Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2009 Work Session MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HELD MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, January 13,2009 at 12:00 p.m. with Lane County Commissioner Chair Sorenson presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Leiken opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Present from Springfield were Mayor Sid Leiken and Councilors Terri Leezer, Hillary Wylie, Dave Ralston, John Woodrow, and Joe Pishioneri. Councilor Lundberg was absent. Mayor Piercy opened the meeting ofthe Eugene City Council. Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors George Brown, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, and Chris Pryor. Board Chair Sorenson opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Pete Sorenson and Commissioners Bill Fleenor, Faye Stewart, Bill Dwyer, and Rob Handy. Chair Sorenson, introduced Terri Leezer, the new City Councilor in Springfield. Councilor Leezer said she was excited to be part of this group. She had been following this issue for some time and was anxious to get up to speed and participate. I , Chair Sorenson introduced George Brown, the new City Councilor in Eugene. I Councilor Brown said he was looking fo,rward to the opportunity to learn about this process. I Chair Sorenson introduced Rob Handy, the new Lane County Board Commissioner. ! Commissioner Handy said he was at Springfield's State of the City Address and congratulated Mayor Leiken on his fine remarks, the efforts of the City Councilors, and the accomplishments that were I highlighted in Springfield over the past year. I , Chair Sorenson referred to the agenda and noted that Kent Howe, the Lane County Planning Director, would be making today's presentation. I i Mr. Howe said the packet materials for today's meeting had been given to the Lane County Board of Commissioners (LCBC) at their November 12,2008 meeting. During that meeting, the commissioners identified five issues that needed to be addressed strategically with the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Those issues were as follows: 1. Annexation Policies: A hearing process to address disenfranchisement of citizens outside of city limits, but inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) over development and annexation issues. 2. Metro Plan Description of Urban Services: Fundamental principals and language in the Metro Plan that the cities were the logical provider of urban services. 3. Rural Reserves. January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 2 of 10 4. Adjustment to the Metro Plan boundary to address jurisdictional autonomy. 5. Dispute resolution policies. The Mayor and Board Chairs met on October 1 and determined it would be too complex to address all five issues at once, so it was suggested staff start with bringing two issues to the Joint Elected Officials: 1) the Metro Plan description of urban services; and 2) the Metro Plan boundary change to address jurisdictional autonomy. Staff would continue to work on the remaining issues and bring those forward at a later date. Staff was looking for direction on possible amendments to the Metro Plan on County issues that could be incorporated with the cities' amendments related to HB3337. Mr. Howe spoke first regarding the description of urban services. Within the Metro Plan, a number of different, inconsistent terms were used when referring to various services provided by local governments and other agencies. Problematic for Lane County, was that the terms used in the plan didn't recognize key services provided by the County, including the Sheriff and corrections services, criminal prosecution and District Attorney (DA) services, parole and probation, elections, regional transportation facilities, mental health services, public health services, etc. The Metro Plan was a land use allocation and policy document for the metro area; the defmitions and policies of which may affect or exclude consideration of other services not provided by cities in ways not related to land use planning. Failure to recognize the County as provider of those key urban services in the Metro Plan was fundamentally unfair and potentially detrimental to the County's long term ability to maintain them. A proposed solution was to modify the existing fundamental principles or goal and policy language within the Metro Plan to provide this needed clarity, however, that may cause far reaching and unintended problems with the cities land use and annexation review criteria and processes. Revisions to correct these deficiencies may include modifications and clarifications to the text of the principles, to goal language and definitions to the key urban services and public services in the Metro Plan glossary. Those revisions would clarify the cities' and county's roles as providers of various key urban services within the Metro Plan area. Metro planning directors discussed this at their December 15,2008 meeting and discussed how to address these issues. They were recommending that a more comprehensive analysis continue to be conducted to determine which specific components of the Metro Plan would require revision to acknowledge the County's role as a key urban service provider and to determine what possible externalities those revisions would have on existing city processes to avoid impacting existing City land use and annexation review criteria. Staff was recommending that any future Metro Plan revisions to address this issue be coordinated with the cities as they develop their amendments associated with HB3337. Mr. Howe spoke regarding the jurisdictional autonomy adjustment. Over the years, there had been infrequent but highly publicized incidents where cities had held a deciding vote on land use proceedings involving private properties with the governing body's primary jurisdiction. The proposed solution involved limiting applicability of the Metro Plan by modifying the plan boundary so it was coterminous with the Eugene and Springfield UGB and modifying key policy language within the Metro Plan that spoke to the applicability of the plan beyond the UGH. These revisions could be implemented and concurrently adopted along with other upcoming HB3337 amendments. Mr. Howe said in summary, the Board was trying to position itself with its metro partners to address changes to the Metro Plan as Eugene and Springfield made changes to implement HB3337. Doing this strategically was all the more important with recent County staff reductions made in the planning program because of the current economic downturn. Staff requested the elected officials' consideration of the two January 13,2009 Joint Electe'd Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 3 of 10 issues and direction to continue coordinating these Metro Plan efforts with the work done to implement HB3337. Chair Sorenson thanked staff for the report. He suggested starting with the elected officials to his right and moving around the room for comments. He asked that they keep their comments to 2 minutes. Mayor Leiken thanked Mr. Howe for a nice presentation. He said the Springfield Council hadn't had much chance to discuss this issue, so he would like to listen to the County Commissioners' thoughts on these issues. Some of the issues regarding HB3337 affected all three jurisdictions, but he was interested in hearing what the Commissioners were looking for. They had his attention and the attention of the Springfield City Council. He noted that he had discussed rural reserves with the Springfield Commissioner Bill Dwyer and was supportive of Commissioner Dwyer's concepts regarding that issue. Mayor Piercy also thanked staff for their presentation. She said that when she and Mayor Leiken met with Commissioner Stewart to look at the five issues brought forward by the Lane County Boundary Commission (LCBC), their thought was to pick a couple of issues that could easily be worked on together with success as a start. It was not a matter of determining the two issues that were the most significant, but rather the easiest. They did understand that all of the issues were important. She watched the LCBC meeting when these issues were discussed. During that meeting, the Commissioners said they wanted to listen to the cities and now the cities wanted to listen to the County. Last night the Eugene Council talked about these issues and wanted to understand which problems the County wanted dealt with and what questions they wanted answered. Councilor Ortiz passed. Councilor Zelenka spoke'regarding issue #2. He said he understood the proposed solution, but was not clear on the problem. From the information provided, lie gathered it was the lack of definition which made it more difficult for special districts to get funding. He had heard about a public safety special district, and while he was in favor of funding public safety, he had concerns about creating another layer of accountability to the voters in forming a district. He spoke regarding issue #4. He said he was not supportive of either solution on that issue. Commissioner Fleenor thanked staff for their good work. He did not disagree with all the proposed solutions, although he felt the question should be whether or not the Metro Plan should continue to exist. That needed to be resolved before changes were made. It may no longer be the right vehicle. The Metro Plan had evolved over the years and staffs recommendation was to just add more to it, and he didn't think that was good for any of the jurisdictions. He had always promoted separating the Metro Plan into separate Comprehensive Plans and with HB3337, now may be a good time for that discussion. Fixing issues # 2 and #4 was premature and could be a waste of time if they determined the Metro Plan was not the vehicle by which they want to move ahead. He would like that discussion today, at the next JEO, or in an Ad Hoc committee made up today of members in this meeting. That discussion could include taking a look at what the Metro Plan was supposed to do, what it was doing, and determining whether or not we could resuscitate the plan or develop something else. Councilor Ralston said he felt that dealing with two of the five issues was a good idea, and issues #2 and #4 were the easiest to work through first. Describing the services should be fairly easy. He agreed with Commissioner Fleenor that the Metro Plan may not be applicable anymore, especially regarding January 13,2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 4 of 10 jurisdictional autonomy, but the solution of modifying the current bylaws made a lot of sense. His opinion was that Springfield would like some autonomy. Councilor Poling said he was willing to have the discussion of the viability of the Metro Plan, but he would first like to see the pros and cons of the Plan and a lot more information. If the group proceeded in going into this format, he was interested in resolving issue #4 regarding autonomy. Under the current policy, there had been projects that had been put before the group that were stopped due to objection of one of the jurisdictions for one reason or another, when the project could have been beneficial for all. He spoke