My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item C: Metro Pln Amend.Pub Sft
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 05/23/05 WS
>
Item C: Metro Pln Amend.Pub Sft
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:19:07 PM
Creation date
5/18/2005 4:01:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Bill Grile, Development Service Director, City of Springfield, indicated the Springfield <br /> Planning Commission took this up and they passed it by unanimous recommendation to <br /> move it forward. He noted the Planning Commission stated this was primarily a budget <br /> issue for the elected officials to deal with. He said there was a recommendation to the <br /> Springfield City Council that the language would state there would be a single service <br /> district within the County. <br /> <br /> Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene, noted the City of Eugene Planning Commission had similar <br /> concerns as the Springfield Planning Commission. He said they noted the Metro Plan <br /> policies were written at a simpler time and it reflects services~the County is currently ~ <br /> providing. He said they thought an amendment to the Metro Plan made sense. <br /> <br /> Christine Lundberg arrived at 6:20 p.m. <br /> <br /> Yeiter indicated that the Eugene Planning Commission was the first to deliberate on the <br /> proposed amendment. He said they weren't ab~ie Xo wordsmith adequately. He said the <br /> concern was to constrain the special districts~s0 that other services that wouldn't be <br /> provided by statute are not pulled in under a broad language. He noted the closest to that <br /> was Option 4. He stated the Eugene Planning Commission discussed the public safety <br /> district as too broad a term. <br /> <br /> Bettman asked if it would cost more for rural services than for urban services and if the <br /> Planning Commissions discussed' this. <br /> <br /> Yeiter responded they didn't address any financial issue~. He said they considered <br /> growth inducing impacts and wordsmithing. <br /> <br /> Bettman asked if they were comparing services with what the statute stated. <br /> <br /> Yeiter indicated they discussed what~,:Was required by state statute and the list might have <br /> · ' beefi~t°o constrained for what could:be allowed with the exception. He said there are <br /> -, . current services that are provided that arenot required that are logically provided by state <br /> ',,, ,, statute. <br /> <br />- ::!:i~}· ;ii:,,,,, Bettman asked if this language was internally consistent. She stated she would submit <br />¢ ~::~ ~4 : questions and wanted responses back. <br /> <br /> '~ i ,.:: :, :~ Alex,iGardner, Deputy District Attorney, commented that this was a rational process. He <br /> ~indicated·if there was a better alternative that he was willing to hear those ideas. He <br /> n~Sted'that service in Lane County is cost effective. He urged the elected officials to do <br /> an analysis of what it takes them to prosecute each case. He added that they are failing to <br /> prosecute over 100 cases per month and 60% to 70% of those cases come from the <br /> Eugene/Springfield area. <br /> <br /> Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting April 19, 2005 <br /> WD bc/m/05035/T <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.