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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly said that while his motion spoke to the staff resources expended by Eugene staff, it did not preclude Springfield staff from picking up the telephone and asking Eugene staff a question. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Pap6's long-time interest in the formation of a fire district but pointed out a council majority did not share that interest. Mr. Kelly also acknowledged that the DLCD intended to review Senate Bill 100 and consider possible changes, but that was a two- to three-year process. He thought it was premature to make amendments to the Metro Plan in anticipation of the outcome of that process. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner to change the word "should" to "shall" in the last sentence of the motion. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the motion should be revised to provide either Springfield or Lane County with the authority to initiate a site- specific amendment. Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor regarding the intent of the motion, Ms. Bettman said the intent of the motion was to narrow the City's scope of involvement in the study to be conducted by LCOG and initiated by Sl3ringfield. Ms. Bettman welcomed Commissioner Bobby Green to the meeting. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the motion was restrictive and unfriendly to Eugene's partners in the land use compact. He continUed to advocate for sufficient flexibility in the Metro Plan that ensured most urban services were provided by cities but did not foreclose the possibility of other approaches. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that, through the motion, the council would be sending a message that did not reflect its intent. She said if it was council's intent that it did not want to pursue such changes for Eugene, she wished to state it differently. Ms. Nathanson suggested a motion directing the manager not to make expenditures in a way that was inconsistent with the council's previous direction in regard to the Planning Division work program. She believed the motion on the floor could be interpreted as being noncooperative. Mayor Torrey agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He suggested the council accomplish what it wished to accomplish and not attempt to dictate to Lane County or Springfield what they do. Mr. Kelly pointed out that Springfield could initiate any Metro Plan amendments it wished to. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's concerns, he invited alternate wording. He said he included the last sentence in the motion to indicate it was the sense of the council that proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield. Mr. Lidz [City Attorney] determined that Mr. Kelly was not attempting to limit the scope of the amendments offered by Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that Springfield could proceed as it wished. Ms. Bettman said the motion she initially suggested was much broader in intent. It had suggested Springfield could move forward in its best interest but Eugene was not interested in changing the policies in the Metro Plan at this time. She thought Eugene would be a better partner to indicate it was not interested in a fundamental change in the way services were provided before Springfield went through an expensive and time-consuming amendments process.