CC Minutes - 09/23/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner expressed support the motion but added that it had nothing to do with the amendment itself, explaining that approving the motion initiated a public process before consideration. Ms. Taylor said she could not support the motion because she not convinced that the residents of the area had sufficient opportunity to express themselves, adding that the citizens should be allowed to vote on the issue. She questioned Springfield's motives in wanting the area. Ms. Childs indicated that all property owners and residents of Glenwood would be mailed individual notices announcing the joint Planning Commissions' and Joint Elected Officials' public hearings on the actual merits of the transfer of jurisdictions. Addressing Ms. Taylor's interest in holding a vote on the issue, Mr. Johnson asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to prepare a memorandum outlining the variety of ways in which an election could Occur. Mr. Lee said he hoped the discussion would not be impeded by disagreement over methodology. Mr. Tollenaar said the committee addressed Ms. Taylor's initial concern by developing a mail survey to include area residents not previously reached. He explained that 20 out of 80 surveys were returned and the results were distributed to the council in last week's packet. He noted that in all the surveys conducted transfer of planning jurisdiction to Springfield was the most favored option. Mr. Tollenaar said there was no provision for a vote on a Metro Plan amendment; although an advisory vote could be held, that would be costly to both cities and he was not so sure the results would be different. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she was satisfied with the work of council representatives Tim Laue and Ken Tollenaar. Ms. Nathanson said she also supported the motion as it provided for a process of review, analysis, and public involvement. She said the discussion will likely focus around the following themes: 1) provision of services; 2) the long-term costs and revenues to the cities; 3) how the metro area is planned and developed as a whole; and 4) what is in the hearts and minds of the people affected. Mr. Farr defended the use of telephone surveys and noted that those against Springfield jurisdiction seemed to be recent residents of the area. Ms. Taylor said she was struck by the two different views of the people appearing before the two different councils. She said she was also concerned about pressure on the urban growth boundary and the pressure to set aside more industrial land. The motion passed, 7:1; with Ms. Taylor opposed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 23, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m.