Laserfiche WebLink
estimates. Mr. Ruffler said the proposed CIP for fiscal year 2005 had a mix of projects. They included <br />projects to be completed in the fiscal year and the initiation of project design. That was a standard <br />procedure given the length of time it took to complete projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked if the council's failure to adopt the Facilities Plan would cause the MWMC hold off on <br />those projects until it received final approval. Mr. Ruffler believed the council could give its representatives <br />to the MWMC that direction. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 said he did not have the informational or knowledge basis to be able to justify the rate and systems <br />development charge increases being proposed. He said he had not talked to all the other elected officials <br />from the other jurisdictions. He maintained they shared his concern but did not believe they had the ability <br />to stop the process. He said at some point the council must have the courage to tell the MWMC it had not <br />done a good job with regard to the public outreach that occurred. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: <br /> Examination of Potential Changes to Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan <br /> Concerning Special Districts <br /> <br />Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle joined the council for the item. He reported that Springfield <br />had initiated an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to allow <br />for the possibility of special districts to provide urban-level services; the details of the amendment were <br />overviewed in a memorandum included in the packet that was prepared by Lane Council of Governments <br />(LCOG) staff, dated May 5, 2004, and entitled Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendment Related to <br />Urban Services Delivery. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle noted questions that had arisen about the issue of funding and distributed the e-mail response that <br />had been sent out. He reviewed the questions and answers. <br /> <br /> 1. What are cost, time, and resource differences between a Metro Plan amendment initiated by a <br /> single jurisdiction and an amendment processed by LCOG? <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle said there would be no significant difference between the costs of the two processes. <br /> <br /> 2. Will LCOG be using regional funds for this effbrt? <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle said that LCOG had assured the City that no funds from the Planning Division's annual <br />contribution to LCOG would be used to process the amendment. <br /> <br /> 3. Has the Lane Board of County Commissioners discussed this topic since May? <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle said that the commissioners had not discussed the issue, but hoped to by early fall. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle called attention to an intended motion prepared by staff for Ms. Bettman. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />