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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 said his vote for the Planning Division's priorities was not a vote for forgoing other projects not on the highest priority list. That included an examination of special districts. He did not think the council was uninterested in the question. Speaking to Ms, Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Pap~ thought now was an appropriate time for a break with regard to the "command language" governing local land use policies, and the break would help future councils by allowing them to consider other cost-effective' service delivery options without goi.ng through a lengthy Metro Plan amendment process. Those options might include solutions other than service districts. He noted that the work proposed to be done was to be paid for out of Springfield and Lane County's contracts with the Lane Council of Governments. Mr. Pap~ said he was unable to support the motion. Ms. Bettman said that at both the Metropolitan Policy Committee and Joint Elected Officials meetings, Springfield and LCOG staff requested direction about the'topic from the three jurisdictions. It was her perception the item was moving forward without any body outside Springfield taking definitive action. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between the council "informing" and the council "directing" the manager. Mr. Taylor did not think so; he interpreted both as conveying the sense of the council's direction. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor how he. would interpret the motion in terms of Mr. Papa's issue regarding the Planning Division work program and allocation of funds. Was it implicit in the motion that the council was not interested in the expenditure of resources outside an occasional staff response to a qUestion? She asked City Manager Taylor how he would implement the motion. City Manager Taylor recalled the council's discussion about the Planning Division work program, which he believed allowed for staffwork on non-priority items as needed, and the council's work session on special districts as a means to deliver fire and emergency services, at which it agreed to revisit the idea after a year had passed. He did not interpret the motion as being so restrictive it would preclude staff from responding to the council's direction from the work session on fire and emergency services. That effort did not involve Planning Division staff and did not affect the division's work program priorities. He believed it was unlikely staffwould do additional work on the subject of special districts as the City had higher priorities and a council majority had expressed no interest in going forward. Ms. Bettman noted the motion specifically mentioned special districts as opposed to changes to Metro Plan policy, which dictated that cities would provide urban services. Mr. Coyle concurred with the comments of City Manager Taylor. He said the City would continue to work with the other jurisdictions on administrative issues such as ways to simplify processes. There was no specific work program item related to special districts outside that related to the interest expressed by Springfield and the item related to the fire district question. Ms. Bettman said the Springfield-proposed amendment dealt specifically with the policy governing urban service delivery, and asked that the motion be amended to mention the policies governing urban service delivery. Ms. Nathanson concurred, and offered the following: Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved 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 amendment regarding special districts or urban service delivery alternatives at this time. 5