Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Becker said he was convinced that the staff recommendation was the best way to proceed. <br /> <br />Ms. Kirkham agreed with Mr. Becker and said it was not the place of the planning commission to word <br />craft the amendment document. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael said the testimony provided had been among the most compelling that he had ever heard. <br />He said the testimony should be given to the public to ensure that there was public support. He stressed <br />the importance of the issue. He said he agreed with Ms. Kirkham that the planning commission should not <br />try to wordsmith the recommended language but said he was in favor of adding the suggested language in <br />section F of the document. <br /> <br />Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he was in favor of the suggested language addition so the whole thing would <br />not fail if a large city opted out. <br /> <br />Mr. Dignam said he was in favor of approval of the document. He said there was no conflicrwith either <br />of the criteria identified by staff. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding compression and whether the tax rate would be the <br />same for people in rural districts as people within a city under compression, Mr. Howe noted that the <br />hearing was closed and said any answers provided by Mr. Gangle would be open to rebuttal. <br /> <br />County Counsel reiterated that the record was closed. He questioned how Ms. Arkin's question was <br />relevant to the criteria for approval identified by staff. He said there was some legal risk in getting an <br />answer to Ms. Arkin's question in that rebuttal to any new information had to be allowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Carmichael said the answer was not pertinent to the planning portion of the discussion that the <br />commission was deliberating that evening. <br /> <br />Ms. Arkin withdrew her question and stated that she wholeheartedly supported the district. She <br />commented that if the matter did not feel fair to the citizens, then they would not vote for it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Mr. Becker, moved to approve the amendment as <br /> proposed in Revised Attachment A. <br /> <br />Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he would support the motion but raised a concern that Eugene and Springfield <br />residents would not vote in favor of it. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Lane County Planning Commission March 15, 2005 Page~l <br /> <br /> <br />