Laserfiche WebLink
asked how Springfield was to pay for the work that was needed, as most of the work on nodes <br />that had been done to this point had been underwritten by State Transportation and Growth <br />Management (TGM) grants. He said that such work was extremely costly. Mr. Cortright noted <br />that the State hoped to continue its Transportation Growth Management Program with reduced <br />dollars. <br /> <br />Mayor Weathers said that given sufficient time and money, anything was possible. However, <br />given limited funding, limited time, and the potential passage of ballot measures that would <br />further limit government funding, she was concerned about the lack of flexibility in the deadline. <br />Mr. Cortright said that if the ballot measures pass, all governments will have a different world to <br />deal with. During the three-year period following adoption, Mr. Cortright recommended that the <br />jurisdictions target their planning work to those areas where they expected to realize the most <br />gain, and that they establish interim controls to preclude incompatible development. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the two jurisdictions were trying sincerely to meet the intent of the rule <br />but had different rules and policies that meant they could not be specific in TransPlan about what <br />would be "on the ground." She asked what would happen if the two cities were on different <br />implementation schedules. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee did not think the two cities had any choice but to comply with the State's deadlines. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs said that Eugene was on track with the <br />adoption of its nodal development overlay zone to have the needed interim measures in place <br />when TransPlan was adopted and the new Metro Plan designation was available for application. <br />At that time, the council would select the nodes and apply the Metro Plan designation and city <br />overlay zone. She said that Eugene would meet the three-year State deadline. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor concurred with Mr. Lee. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Weathers, Mr. Mott described the approach that Springfield <br />would take toward implementation. He anticipated an eight to ten month process. <br /> <br />Responding to a request for input from Mayor Weathers, Mr. Cortright said he believed that the <br />two cities were moving in the right direction. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Cortright said that LCDC had enforcement authority <br />if the State determined the metropolitan area was not making satisfactory progress. That would <br />probably include the State's institution of some interim controls. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that the new policy, if adopted, would establish a three-year window for <br />compliance. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly asked if the policy would be satisfied if each <br />jurisdiction did two nodes, adding that he did not think that, given the rate of development, much <br />area would be protected to "do the right thing." Ms. Childs said she believed it was not the two <br />jurisdictions' intent to do the minimum number, and anticipated that the two councils would <br />examine and identify other nodes as well. The exact number was not known. Mr. Kelly <br />suggested that a statement to that effect be included in an intent statement. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Ballew, Mr. Mott said he did not see much difference between <br />development of interim protection measures and the development of the final measures. He did <br />not want to go through an interim process followed by an almost identical process. He <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council September 13, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Joint Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />