Agenda - 04/19/05 JEO Mtg. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

want Eugene to be pulled along in the process by default. She wanted the council to weigh in on the issue sooner rather than later. Ms. Bettman called the council's attention to the ambitious work program associated with the amendment, which did not provide for input from the council until nearly the end of the process. Mr. Kelly agreed what was contemplated by Springfield represented a very fundamental change to the Metro Plan. He said that he concurred with Metro Plan policies stating that cities were the logical provider of urban services, although he could see economies of scale that might be realized from the formation of countywide service districts overseen by the Board of County Commissioners. That could provide greater public accountability than a small district board. However, like Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly did not object to Springfield moving on alone. Mr. Kelly underscored the council's previous direction regarding the topic as reflected in its approval of the Planning Division's work program, when it deleted special districts as a priority. He indicated he would offer the motion prepared for Ms. Bettman to the body with some slight modifications. Mr. Kelly said that given that Eugene would be part of the amendment process in any case, he did not want to spend City money until it was necessary to do so. Mr. Meisner said that sometimes solutions are contemplated without complete consideration of all the ramifications involved. He sympathized with Springfield's interest in pursuing the issue given its interest in forming a fire district. However~ he believed what Springfield contemplated, if not site-specific, was a fundamental shift in th.e Metro Plan, which was a reflection of Senate Bill 100. The proposal was a contradiction of statewide planning rules. While he understood the budget crisis impelling the proposal, Mr. Meisner called for caution. He pointed out that the City required annexation as a condition of development in the River Road/Santa Clara area, which was premised on the City's Urban Services Agreement with the County, which was premised on Metro Plan policy. He feared that if the community.did not proceed with caution, the City's actions in that area could be called into question. Mr. Pap6 anticipated the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would soon be considering Significant changes to State planning laws to bring them up to date. Mr. Pap6 wanted to see more flexibility in the Metro Plan. Because of the difficulty of revising the Metro Plan, Mr. Pap6 thought different approaches to service delivery needed to be considered. He pointed to the Tualatin Fire District as an example of regional service delivery he would like the local community to be able to replicate. At this time, the Metro Plan did not allow for that, and the community was further constrained by the financial limits imposed by past ballot measure such as Ballot Measure 5 and Ballot Measures 47/50. Mayor Torrey suggested a subcommittee of the local elected officials be brought together to discuss the topic. He did not want to break up the local land use compact if that could be avoided, but thought Springfield had legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed. He did not think it was necessary for the amendment process to take so long. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager not to expend City funds or staff time and resources for an LCOG study of the use of special districts to provide urban services or for processing a Metro Plan amendment initiated by the City of Springfield or Lane County regarding special districts. This motion would not prohibit reasonable use of stafftime to review and consult with staffof Lane County and Springfield on these matters. Furthermore, any proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield.