Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson asked if there was any controversy on where the new line would be going. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said he didn’t believe there was any controversy, but before committing to that, they needed to <br />get emergency services on board. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson discussed public safety and said Springfield was involved in their jail project, <br />Eugene was not and Lane County was facing difficulties in this area. He asked what the role was in the <br />Metro Plan regarding public safety planning and how that was coordinated. <br /> <br />Mr. Howe said the Metro Plan spoke only to police services. That was one of the definitional questions <br />staff would like to explore with the JEO subcommittee. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson clarified the Metro Plan referred to police protection, not public safety, which <br />encompassed corrections and other public safety issues. He said that showed the terminology issues over <br />the last twenty to thirty years for many of the topics in the Metro Plan. He discussed some of the many <br />areas that were included in public safety. He wanted to know the role the County had with the cities <br />regarding siting public safety services. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said the Metro Plan identified services for the purposes of planning and extending the urban <br />services into the planned area. There were other things that had relationship to the Metro Plan, but were <br />not the land use relationships. There were things that needed to be discussed, but not all were in the Metro <br />Plan and changing the Plan may not address those issues. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson asked about reserving farmland. It had been mentioned that the Metro Plan <br />facilitated growth of cites out on to the farmland. He asked what staff would recommend if the elected <br />officials wanted to pursue a more aggressive plan to protect farmland and what type of guidance they <br />could give regarding how to structure that discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said communities around the state were struggling with trying to preserve land yet meeting <br />state requirements for adequate buildable land. The policy makers could look at the issues and participate <br />in the statewide dialogue regarding that issue. Some of the definitions for density were statutorily defined. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said they all had strong feelings about their jurisdictions, but also shared a lot of things that <br />were done together. She didn’t hear anyone saying they wanted to get rid of the Metro Plan, but rather fix <br />it. They needed to identify which questions needed to be addressed to begin that process, such as what <br />could be changed to protect farmland. She saw the separation of the UGB as an amicable divorce and <br />there would be some work to do. Some of the issues regarding public safety didn’t fit in this discussion, <br />but needed to be held. She suggested looking at what needed to be fixed in the Metro Plan to address the <br />issues such as farmland. One of the questions at hand was whether or not they agreed with the policies <br />that governed the Metro Plan and if not, which ones they did not agree with and which ones they could <br />add. She understood that some wanted to look at this more carefully individually. <br /> <br />Mayor Leiken asked staff to explain the difference between the Salem/Keizer metro area and the <br />Eugene/Springfield metro area. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said Salem/Keizer had separate UGBs, but were guided by the same policies regarding <br />development so densities remained the same. There was a single transportation system for both <br /> <br />