regarding public safety and a lawsuit that was filed in the 1970's regarding police patrols in unincorporated areas. The judge in that case ruled that the requirement in the ORS to 'maintain peace and order and arrest those that violated that' was fulfilled in the sheriffs drive from the office to the courthouse. He was not sure he agreed with that, but felt there was a way to address Councilor Zelenka's concerns about a public safety district. He discussed a tax levy for those that benefited from extra patrols. He explained. He was willing to discuss the Metro Plan. Councilor Leezer said she agreed with Councilor Ralston and Commissioner Fleenor to look at the Metro Plan to see if it was still serving everyone. Commissioner Stewart said the LCBC did believe that the Metro Plan was not working, but he had been told we could not get rid of it. The only way to make it work was to fix it. The LCBC had listed five items they had concerns about. He noted issue #l, and said the County had constituents that lived in the UGB, but were not represented by the cities, such as Santa Clara/River Road citizens. That caused problems that needed to be addressed. In regard to Issue #2, LCBC did try to form a public safety district to fund County public safety, without taking away authority from either of the cities. That was one way they tried to improve that situation. He said he was interested in looking at whether or not a public safety district was feasible in the future to fund services for everyone. He spoke regarding rural reserves, and the concern that the agricultural and forest land was being taken by development. He addressed jurisdictional autonomy and the issue of those residents outside the UGB and inside the Metro area that had no representation. He spoke regarding the dispute resolution currently in place. The current system did not work and a solution needed to be found. He said he didn't believe they could do away with the Metro Plan, so they needed to amend it to make it a useful tool. Councilor Taylor asked for clarification of the coterminous boundary and if it meant shrinking the Metro Plan area. She remembered talking about the Metro Plan and that many of the elected officials wanted to get rid of the Plan, but it couldn't be done. There was also a suggestion to get rid of County government at that meeting. She said she was here to listen to the County. Councilor Clark said he had watched the LCBC meeting on January 7. Last night at the Eugene City Council meeting, they discussed the LCBC meeting and Commissioner Fleenor's question about looking at whether or not to proceed with the Metro Plan amendments. He has asked staff to prepare information on what it would mean to the City of Eugene if they disengaged from the Metro Plan, and some of that had been provided this morning. Some of the information included costs shared by the jurisdictions with joint planning. He was interested to see what kind of money would be required if we did separate and what financial burdens each jurisdiction would bear. It was also mentioned in the report that new agreements would need to be entered into in place of the Metro Plan as required by the State. He would like to learn more about those requirements. He spoke regarding the issue of disenfranchisement. Since he began serving the City residents, he has felt that no one should be forced to annex into the City of Eugene. January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield~ City of Eugene Lane County Page 5 of 10 He regularly met with County residents in that area to hear their issues and concerns. He discussed agreements Eugene had made with the County that indirectly forced people to annex into the City in order to gain certain services. He would be in favor of making new agreements that weren't so hard on those residents. Making sure those County residents had adequate services as well as adequate voices was impOI:tant. Councilor Wylie said she supported a lot of what Commissioner Stewart said. If the Metro Plan was outdated, they needed to work on making it relevant with thoughtful amendments and looking at the future needs of our community. Regarding Public Safety Districts, she said each jurisdiction had individual interest in special districts. Through remaking the Metro Plan, each jurisdiction may gain more respect and cooperation for each other's projects. Each was working hard to make things better for their citizens. Commissioner Handy said Commissioner Stewart gave a good review of the issues from the County. He also thought Councilor Fleenor addressed the Board's concerns regarding the current Metro Plan. He discussed the Martin Luther King Jr. event at the County earlier in the morning, and the poignancy of the statement "now is the time" and the ''urgency of now". It was incumbent upon the elected officials to keep in mind the needs and desires of the people. He asked Eugene staff for an update on the process of updating the Refinement Plan for the City of Eugene, particularly the River Road and Santa Clara areas. Eugene Planner Muir said in the work plan for the City of Eugene was a neighborhood based plan update process for the Refinement Plan. The goal, consistent with the Neighborhood Empowerment Initiative work they had been doing, was to come up with a more current way of reflecting local plans and priorities either in a Refmement Plan or District Plan. They had not yet gotten to prioritization other than to develop a system that allowed those areas that were most ready to move forward. They were working closely with the neighborhood associations and City staff developing