Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Handy believed that the background statement should include a statement recognizing that Lane County <br />Commissioners have an interest in having their own refinement area specific plan as an element of the Metro <br />Plan to address their jurisdiction over the lands inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) but outside the city <br />limits, specifically, the unannexed areas of River Road/Santa Clara. <br /> <br />Referring to the Issue Statement, Mr. Handy asked what the statement "about 80% complete with <br />conceptual/draft language" meant. He asked which work plan tasks were complete, which were in progress, <br />and which were yet to be done. <br /> <br />Mr. Handy recalled that a member of the public had suggested in 2008, that earlier proposed edits were <br />insufficient and that additional conforming language amendments will be necessary to comprehensively <br />address the changes brought about by having separate UGBs. He appreciated that LCDC had stood firm on <br />that point and believed that staff had not yet provided the elected officials with proposed language that <br />reflects the policy complexities embodied in the change from one UGB to two UGBs. He asked when the <br />elected officials could expect the draft Metro Plan language that sufficiently addresses the policy <br />changes/implications resulting from implementation of House Bill 3337. He suggested that if staff expected <br />plan adoption before the end of 2010, the elected officials needed access to the full set of draft materials <br />with sufficient time for recommended changes to be incorporated and vetted publicly. <br /> <br />Mr. Handy expressed surprise at the staff statement it was “caught off guard” regarding the necessity to <br />consider policy language and policy implications resulting from the legislature’s decision to abolish the Lane <br />County Local Government Boundary Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Handy said that if staff intended to present an overall plan to address the issues discussed at the <br />September 30 JEO meeting, it would also need to consider that the elected officials will need adequate time <br />to review, discuss, and recommend changes to that plan. <br /> <br />Referring to the urban transition agreement, Mr. Handy said the Board of County Commissioners did not <br />support a new administrative process to address citizen concerns. The board wanted such concerns to be <br />made by the commissioners. He said the board also wanted to explore changes in the Metro Plan that <br />recognize the unannexed areas in River Road/ Santa Clara as being within the jurisdiction of the County, <br />and which consider this area as a subarea within the Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Ralston about whether Mr. Handy’s remarks now and earlier <br />represented the board’s position, Mr. Fleenor said that a board majority shared the concerns Mr. Handy had <br />expressed. He advocated for a process that allowed County residents living inside the UGB to have <br />representation. While responsibility for services lay with Eugene, those residents cannot vote for a city <br />councilor so they must go to the board, but the board lacked authority over services provided by the <br />municipalities. He said it was a situation that the board would like to see resolved in a fair and transparent <br />manner. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark observed that the issue raised by Mr. Handy was often discussed at the Santa Clara Community <br />Organization and he believed it was an issue that needed to be addressed. He understood that the board had <br />recently discussed taking back some of the services provided through the 190 agreements with the cities and <br />asked if it had come to agreement on how to proceed. Mr. Fleenor indicated the board had scheduled a <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 5 <br /> <br />