Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Fitch said the reality of the situation was that if a change desired by one jurisdiction could be vetoed by another jurisdiction. She said Springfield worked to be a good partner but had some key issues coming up. She believed the response to those issues could be key to how Springfield could partner together with the other jurisdictions in the future. Ms. Heinkel indicated that staff could prepare a scope of work for the desired effort, as well as a process for how it was accomplished, which could inform the elected officials' thinking about timing and funding. Ms. Bettman said she was interested in knowing the cities' roles in land use issues in the area outside the city limits but inside the UGB. She thought those decisions could be of interest to the neighboring city. However, it was her interpretation of the materials that discrepancies were to be resolved by the MPC. As a council appointee to the MPC, she had experienced frustration with the way issues were processed through that body. If the MPC was the conflict resolution body for the Metro Plan, it should be employed until a change is made. If a change to the process was to be made, it should be made through the MPC rather than at this time. Mr. Dwyer said the Metro Plan applied to all partner jurisdictions and represented a plan of how best local government could deliver services to citizens and involves them in the process. He did not object to discussion of a metropolitan service system that changed the way services were delivered and saved taxpayers money. However, he thought such discussions should come later. He wanted to involve people living in the areas outside the cities in the discussions as he thought they had a role to play as well. Mr. Green said he was encouraged that people wanted clarity about the process of amending the plan. He said the board was interested in win-win solutions and wanted what was best for the entire region. He said the board was willing to engage in discussions about change but at this time he preferred to focus on the amendments. He asked Ms. Heinkel to scope the effort required and the estimated cost. Mayor Torrey expressed appreciation to Ms. Fitch for raising the issue. He summarized the discussion, saying that he too would like to see the issue referred to the MPC for further consideration. The MPC could determine whether it wished to forward a recommendation to the individual jurisdictions. The individual bodies could do what they wished with the recommendation. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman indicated that a comment section describing the reasons for changes to the policies in the housekeeping section would be appropriate. Mr. Dwyer suggested the elected officials needed to consider other models for service delivery that addressed regional concerns. He asked staff to give the elected officials ideas about those models so they had a place to start. Mayor Torrey reviewed the format for the public hearing. Ms. Fitch advocated that those wishing to testify about the Matthews property be allowed to speak to the elected officials given what she believed to be the relevance of the issue to future possible amendments. Mr. Green indicated he would request those offering testimony about the Matthews property to speak last. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing for the Eugene City Council. Mr. Green opened the public hearing for the Lane Board of County Commissioners. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials February 10, 2004 Page 4 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield