Laserfiche WebLink
January 13, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 2 of 10 <br /> <br />identified five issues that needed to be addressed strategically with the cities of Eugene and Springfield. <br />Those issues were as follows: <br />1. Annexation Policies: A hearing process to address disenfranchisement of citizens outside of city <br />limits, but inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) over development and annexation issues. <br />2. Metro Plan Description of Urban Services: Fundamental principals and language in the Metro <br />Plan that the cities were the logical provider of urban services. <br />3. Rural Reserves. <br />4. Adjustment to the Metro Plan boundary to address jurisdictional autonomy. <br />5. Dispute resolution policies. <br /> <br />The Mayor and Board Chairs met on October 1 and determined it would be too complex to address all <br />five issues at once, so it was suggested staff start with bringing two issues to the Joint Elected Officials: <br />1) the Metro Plan description of urban services; and 2) the Metro Plan boundary change to address <br />jurisdictional autonomy. Staff would continue to work on the remaining issues and bring those forward at <br />a later date. Staff was looking for direction on possible amendments to the Metro Plan on County issues <br />that could be incorporated with the cities’ amendments related to HB3337. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe spoke first regarding the description of urban services. Within the Metro Plan, a number of <br />different, inconsistent terms were used when referring to various services provided by local governments <br />and other agencies. Problematic for Lane County, was that the terms used in the plan didn’t recognize key <br />services provided by the County, including the Sheriff and corrections services, criminal prosecution and <br />District Attorney (DA) services, parole and probation, elections, regional transportation facilities, mental <br />health services, public health services, etc. The Metro Plan was a land use allocation and policy <br />document for the metro area; the definitions and policies of which may affect or exclude consideration of <br />other services not provided by cities in ways not related to land use planning. Failure to recognize the <br />County as provider of those key urban services in the Metro Plan was fundamentally unfair and <br />potentially detrimental to the County’s long term ability to maintain them. A proposed solution was to <br />modify the existing fundamental principles or goal and policy language within the Metro Plan to provide <br />this needed clarity, however, that may cause far reaching and unintended problems with the cities land use <br />and annexation review criteria and processes. Revisions to correct these deficiencies may include <br />modifications and clarifications to the text of the principles, to goal language and definitions to the key <br />urban services and public services in the Metro Plan glossary. Those revisions would clarify the cities’ <br />and county’s roles as providers of various key urban services within the Metro Plan area. Metro planning <br />directors discussed this at their December 15, 2008 meeting and discussed how to address these issues. <br />They were recommending that a more comprehensive analysis continue to be conducted to determine <br />which specific components of the Metro Plan would require revision to acknowledge the County’s role as <br />a key urban service provider and to determine what possible externalities those revisions would have on <br />existing city processes to avoid impacting existing City land use and annexation review criteria. Staff was <br />recommending that any future Metro Plan revisions to address this issue be coordinated with the cities as <br />they develop their amendments associated with HB3337. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe spoke regarding the jurisdictional autonomy adjustment. Over the years, there had been <br />infrequent but highly publicized incidents where cities had held a deciding vote on land use proceedings <br />involving private properties with the governing body’s primary jurisdiction. The proposed solution <br />involved limiting applicability of the Metro Plan by modifying the plan boundary so it was coterminous <br />with the Eugene and Springfield UGB and modifying key policy language within the Metro Plan that <br /> <br />