Laserfiche WebLink
operations and maintenance budget gap in Public Works. Mr. Inerfeld replied that STP-U funds could not <br />be used directly for annual operations and maintenance, but could be used for capital preservation. <br /> <br />Mr. Pangborn said that was why LTD would use STP-U funds for capital projects and use the supplanted <br />capital funds for transit operations. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION <br /> Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment <br /> <br />Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir gave a brief overview of the Eugene Comprehen- <br />sive Lands Assessment (ECLA) project. She introduced Jason Dedrick, Planning Division, to present the <br />project update. She said staff would give periodic updates over the next year to assure the project remained <br />consistent with council policy and direction. <br /> <br />Mr. Dedrick used a PowerPoint presentation to provide project background information, explain the study <br />methodology and describe community engagement activities and next steps. He said House Bill 3337 was <br />the impetus for ECLA and the assessment of residential land sufficiency had to be completed by December <br />31, 2009. At the council’s direction, commercial, industrial and public/semi-public land was added to the <br />study. He said the goal of the assessment was to determine if Eugene had a land supply sufficient to meet <br />the needs of the 2030 population. He reviewed the assessment methodology and engagement of the <br />community through formation of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Agency Technical Advisory <br />(TAC) Committee. Next steps in the project would include community group meetings, scenario develop- <br />ment and public workshops. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked how Eugene’s lands assessment was tracking with the timeline of Springfield’s land <br />assessment and if there were any savings being realized by working collaboratively. Mr. Dedrick said <br />Springfield was slightly ahead in the process and Eugene had been able to learn from their experiences; there <br />was also cross-membership on each community’s committees and sharing of regional information. <br /> <br />Regarding population figures, Mr. Clark said there were initial population numbers from LCOG, then the <br />City used the safe harbor approach and recently Portland State University (PSU) had developed some <br />numbers. He asked if population figures were likely to be challenged and, if so, how that would affect the <br />project timeline. Mr. Dedrick said that while a challenge is always a possibility, a key factor in the project <br />was Eugene’s lack of an adopted population number for the year 2030, which was the reason for initiating <br />the safe harbor process. He said the safe harbor process allowed the City to establish a population number <br />in lieu of County adoption of a number for 2030. He said the ECLA project was under a strict deadline, <br />which made it difficult to wait for the County to adopt a population number; therefore, the safe harbor <br />number was being used in the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City would need to recalculate if the County adopted a population number in the near <br />future. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that the statutes specifically stated that if the City had adopted a <br />safe harbor number it could rely on that figure. She said if it appeared the County would have an adopted <br />number in time for it to be used in the project, there might be no need for the City to adopt a safe harbor <br />number. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if the legislature would clarify its intent regarding demonstration under HB 3337. Ms. <br />Jerome said the legislature had not commented on its intent nor had any bills been submitted that dealt with <br />determination as opposed to demonstration. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />