Item A: Metro Pln Amend.Pub Sft - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bettman noted the County sponsored a bill, HB3301 in the State Legislature that would enable special districts by removing the prohibition on overlapping districts, meaning that it could take in the City of Eugene. She added there was a provision in that bill that was onerous because it eliminated the cities from their jurisdictional authority to approve o~ dinar>prove She noted there concur with the proposal to form the service district requirement for compliance for Policy 15. She said th~!iii!~ ~n~ii!!i~Uld say and Eugene adopted the Metro Plan Amendment, they are!!!!!~hg!~!!them§elves out Van Vactor stated the state law would remain in effect wh~'reiiithi~ ~:ii~ii~iii~ii~!i!i!have to give their consentbeforetheCountycouldgototheBoundaryCommission. ~iiiiiiiiiiiii!iii!i~iiiii!i!iiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiii~ Bettman said Lane County's provision would hay~iiiiiii~ ~~!~is provisioh'~'~:~i~iiilre~a to the safety district. ~"~iii~i~i;i~'~ Van Vactor explained that their provision i~iiiilth~i!i!i~etro Pl~iiiii~i~iiiii~iiiiii3Verfidden the provision Sorenson asked if there for the Count~ ~h~ ~b cities to make the creation of this district contingent Ul: approving it. He wanted to make it clear that the district doesn,t come into effe~ ~i ali ~lhe general-purpose governments prove it by a certain date. ible to r~ t~ i~age in the proposed Metro Plan pro~i~ that ~ added they c~go~ to the Bound~y Commission until they application is C~nS~t~ith the applichble comprehensive pl~. He said they wanted the more flexible lafi~ m rase all of the cities didn't approve. l what in Policy ~~e subsections was restrictive. the l~gu~ ~ i~e amendment was resthctive. 15 was pe~issive. Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T