a framework to do that. Councilor Woodrow said he was also hoping to hear what the LCBC was looking for during the meeting. He had no issues with the proposed solutions regarding the Metro Plan descriptions, as long as the solution was the same for all three entities. He discussed a past attempt by Springfield to form a special district that was stopped by another jurisdiction. He empathized with the citizens that lived in the County and didn't have County or City representation. Some resolution should come out to those citizens and he would like that resolved. Councilor Solomon thanked the Board for bringing this to the City's attention. She agreed with Councilor Wylie that if all three jurisdictions had to follow the Metro Plan, all should benefit. There necdcd to be a way for all three to use the Plan fairly and she believed they could get to that point. Councilor Pishioneri referred to the comments from Commissioner Fleenor and Commission Stewart, and noted that the Springfield's Planning Commission would likely have their opinions about the Metro Plan. He believed each jurisdiction could establish Refinement Plans that could allow autonomy for each jurisdiction and that the Metro Plan could be amended or reduced to address the major common concerns. He felt the Metro Plan should be reduced. Commissioner Dwyer thanked everyone for attending. He discussed the different bills and plans he had witnessed during his years in this area. The Metro Plan reminded him of the United Nations Security Council: it was too easy to have one entity say no and stop the process. The MPC was not an effective I January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 6 of 10 mediation concept. There was a concept in the Metro Plan called developed and committed. When the UGB was expanded, everything within that boundary, regardless of whether it was prime farm land, was considered developed and committed. That made it impossible to protect prime farm land inside the UGH. He gave an example in Eugene. He discussed the issue in River Road of no taxation without representation and that those residents didn't know who they should call. Cities could only grow at the County's expense because as the County shrinks, resources diminished. The cities needed to remember that and consider how to keep it whole. He noted a man in the River Road area that was very interested in annexation in 1987 and the expense to the County when Eugene grew. Councilor Brown said it seemed no matter how imperfect, the Metro Plan was a useful vehicle for land use. Without it, Lane County could look like counties in California where all the productive farm land got used up. In the absence of a better plan, they needed to make the Metro Plan work. Cities could expand in responsible ways and that's what they wanted to do in Eugene. Councilor Pryor said in order for him to be supportive of something, he needed to understand it, and this had become unclear. Why the Metro Plan was needed and the purpose of the plan were questions that needed answered. The question was whether or not this system, or whatever system they created, provided the services and met the need. He used an example of three people living together in an apartment without an agreement of how they would live and the chaos that could ensue. The group needed to decide what type of agreement worked now and how we could make that agreement work. Commissioner Sorenson said because the cities wanted to hear from the commissioners, he would have another round of input from the commissioners, and also hear from Councilor Ortiz, who did not speak the first time. He noted that the statement 'we are in this together' was important during the current economic conditions. They needed to work together not only with other public agencies, but also with the private sector, and they needed to have a Metropolitan Plan that respected that fact. There were things in the Metro Plan that weren't pertinent anymore. He gave the example that cities were the logical providers of services within the City. There were, however, questions regarding what services the County would provide within cities, such as solid waste and law enforcement. He felt the County should be involved in establishing and modifying urban growth boundaries. He would like to see the support of the cities for the rural reserve concept. The LCBC hoped to have Clackamas County Commissioner Lynn Peterson, who got this through in Clackamas County, on the phone at the next LCBC meeting. The LCBC would like to keep the cities informed on the impact ofthat upon cities. He didn't expect they would finish this discussion today. He suggested the Commissioners comment on where they should go from here. Councilor Ortiz thanked Commissioner Stewart for his summary of the LCBC thoughts on these issues. She did not care for the Metro Plan, but felt it was a necessary document that was well thought out when it was created. Something along those lines was needed. She didn't feel they lived in a vacuum and she considered all of the constituents in Eugene and Springfield when making decisions. She was glad River Road and Santa Clara were finally getting some notability, because when Bethel was incorporated, there was not conversation with those citizens. That needed to be avoided in the future. Commissioner Fleenor said he was not proposing to destroy the Metro Plan, but rather evolve it to a point where they looked at it layer by layer to see where the Metro Plan ended and the Comprehensive Plans began. He believed that the vast majority of the Metro Plan was the individual Comp Plans that had been incorporated. Every city had to have a Comp Plan. His proposal was to look at what was under the umbrella of the Metro Plan, and determine if there was a way to separate it into the separate Comp Plans, January 13,2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 7 of 10 and he felt this could happen. He disagreed that there was no way to get rid of the Metro Plan. He was interested in looking at the Metro Plan only if we could get more efficiency at a lower cost. In the process of their analysis, they needed to make sure efficiencies and costs were considered. Commissioner Stewart said he would like to know from staff the status of the Metro Plan and what could or could not be done with the plan. He believed that in the current economic times, we needed to work together as partners, with the ability to have good communication and the ability to make decisions. Some of the frustration was not being able to make final decisions in these joint meetings. He would like to be able to make decisions, make a case about the issues and work together as team. They were all equal partners and all dealt with these issues. Commissioner Handy said he appreciated the comments from Commissioner Stewart. How we worked together was important. A large number of residents in Santa Clara and River Road were impacted by these issues. He asked staff for the relationship of urban and rural reserves and the coterminous of changing the Metro Plan boundaries. Mr. Howe said the Metro Plan boundary proposal to move the outer Metro Plan boundary to the inner UGB was somewhat separate from the discussion of urban reserves and could be done by this body. There were provisions in the statutes for how the urban reserves were identified. Rural reserves were only in State statutes for the Portland Metro area, not outside that area. That didn't mean that farmland protection areas couldn't be developed by the Metro partners and adopted to apply in the same fashion as a rural reserve area. Commissioner Dwyer said rural reserve concepts were not only for the metropolitan cities. The County didn't need the cities' permission and could do it on their own. If they were created unilaterally, there would be benefit as the cities moved towards those areas. He felt a smaller subcommittee was needed (2 Commissioners and 2 Councilors from each city) to figure out the issues and package them. They could then vote as an entity on the whole package. He said he loved this community and wanted to preserve the quality oflife for his family and future generations. They needed to think about their strategy as a whole package. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz said he had grown up in Los Angeles and appreciated the interest by this group in trying to do some current and long-range planning of land use. The way Eugene staff could help the most was to know what the policy makers wanted to accomplish so they could work with staff from the other jurisdictions to figure out how those things could be accomplished. They would work at the timing requested by the policy makers. Lane County Administrator Jeff Spartz said they all served the same constituents whether the Metro Plan was in place or not. They needed a vision on how to work together and that could be the appropriate task for a smaller subgroup. At the same time, the problems that had been identified here needed to be solved. They also needed to determine how to represent the people in the unincorporated urban areas. He felt a reduced number of people in two subcommittees could work on long-range and short-range issues. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi said it would be unfortunate if staff walked away from tonight's meeting without some direction. There was potential for consensus to move forward on two of the issues identified and he would recommend moving forward on those two issues. The Metro Plan was a large January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane COWIty Page 8 of 10 issue and there was interest from the group to discuss it further. The work on the two individual issues could be folded in to work done with the HB3337 work. Chair Sorenson suggested the LCBC appoint Commissioners Fleenor and Handy to the work group. He asked if Eugene and Springfield could appoint two councilors each. This subcommittee could then meet and determine the issues they would work on and bring that back to the larger group in a reasonable amount of time. Mayor Piercy asked for clarification of the smaller group and their purpose. She had heard there could be two groups: one to look at the Metro Plan and one to look at the two smaller issues. She said she was supportive of doing that. Mayor Leiken said he was also supportive and would discuss who to appoint during the next Springfield Agenda Review meeting. He asked staff to contact Bob Cortwright at the DLCD, before considering the Metro Plan discussion, to fmd out if we would be wasting our time. He appreciated Commissioner Fleenor's passion regarding this subject, but felt we first needed to hear from the State. Mayor Piercy said the first issue was whether or not we could do away with the Metro Plan. Another issue was how it could be changed to make it workable. Discussion was held regarding whether or not to have one or two groups and the roles of each group. Chair Sorenson asked if the MPC could address the Metro Plan issue. Yes. Commissioner Fleenor understood the MPC would tackle the two smaller issues. Discussion was held regarding the two subcommittees. Commissioner Fleenor said he would like to see one of the subgroups tackle