Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 3 of 11 <br /> <br />this county. Urban reserves, located outside the UGB, were a requirement in the law that could apply <br />here, but only if certain standards were met. The designation of urban reserves would be the first area <br />considered if expanding the UGB. Each city had developed an independent Transportation System Plan <br />(TSP) that would support the land use planning currently underway in HB3337. Also, the cities, in <br />partnership with Lane County, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the City of Coburg, were <br />developing a Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP) that would take the place of the current <br />TransPlan. <br /> <br />Lisa Gardner, Planning Division Manager from the City of Eugene, said some of the issues outlined by <br />Mr. Mott related to the Metro Plan from a land use perspective, while others may have connections to the <br />Metro Plan, but were much broader relational issues. She discussed some of those regional relationship <br />issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said some of the issues included how services were provided in Lane County, both urban <br />and rural; how services were defined; and how services were delivered and paid for. Urban services <br />defined by the Metro Plan were key services, such as water, sewer, fire and schools. There were also key <br />urban services in the Metro Plan for land use decisions on how and where we would grow. The County <br />also provided several services, such as animal control, sheriff, prosecution and many others. These <br />services were used by both city and county residents. The question before the JEO members, was how to <br />continue to fund and deliver these services countywide, both urban and rural. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner referred to many regional partnerships that were not tied to the Metro Plan, but were <br />important in terms of quality of life. These included regional decision-making and dispute resolution <br />through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Jurisdictional autonomy was another issue the <br />elected officials had expressed interest in discussing further. She discussed the jurisdictional boundaries. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said the planning framework in the Metro Plan identified many of the relationships between <br />jurisdictions. Regardless of the form the Metro Plan took, the relationships still existed, some in the Metro <br />Plan and some in other plans. There would always be both formal and informal relationships. There <br />would always be decisions made that would affect one another. If they continued to look at how to <br />efficiently provide services, those would be formally and informally codified through special districts, the <br />Metro Plan, transportation plans, etc. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said in conclusion, the issues emerging were broader ranging issues. As the group started <br />addressing some of the issues, it was important to identify problem areas and identify a broad range of <br />solution sets or options. Some of the issues would find resolution within processes already in place, such <br />as HB3337, while others may need new processes. Staff would provide the information the elected <br />officials needed to proceed. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson said staff had provided an excellent overview of the situation. He suggested going <br />around the table for comments or questions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stewart said he had no questions at this time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fleenor referred to Ms. Gardner’s presentation regarding identifying a broad set of <br />solutions. They needed to ask why they were doing this, and what was the purpose. He would like to look <br />at whether or not we had a system that worked and addressed the constituents’ needs. More or less it was, <br /> <br />