Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Handy acknowledged that the Board would like to go after substantive issues but was also okay with the two “low hanging fruit.” Commissioner Stewart noted that the five issues were preceded by a letter that wasn’t really acknowledged by the cities. The county still wanted to move forward and knows it can’t do away with the Metro Plan. He stated that the mayors and board commissioner chair identified those two of five issues as ones they believed could be successes. He stated the board would still like to deal with the bigger issues. Commissioner Handy stated that it doesn’t mean the Metro Plan has to go away, but need to identify what the options are for dealing with issues that are important. Betsy clarified that dots were to go on the pages but not the list of five issues. After the dots were up, the group discussed the results. Councilor Ralston observed that the conversation about doing away with the Metro Plan received six dots. Councilor Clark noted that the discussion on rural reserves would include state law since it influences that topic. Commissioner Handy noted that talk about the Metro Plan and HB 3337 discussion keeps coming back to key urban services as a policy item. Councilor Lundberg stated that a fundamental discussion is whether to keep the Metro Plan whole and/or identifying what to look at individually. Should decide whether to do away with one plan and have individual plans. No matter what we do individually, we are interrelated with regional issues such as transportation or wastewater. Commissioner Handy noted that there was a three-way relationship, with give and take on issues. Background on County’s #2 Issue (Kent) Kent observed that there were commonalities among the dots—public safety is embodied into the list of five, as well as the HB 3337 question. Kent continued with the key urban services discussion and noted that while the Metro Plan is primarily a land use document, it is written in such a way that it branches out. He referred to the handout that includes the key urban services section from the Metro Plan. Discussion on County’s #2 Issue; Where are we (Group) Councilor Clark asked if there was anything in the statute that helped clarify or explain key urban services. Kent noted that a land use focus on key urban services would be on growth inducing. When the Metro Plan was written, Measures 5 and 47, and funding in general weren’t issues or limiting factors. JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 3 4/13/2009