CC Minutes - 04/19/05 JEO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

onerous because it eliminated the cities from their jurisdictional authority to approve or disapprove. She noted there is a promise that that provision would be taken out. She thought the Metro Plan Amendment that says "Notwithstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies in the plan" meant that nothing in the Metro Plan would apply to this amendment or the district. She said it removes Policy 15b) that says the three metropolitan area general-purpose governments concur with the proposal to form the service district as a zone of benefit. She said it was a requirement for compliance for Policy 15. She said the amendment would say that if Springfield and Eugene adopted the Metro Plan Amendment, they are taking themselves out of the process and agreeing to give up jurisdictional authority. Van Vactor stated the state law would remain in effect where the cities would have to give their consent before the County could go to the Boundary Commission. Bettman said Lane County's provision would have overridden this provision with regard to the safety district. Van Vactor explained that their provision in the Metro Plan would have overridden the provision with regard to a public safety district, not with other types of districts. Bettman thought they would be agreeing to give up their own authority. She requested that the City's legal team give them a comprehensive explanation regarding what the state statute says and how adopting this amendment would impact their ability to have authority in this decision. Sorenson asked if there could be an option for the County and two cities to make the creation of this district contingent upon all of the cities approving it. He wanted to make it clear that the district doesn't come into effect until all of the general-purpose governments prove it by a certain date. Van Vactor indicated it was possible to redraft the language in the proposed Metro Plan Amendment to provide that. He added they couldn't go to the Boundary Commission until they know the application is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan. He said they wanted to have the more flexible language in case all of the cities didn't approve. Bettman asked what in Policy 15 and the subsections was restrictive. Van Vactor thought the language in the amendment was restrictive. Bettman thought the language in Policy 15 was permissive. Van Vactor responded that it was the overall context of Policy 15 that lists: "Will be considered only when and states sections a to e. He thought that was restrictive, as they had to meet all of the conditions. Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m