Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Ruiz cited a report from ECONorthwest to the Springfield City Council in October 2007 that said 1.7 percent was the average annual growth rate for Springfield between 1995 and 2006. He said given the relative populations of Eugene and Springfield, the combined rate of 1.31 percent was probably only slightly higher than Eugene’s actual average annual growth rate. Ms. Piercy asked if the public processes for Eugene and Springfield would be separate. Ms. Gardner said they could be separate. She emphasized that the critical path was initiation of the Metro Plan amendment, not combining efforts with Springfield. She said the processes could be separate if that was the council’s preference. Ms. Ortiz asked if the City would have to pay back state funds that might be allocated based on over- estimating the population forecast. Ms. Gardner said the question was outside her area of expertise. She said most population numbers were based on census data, which was separate from the planning figure being used. Ms. Ortiz felt that the process presented a good opportunity to work with Springfield and realize efficiencies in a coordinated effort. She expected that the jurisdictions’ public outreach processes would differ. Mr. Zelenka noted that Appendix A confirmed Mr. Ruiz’s estimate of Eugene and Springfield’s population growth rates. Mr. Pryor asked if a coordinated process would involve the staff of both cities working collaboratively and a collaborative public outreach and information gathering process. Ms. Gardner said a joint elected officials process could be used. Ms. Jerome added that each jurisdiction could decide the extent to which it wanted public involvement prior to joint hearings. Mr. Pryor said his concern was assuring that Eugene residents had full access to the process and opportunities to provide input. He saw advantages to staff from the jurisdictions working together and did not perceive staff from one city trying to co-opt the other. Mr. Poling asked if the County had any preference in terms of the City’s approach. Ms. Gardner said the County staff concurred with the safe harbor approach. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to initiate a Metro Plan amendment to adopt a safe harbor population forecast for Eugene. Ms. Bettman said she understood the Board of County Commissioners was considering a coordinated projection and that would supersede safe harbor. Ms. Gardner reiterated that it did not mean the safe harbor assumption would be changed. Ms. Bettman asked at what date it was assumed the projected 231,420 population target would be reached. Ms. Gardner said it was projected that the population figure of 221,000 would be reached by 2030. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to move forward with a City of Eugene initiated Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman said it was her experience that there was more public involvement if the effort was City-oriented and she did not foresee there would be much difference in the outcome. She said using the numbers to justify larger investments in metropolitan wastewater or transportation capacity, or expansion of the UGB, would include assumptions built into that decision-making process that required community input. She said Springfield was building out at half of the Metro Plan density requirements and Eugene was taking a different approach. She said it MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 4 Work Session