CC Minutes - 05/23/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

provide a narrow exception for this particular county service district and would not signal a wider possibility of special districts except when jurisdictions came forward with specific proposals to amend the Metro Plan. In conclusion, Mr. Papd stressed that the council needed to form a better partnership with the County and move forward in a positive manner. Mr. Poling concurred with the comments made by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pap~, and pointed out that the final decision about the matter rested with the voters of Lane County. He said the course of action decided by Lane County to amend the Metro Plan was undertaken because that document was one of the biggest challenges. Mr. Poling stated he favored moving forward with the amendment to allow the conversations to continue. He then pointed out that the only time a serial levy was passed in Lane County was in 1986 and that countrywide services have since continued to erode. Mr. Poling noted that 60 percent of the workload created for the District's Attorney's Office was the result of actions taken by residents of the Eugene/Springfield areas. Mr. Poling referred to Ms. Bettman's comment that the loss to Eugene was $9 million and asked if an actual cost to the taxpayers was awaiting the decisions of the cities on this issue. City Manager Taylor replied that was the County strategy. Additionally, he shared that a Metro Plan Task Force has been reviewing what services would ensue; however, he added that a dialogue with the cities was necessary. He believed it would be preferable to ascertain in advance what would be the array of services and voiced his hope that there would be clarity around this issue prior to the adoption of the text amendment. In conclusion, Mr. Poling stated he appreciated the language that was added by the County to address the compression issue. Ms. Solomon voiced her support for the amendment and said the County was fully aware of the obstacles it would face and was willing to do the work to make this process a successful endeavor. She agreed with the comment made by Mr. Poling that it was up to the voters to decide and opined the plan was a great opportunity for the community. Finally, she reminded the council that the Planning Commission agreed to continue the discussion. Ms. Taylor concurred that public safety issues are dire; however, she opined that the amendment was not the solution. She pointed out that passage of the amendment would go beyond %onversations" as money and staff time would be involved in discussions and planning. Ms. Taylor pointed to the waste of taxpayers' money that occurred due to the discussions around the Santa Clara land swap deal. She said that (1) passage of this amendment avoided looking at other solutions; (2) an increase in property taxes was problematic as such taxes are already too high; and (3) other sources of revenue must be pursued. Mayor Piercy reiterated that she hoped the discussions could continue. She questioned why the ~notwithstanding" language in the amendment points took the City of Eugene out of the process but does not take it out of the decision-making. Mr. Klein replied that the purpose of the language was to remove the Metro Plan from being a consideration in the formation of a public safety district. As it now stands, he continued, the Metro Plan dictated that a special district cannot be formed and ~notwithstanding" clarifies that if the districts were public safety-related, the Metro Plan was no longer an impediment to that formation. Mr. Klein offered to propose that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 9 Work Session