My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A - Approval of Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-07/26/04Mtg
>
Item 2A - Approval of Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:23:16 PM
Creation date
7/21/2004 9:06:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/26/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
regarding the Planning Division work program and allocation of funds. Was it implicit in the motion that <br />the council was not interested in the expenditure of resources outside an occasional staff response to a <br />question? She asked City Manager Taylor how he would implement the motion. City Manager Taylor <br />recalled the council's discussion about the Planning Division work program, which he believed allowed for <br />staff work on non-priority items as needed, and the council's work session on special districts as a means to <br />deliver fire and emergency services, at which it agreed to revisit the idea after a year had passed. He did not <br />interpret the motion as being so restrictive it would preclude staff from responding to the council's direction <br />from the work session on fire and emergency services. That effort did not involve Planning Division staff <br />and did not affect the division's work program priorities. He believed it was unlikely staff would do <br />additional work on the subject of special districts as the City had higher priorities and a council majority had <br />expressed no interest in going forward. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted the motion specifically mentioned special districts as opposed to changes to Metro Plan <br />policy, which dictated that cities would provide urban services. Mr. Coyle concurred with the comments of <br />City Manager Taylor. He said the City would continue to work with the other jurisdictions on administra- <br />tive issues such as ways to simplify processes. There was no specific work program item related to special <br />districts outside that related to the interest expressed by Springfield and the item related to the fire district <br />question. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the Springfield-proposed amendment dealt specifically with the policy governing urban <br />service delivery, and asked that the motion be amended to mention the policies governing urban service <br />delivery. Ms. Nathanson concurred, and offered the following: <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager <br /> and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield <br /> that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan amendment regard- <br /> ing special districts or urban service delivery alternatives at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion and thanked Ms. Nathanson for rewording the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon indicated she would be unable to support the motion as amended because it precluded the City <br />Council from pursuing other alternative or creative service delivery methods. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, he said nothing in the motion <br />prevented the council from having a great idea for an urban service delivery alternative and beginning to <br />explore the idea. It merely informed the current process initiated by the City of Springfield. Mr. Kelly <br />thought the amendment being contemplated was premature given the DLCD's review, and that it was <br />dangerous to invite such broad changes to the Metro Plan. He believed that Springfield would want to know <br />what Eugene supported before it proposed an amendment to the other jurisdictions that Eugene could not <br />vote for. The motion made it more likely Springfield would craft an amendment that was focused on <br />Springfield's needs and that could be supported by Eugene. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey determined from City Manager Taylor that the motion did not preclude the manager from <br />offering suggestions for process improvements to the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said if the council wanted an alternative service delivery system, it would have to seek a Metro <br />Plan amendment. He wanted to see the amendment from Springfield go forward, and hoped it was <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.