Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 4 of 11 <br /> <br />but the bigger question was whether or not the jurisdictions were taking care of the individual constituents <br />in the different metropolitan areas. There were many philosophies that caused a lot of friction and friction <br />caused distrust. He was more interested in what they were trying to accomplish as a group of three public <br />bodies, who they represented and what their needs were. He believed in jurisdictional autonomy, but <br />questioned whether or not the Metro Plan offered that flexibility. He asked if the Metro Plan gave the <br />ability to adapt and if it was agile. Most of the answers were ‘probably not as good as it could be’. <br />Possibilities included fixing the Metro Plan or preparing two separate Comprehensive Plans. As policy <br />makers they needed to look at the big picture and determine what they wanted to accomplish as efficiently <br />and effectively as possible. He would prefer two separate plans that allowed flexibility. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark said he liked the way they were considering tackling one problem at a time. As times <br />changed, priorities also changed. He appreciated Commissioner Stewart’s letter in the paper today. There <br />were a lot of issues around the Metro Plan regarding provision of services and a lot the group could talk <br />about, but he felt discussion on regional coordination on public safety should be a priority. He supported <br />working together to address that issue. <br /> <br />Councilor Ralston asked about the results of the Little Look. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said that was a compilation put together by Betsy Shepherd, the consultant the jurisdictions <br />worked with a couple of years ago. <br /> <br />Councilor Ralston said he agreed with the following statements from the agenda packet: <br />? <br /> The Metro Plan should be reviewed collaboratively as parts of it seemed outdated or too <br />restrictive. <br />? <br /> The Metro Plan is less relevant today and could warrant further collaborative review. <br />? <br /> The Metro Plan could better meet the current and future needs in the areas of housing, buildable <br />lands and UGB’s. <br />He felt that the Metro Plan either needed to be changed to make it more agile, or they needed to look at <br />two separate Comp Plans. <br /> <br />Commissioner Handy referred to staff discussion regarding HB3337 and the options to either amend the <br />Metro Plan or amend our actions. He asked for further explanation. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said currently the Metro Plan had a single UGB and there were a number of references to that in <br />the Metro Plan. The assumptions about the inventories for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County were <br />based on areas within the single UGB. There would now be two distinct UGBs, so that information in the <br />Metro Plan would need to be changed. Each City would be making changes that would substitute that <br />information. When he said they would be using the Metro Plan policies to guide our compliance with the <br />Statewide goals, he meant they would be working succinctly on inventories and would be subject to the <br />rules and goals for those inventories. The development of that would be based on policies that were in the <br />Metro Plan unless instructed to adopt different policies. There were decision points along the way for <br />elected officials, about how that work would unfold and how it would affect the Metro Plan. We were <br />under no obligation to maintain to the current structure if the elected officials chose another structure. <br />Regarding HB3337, there would be a package with recommendations of changes in the Metro Plan for the <br />new reality in Springfield regarding inventories. <br /> <br /> <br />