Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

appropriate for the cities’ urban atmosphere to be approved easily and quicker. He stated to the city councilors that if they vote for this plan amendment, they are shirking their duty to their constituents because they will be giving up their authority on these important boundary questions. Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board, Springfield, said she is SUB’s water quality protection coordinator and she was speaking on behalf of SUB. She stated that SUB was concerned that the proposal to modify the Metro Plan Boundary to be co-terminus with the Springfield UGB, weakens Springfield’s ability to protect its drinking water sources. She noted that 31 out of 35 SUB and Rainbow Water District wells are located outside the UGB. She stated the source of over 75 percent of Springfield’s total groundwater based production capacity is located between the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary. She noted that the Metro Plan establishes a means for coordinating planning across jurisdictional lines. She said planning for the protection of drinking water source areas that follow hydrologic instead of jurisdictional boundaries is a logical subject for cross jurisdictional coordination. She reported that currently any proposed zone change within the Metro Plan boundary that would have an effect on Springfield’s water supply would allow for multi-jurisdictional decision making. She added that this process allows the city of Springfield to participate in major decisions that could affect its own municipal water source. She stated the proposed modification to the Metro Plan Boundary would remove the city of Springfield from this process for areas between the UGB and the current metro plan boundary. She said SUB, Rainbow Water District and the city of Springfield adopted a pro active drinking water protection program in 1999. She said they value the partnership with the County and look forward to furthering their work together but even with successful partnerships with Lane County, they view the city of Springfield’s participation and decision that could affect their water supply absolutely essential. She believed it was possible to avoid the setbacks for drinking water protection while still meeting the County’s goal of establishing jurisdictional autonomy. She asked that this conversation continue during the JEO process so they can be sure that shrinking the Metro Plan boundary does not lead to any unintended harmful consequences. Joe Meyers, Springfield, said that he has lived in Springfield his entire life. He noted that the cities of Eugene and Springfield are inside of Lane County and surrounded by Lane County and not the other way around. He believed they should have some sort of control on what goes on directly around the cities. He thought it would be bad for an entity to have sole jurisdiction over so many people. He thought it added to mistrust and the potential abuse of power. Donna Riddle, Eugene, said she would personally benefit from Phase 2 because she has five acres that border the UGB west of I-5 and the city limits of Eugene. She said her main concern is clean water. She stated that interjursidicitonal decision making on water is better to protect the rivers and the other wetlands. 14