identifying various layers of the Metro Plan with an emphasis on where the Comp Plan stopped and the Metro Plan started. They also needed to look at what would be the required layers to satisfy the State goals. He thought the Ad Hoc committee should look at that bigger picture. Commissioner Handy asked for clarification of the two small issues for the subcommittee. Items # 2 and #4 would be for the smaller committee. Commissioner Fleenor said he did not want to be on that committee and would defer to another commissioner that might wish to serve. Commissioner Handy referred to Commissioner Dwyer's comment regarding the subcommittee bringing back solutions for the whole body to vote on and suggested they bring something back for the community to vote on. He had heard from citizens in the River Road and Santa Clara that felt they did not have a voice on matters. If an Ad Hoc committee was formed, they needed to identify other stakeholders that should be there such as River Road Park District, Santa Clara/River Road Neighborhood Organizations and others. It was premature to assign a committee until they identified the stakeholders. They could bring a proposal for that committee to the next meeting. January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 9 of 10 Mayor Leiken said these were significant issues. The reasons he and Mayor Piercy had chosen the two issues to focus on was to bring success. They would be working on the rest of these issues for some time. The Metro Plan was very large with the land use piece as the largest part, which had been tackled through HB3337. Delivery of services was the piece that needed the most clarification, but often got ignored. The responsibility and delivery of services was now the large issue. He felt they needed to discuss this with DLCD first. He noted the cost and appeals if this was not done correctly. Mayor Piercy said in the short run, the subcommittee could work on the two issues between now and the next JEO meeting. Some conversations and work could also be done around the Metro Plan. In the meantime, they could determine a plan of how they would address the representation issue. That would take thoughtful community input. Chair Sorenson asked when the next JEO meeting was scheduled. March 3 in Springfield. Councilor Zelenka said if the subcommittee looked at Issue #2, he would like to see if staff could show a generic, hypothetical solution and the effects of that solution. Councilor Woodrow said he agreed with Commissioner Stewart's idea of this joint group making decisions together. He suggested directing staff to determine if there was a method where the elected officials from all three jurisdictions could make a joint decision. Commissioner Dwyer said the City of Eugene had the opportunity to deal with a lot of issues in the past. He relayed his experience in Washington DC and representation there. The City of Eugene could invite someone from River Road and Santa Clara to sit at the table to have the discussion. Even if they couldn't vote, they could influence the decision. Councilor Pishioneri referred to Commissioner Stewart's idea of the group making decisions jointly. He said it was a privilege to participate in these meetings, but it was also incumbent upon the elected officials to accomplish something while they were here on the citizens' time. He would like direction provided to staff. Mayor Piercy asked if they could have agreement to put together a subcommittee on the two issues. Commissioner Handy said if he was to sit on this committee, he felt it was important to identify stakeholders. He would also like to find out from DLCD what could be done in rcgards to the Metro Plan and have staff come up with a robust plan that would involve the public. They could bring back the plan at the next JEO meeting. Mayor Piercy said the subcommittee could work on the definition of urban services, and moving the Metro Plan boundary. Staff could do prep work for the other things for future discussion. Commissioner Stewart said he would offer to be a member of the subcommittee to address the two items. Commissioner Fleenor asked Mr. Howe if he required policy maker participation in technical corrections, or if that was more a function to conform to the law. January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 10 of 10 . Mr. Howe said it was an identification' of inconsistencies ofthe language in the Metro Plan and was technical in nature. Staff could provide the subcommittee with the information and the subcommittee could bring it to the full body: Councilor Zelenka said policy issues were also involved. Mr. Howe said the inconsistencies could be addressed at the staff level. Chair Sorenson wrapped up by summarizing the next steps. The next JEO meeting would be held March 3. Lane County staff would contact DLCD to acquire more information about the requirements ofthe State, especially involving HB3337. They would also hear staffs suggestion about how to proceed beyond March 3. Mayor Piercy asked if anyone objected to having a subcommittee work on the two issues between now and March 3, including two representatives from each jurisdiction. Chair Sorenson said each jurisdiction could make those appointments. An advisory vote was taken for the three entities, with two representatives each, to form a subcommittee to address Issues #2 and #4. It was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The Springfield and Eugene City Councils adjourned at I :33pm. The Lane County Board of Commissioners recessed at I :33pm. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Attest: CitY~ w.f^-