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

Home Browse Search

The criteria were: 1. The amendment must be consistent with the relative statewide planning goals adopted by LCDC 2. The adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki regarding whether the Eugene Planning Commission had discussed the compression aspect they would face, Mr. Howe said that was not within their purview. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether some cities could opt out of the special district and would therefore not be served, Mr. Howe said this was why the Springfield Planning Commission had suggested the wording of 'a single district within the County' rather than a single County Wide district.' In response to a question fi.om Ms. Arkin regarding whether services would be available to cities that opted out of the special district, Bill Van Vactor said, from a practical point of view, if one or two small cities opted out then there would be annexation issues later if they wanted to be included. He said if larger cities did not consent then that would effectively kill the proposal. In response to a question from Ms. Esty regarding whether there was a timeline for cities to be included in the district, Mr. Van Vactor said no timeline was set but noted that there was always the option of filing an annexation application with the Boundary Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Becker regarding whether the concerns of the Eugene City Council had raised were addressed, Mr. Howe said the meeting packet contained the answers to the questions had been asked by elected officials. He noted that no policy language had been changed as a result of questions asked. In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding what the staff recommendation was, Mr. Howe said the intent of the language was clear enough that the County needed to be unanimous with the other planning commissions, but offered the caveat of considering the language suggested by the Springfield Planning Commission regarding the wording of a single district within the county. In response to a question fi.om Ms. Arkin regarding what would happen if the voters did not approve the amendment, Mr. Van Vactor said voters might not approve the amendment. He said the only way to get funding for public safety was a special district. He added that the suggested language by Springfield should be added. He said the district was a last resort but was a viable option if it was financed. He noted that if the amendment were approved now then the matter could be put before voters numerous times. In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the costs of getting the matter to the voters, Mr. Dignam urged the commission to focus their efforts on the two criteria described by planning staff. He said there was a broad scope of information within public safety financing but stressed that they were not in the purview of the planning commission discussion. Ms. Arkin said she was trying to determine whether the special district would be viable if it were not approved by the voters. Planning Director Howe reiterated that the proposal was an option for financing public safety services. MINUTES--Lane County Planning Commission March 15, 2005 Page]..,