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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Springfield City Council recently gave its legal counsel direction to examine the question of opting out of the Metro Plan altogether. She asked what would happen if Springfield moved forward with that while the community was going through the amendments process. She reiterated that the responsible thing to do was to provide input early in the process. If Eugene Was not to weigh in on the topic at this time, Ms. Bettman suggested the council propose a broader time line for the process that provided for more public input and for the elected officials to have input into the scope of work. The existing time line did not allow for that. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She did not want to spend tax money on the effort. However, she did not think the last sentence in the motion was needed. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion by striking the last sentence. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her preference for different language in the motion. She suggested the following alternative wording: Move to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan policy amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Ms. Nathanson declined to offer her text as an amendment to the amendment to the motion, preferring rather to vote the motion down. Mr. Kelly endorsed the concepts in Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion. He indicated opposition to the amendment because it did not communicate that th~ council was not interested in a Metro Plan policy change that applied to Eugene's actions. Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment because it removed the element of the motion that addressed how such a policy change would address Eugene. Otherwise, the motion was redundant in terms of what the council had done in regard to the Planning Division's work program and neutralized the intent of the motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pap6, and Mr. Meisner voting yes. With the concurrence of Ms. Taylor, the second to the motion, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the City Manager to inform Springfield and Lane County that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that he would interpret the motion as minimizing the City's staff time and money spent on the issue Of special districts. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the purpose of the motion, City Manager Taylor said the discussion helped clarify the council's position when it approved the Planning Division's work plan. It also gave direction to staff about the sense of the council as it applied to the degree of coordination and interest in the topic of special districts as they related to any solutions concerning Eugene. He thought the motion was helpful. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, although he questioned the inclusion of the phrase "at this time" as the motion was merely a "snapshot in time," and it Seemed to cloud the issue somewhat.