Eugene Ordinance Exhibit J <br />[Lane County Ordinance Exhibit G] <br />Consistent with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, there was a significant exchange, or invitation for <br />such an exchange, between the City and affected governmental units. The information obtained in <br />these exchanges was used to balance the needs of the citizens. The City and County coordinated and <br />jointly adopted the UGB amendments. For the ordinance adopting the urban growth boundary for jobs, <br />parks and schools, intergovernmental coordination included the following: <br />• The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) was engaged through <br />notice of the proposed action, regular contact with the City of Eugene's regional <br />representative, and periodic presentations at DLCD where staff was invited to comment on <br />the proposed action. <br />• Lane County, which will jointly adopt the UGB amendments, was engaged through notice of <br />the proposed action and opportunity to comment, as well as meetings with staff and <br />coordination with elected officials at key points throughout the process of developing the <br />proposal. The County was invited to (and did) send a County Commissioner to participate in <br />the Community Resource Group during the early visioning phase of the Envision Eugene <br />project. City staff collaborated with County staff to provide informational updates and <br />presentations to the County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners at key points <br />in the Envision Eugene process. The County also participated in the adoption process for <br />measures that increased the capacity of land inside the UGB to accommodate employment <br />needs. <br />• City of Springfield was engaged through notice of the proposed action and opportunity to <br />comment. <br />• City of Junction City was engaged through direct communication with Planning staff, <br />including discussion of the proposed action and opportunity to comment. <br />• City of Creswell was engaged through direct communication with Planning staff, including <br />discussion of the proposed action and opportunity to comment. <br />• Junction City Water Control District was engaged through direct involvement in the <br />identification of concerns and strategies regarding the UGB expansion near its jurisdictional <br />boundaries. <br />• Bethel School District was engaged through coordination on identifying its 20-year land <br />need and strategies to meet it. <br />• Eugene School District 4J was engaged through coordination on identifying its 20-year land <br />need and the determination that its needs can be met without a UGB expansion. <br />• Junction City School District was engaged through coordination on identifying its 20-year <br />land need and the determination that its needs can be met without a UGB expansion. <br />• University of Oregon was engaged through meetings early in the process and at key points <br />along the way to identify future needs and concerns. <br />• Lane Transit District (LTD) was engaged through meetings early in the process and at key <br />points along the way to identify needs and concerns. <br />• Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) was engaged through direct coordination <br />regarding the delivery of services both within the current UGB and proposed expansions, <br />and through planning of their downtown riverfront site which added capacity to increase <br />employment inside the current urban growth boundary. <br />May 2017 <br />