Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 6 of 11 <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson asked Mr. Boyatt to send an email to the elected officials regarding the status of <br />any legislation dealing with ACT. <br /> <br />Mr. Grimaldi said the City may not be in the best position to do that as it was unclear where the bill <br /> <br />started. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin said there was something in legislative counsel, but it had <br /> <br />not been introduced. He said he would send out an email regarding that issue. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson asked about the relationship between the Metro Plan and the economic <br />development function of the cities, Chambers of Commerce, Lane Metro Partnership, Lane Community <br />College, and Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He asked if there was an economic development <br />function in the Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said Chapter 3 of the Metro Plan included an economic element, which was a requirement of <br />Goal 9. There had been changes to Goal 9 with respect to communities having an economic opportunities <br />analysis and economic strategies incorporated in their Comp Plan, and the relationship between the land <br />that was needed for employment opportunities and attributes of that land. The analysis of the opportunity <br />the community had to bring jobs would develop economic strategies and land use applications, <br />development standards, financial policies etc. The existing elements in the Metro Plan were fine when it <br />was written, but things had changed. They hadn’t consulted the Metro Plan regarding the economic <br />element in a number of years. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson said since the Metro Plan was written, new things such as sustainability had come <br />to the forefront when considering economic activity and making decisions. He asked if they could change <br />the name from economic development to sustainable development in the Metro Plan, incorporating some <br />of the concepts of sustainability. He asked if that could be done under current land use codes. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said the elected officials in this community had a lot of latitude on how to address the economic <br />development interest, as long as they were consistent with Goal 9. It could be renamed whatever they <br />chose and they could have policies in the individual jurisdictions that didn’t need to be in a <br />Comprehensive Plan. At a higher level, if it was an either/or scenario, it could be more problematic. Staff <br />was available to tell the elected officials what the law allowed them to do. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson said the elected officials could possibly make such a change if all agreed. He asked <br />about the timeline leading up to the separation of the UGB’s. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said Springfield was about a year ahead of Eugene in terms of amendments for the UGB <br />change. Springfield would establish its own UGB, but until Eugene took action, their UGB would remain <br />as it was today. They would work through those issues with DLCD. Springfield would have its own UGB <br />prior to Eugene establishing their own. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson asked when the Lane County Board of Commissioners would see a proposal from <br />Eugene or Springfield to make a change and take action. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said the target date was the end of the 2009 calendar year. <br /> <br /> <br />