth rate. Ms. Gardner said the growth rate had to be based on an assumption about growth and using a past assumption was acceptable. She was not aware of any options that would allow the City to choose another assumption. Ms. Taylor asked what advantages or disadvantages there might be to having a higher or lower population projection. She also asked why the small cities had appealed the County’s initial decision. Ms. Gardner said a significantly higher or lower projection would affect what the 20-year supply of land should be. She understood that for small cities the growth rate and population assigned was more critical in terms of scale and could affect things like infrastructure and improvements. She said some state allocations were based on population projections. Ms. Taylor asked if a city would have to pay back funds if its population growth was slower than forecast. She commented that a larger population growth would create more pressure to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Gardner said she would need to research the question about repayment of state funds. She said a significantly higher growth rate would raise questions about how to accommodate that growth, but the safe harbor approach would not require any policy or growth rate change for the City. Mr. Pryor said that the questions about appeals by small cities and other aspects of the County’s action were interesting, but not relevant to the council’s decision. He felt the safe harbor approach presented the most flexible option the City had to keep moving forward under HB 3337 requirements, without being committed to a projection that could not later be revised. He said LCOG’s effort to forecast separate populations was based on 2005 numbers, even though they had not been adopted, and growth rates based on previous trends. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner said she did not know the specific methodology used to develop the 1.31 percent assumption, but it was more conservative than the LCOG number. Mr. Zelenka said if there was a finite amount of State funding available for infrastructure and it was allocated based on population, a conservative assumption for Eugene and unrealistically high assumptions for other cities could shift money away from Eugene. He asked if the 1.31 percent assumption for both Eugene and Springfield could change. Ms. Gardner said there was already a targeted population number for each city based on the assumption and those numbers would not change during the planning process. Mr. Clark asked what efficiencies would be realized through coordination with Springfield. Ms. Gardner said there could be efficiencies in terms of both time and money through joint planning activities, as well as efficiencies in presenting one Metro Plan amendment to the County. Mr. Clark indicated he would support the City Manager’s recommendation as the logical way to move forward without taking other options off the table. Ms. Bettman asked what Springfield’s projected growth rate would be if it were based on specific historic data instead of a combined growth rate for Eugene and Springfield. Ms. Gardner said she would need to research the answer to that question. Ms. Bettman said that was a key issue for her and agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s concern about the allocation of state resources based on population projections. She said going with the safe harbor approach meant the City was adopting a projected population number. She was not convinced it was in the City’s best interests to move forward with a combined Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment and intended to amend the motion to assure the cities moved forward separately. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 3 Work Session