Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Priority Setting for JEO Meeting ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Discussion of Priority Agenda Items for Joint Elected Officials Meeting Meeting Date: January 30, 2008 Agenda Item Number: A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Angel Jones www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5010 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a work session to prepare for the February 12, 2008, joint elected officials meeting (JEO) with Lane County and the City of Springfield. The purpose of that meeting is to discuss shared jurisdictional priorities. This work session is to engage in a discussion of the various topics (suggested below) and develop a short list of priorities to be discussed at the meeting on February 12. BACKGROUND From time to time, three primary local governmental entities in the Eugene-Springfield area (the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County) hold a joint elected officials meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern. A special meeting for all three jurisdictions has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 12 at the request of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Each jurisdiction is to bring a list of priorities that require intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. Lane County’s and Springfield’s priorities are attached. Below is a list of topics and issues that the City Council may wish to consider and bring forward as the priority list for the JEO meeting: Metro Plan Update, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) ? Transportation planning/TransPlan ? Transportation funding ? Homeless issues ? Development of an intergovernmental agreement for planning urban services ? Changes in local planning and related tasks as a result of HB 3337 ? Population forecasts and process ? Issues related to “Rivers to Ridges” ? Interoperability related to A.I.R.S. conversion ? Human Services Commission ? RELATED CITY POLICIES This is not a policy discussion per se; instead it is a discussion of items for further consideration at the February 12 JEO meeting. There may or may not be implications for city policy when the final list of priorities is crafted and presented at the JEO meeting. F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080130\S080130A.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council needs to develop a short list of four priority items to present for discussion at the February 12 JEO meeting. Further, after the development of this list, there should be a discussion by the council of expectations for outcomes at the JEO meeting. The outcomes for the meeting are, of course, specifically dependent upon the items on the list itself, but could include items such as commitments to further meetings, commitment of resources, or the development of agreements. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION In light of the City Council goals and other emerging issues, the City Manager recommends that the following items be considered as a starting point for the January 30 work session: Transportation planning/TransPlan ? Transportation funding ? Homeless issues ? Metro Plan Update, Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) ? Given the time constraints of a joint meeting, it is conceivable that each jurisdiction will have time to raise and discuss only one or two of their priorities on February 12. In order to make the best use of that time and to facilitate the City Council’s discussion on January 30, an email outlining a proposed process for refining Eugene’s list will be developed and sent under separate cover. It should also be noted that additional joint meetings to discuss jurisdictional priorities may be scheduled in the future. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is offered for this item; this work session is an opportunity for discussion of the priority list. ATTACHMENTS A. City of Springfield Priority List for JEO Meeting B. Letter from Lane County on Priority List for JEO Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Angel Jones Telephone: 682-5010 Staff E-Mail: Angel.L.Jones@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080130\S080130A.doc ATTACHMENT A PRIORITY LIST FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Submitted via e-mail by Assistant City Manager, Jeffrey Towery on January 22, 2008 TransPlan Work Plan DLCD staff has verbally expressed concern about the disconnect between a Draft RTP (federally required MPO regional transportation Plan) projecting a 2031 horizon year and the MetroPlan and its refinement plans such as TransPlan (state required transportation system plan) living on a 2015 horizon. The TPR (Transportation Planning Rule) says that federal MPO plans (RTP) and local TSPs (TransPlan) must be consistent. Once the 2031 RTP is adopted in November by MPC, the TransPlan jurisdictions will either need to make a finding of consistency that the RTP and TransPlan are “consistent”, or make any needed amendments to TransPlan to create “consistency”. TransPlan is a regional document; therefore, at a minimum it appears that the JEO (assumes that the PCs and governing bodies of effected jurisdictions and the Joint Planning Commissions have weighed in) will need to tune up the TransPlan project list (i.e. take the WEP out). Metro Plan – UGB Amendment Springfield believes that the establishment of separate urban growth boundaries (based on jurisdictional responsibilities articulated in the Metro Plan) is an appropriate first step for implementation. Whether or not this action is subject to the two-year time limit contained in the law or is limited solely to residential inventory, does not obviate the need, to establish the two UGB’s as mandated by HB 3337. Springfield planning staff is prepared to provide the report and findings necessary to allow the Council to act in compliance with this element of the law by January, 2008. Metro Plan – Conforming Amendments In order to fully implement HB 3337, SB 417, and SB 336 the Board of County Commissioners may need (or choose) to adopt into Lane Code Chapter 10 all of Eugene’s and Springfield’s newly adopted code amendments so that they have force and effect in the UT area. The establishment of separate UGB's for Springfield and Eugene will create the need for various conforming amendments to the Metro Plan which will continue to reference a single UGB unless amendments are made to reflect compliance with the HB 3337 mandate for separate UGB's. One approach that could help to preserve the regional partnership is to establish this conforming Metro Plan text to coincide with the action to establish separate UGB’s. Update – Inventories / UGB Amendments A final draft of the Residential Lands Study Report will be presented to Council early next year, in time to coordinate with the Commercial Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) project. The findings of the Residential Lands Study will be combined with those of the CIBL to allow staff to more accurately assess Springfield’s future land needs of all types and to plan accordingly for any necessary UGB amendments.