Laserfiche WebLink
Betsy referred to Metro Plan-No Metro Plan question and answer summary, and noted <br />that it was an excellent explanation. She handed out two diagrams and reviewed wall <br />versions of the same. She explained that first diagram, titled Current Metro Plan— <br />Related Requirements and Issues—was organized by rows and columns. The top row <br />listed the chapters of the current Metro Plan; row two described the county’s <br />responsibilities according to the Roblan report; row three listed out the five issues raised <br />by the county and possible ways to address those issues. She added that Public Safety, <br />notwithstanding police protection, was not included in the Metro Plan. She added that <br />two of the items in the final row, which were the top dot vote getting issues at the March <br />3 JEO subcommittee meeting, were Public Safety and Regional Economic Development. <br />These two items are not in the Metro Plan. Betsy added that the last items raised at the <br />March 3 JEO subcommittee led the group to the second diagram titled Metro Plan <br />Alternatives Diagram. She walked through and explained that there were essentially two <br />alternatives—No Metro Plan and a Revised Metro Plan. She added that general cost and <br />time had been identified for the various options. <br />Betsy opened up for questions. <br />Commissioner Stewart asked about the Metro Plan Alternatives diagram and noted that <br />some of his colleagues believed that the cities already have plans and Periodic Review is <br />in place. He asked about what exists today. <br />Kent Howe replied that the cities and county were done with Periodic Review. <br />Greg Mott explained that the cities and county have a single acknowledged plan that <br />satisfies the statewide planning goals. If there was no Metro Plan, cities would have to do <br />their own comprehensive plans with county co-adoption, exposing themselves to <br />initiating a new plan from scratch and responding to each statewide planning goal. He <br />also explained that DLCD would require a work plan for each plan using the Periodic <br />Review requirements. He emphasized that this would be an extremely long and <br />complicated undertaking. <br />Commissioner Stewart asked about timing. Greg responded that when the Metro Plan <br />was done in 1977, the region was able to use various reports already prepared by the <br />county but it still took until 1982 before it was acknowledged. <br />Councilor Lundberg asked about the “who” and “where” for metro planning. <br />Greg explained that the county co-adopts the cities’ plans. The cities and county would <br />take different paths to create individual comp plans, including individual work plans. The <br />county’s most significant contribution would be the land between the city limits and <br />UGBs, and who would be responsible for those lands. <br />Greg added that regional matters must be maintained; all three jurisdictions must <br />coordinate even though three comp plans would exist. He observed that decisions made <br />in the past relied on the legal framework established in the current Metro Plan. Might not <br />JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 2 5/7/2009 <br /> <br />