CCMInutes - 06/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Coyle thanked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter for their contribu- tions to the materials provided to the council. Ms. Bettman clarified that the first question actually referred to the difference in the process for an amendment initiated solely by just one jurisdiction. She was also concerned about cost, and noted that Commissioner Bobby Green, among others, had requested information about that subject, but she had yet to see it. Ms. Bettman said her interest in holding the work session was because Springfield's proposal represented a fundamental change to the Metro Plan. She termed it the ~mother of all policy issues." Ms. Bettman said the amendment spoke to the underlying premises behind who had the authority to provide services and levy taxes. In the spirit of home rule, Ms. Bettman said she did not object to Springfield pursuing a site-specific amendment to the Metro Plan. She did not object if Springfield wanted to pursue the ability to create special districts to provide its citizens with public safety services, but did not want Eugene to be pulled along in the process by default. She wanted the council to weigh in on the issue sooner rather than later. Ms. Bettman called the council's attention to the ambitious work program associated with the amendment, which did not provide for input from the council until nearly the end of the process. Mr. Kelly agreed what was contemplated by Springfield represented a very fundamental change to the Metro Plan. He said that he concurred with Metro Plan policies stating that cities were the logical provider of urban services, although he could see economies of scale that might be realized from the formation of countywide service districts overseen by the Board of County Commissioners. That could provide greater public accountability than a small district board. However, like Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly did not object to Springfield moving on alone. Mr. Kelly underscored the council's previous direction regarding the topic as reflected in its approval of the Planning Division's work program, when it deleted special districts as a priority. He indicated he would offer the motion prepared for Ms. Bettman to the body with some slight modifications. Mr. Kelly said that given that Eugene would be part of the amendment process in any case, he did not want to spend City money until it was necessary to do so. Mr. Meisner said that sometimes solutions are contemplated without complete consideration of all the ramifications involved. He sympathized with Springfield's interest in pursuing the issue given its interest in forming a fire district. However, he believed what Springfield contemplated, if not site-specific, was a fundamental shift in the Metro Plan, which was a reflection of Senate Bill 100. The proposal was a contradiction of statewide planning rules. While he understood the budget crisis impelling the proposal, Mr. Meisner called for caution. He pointed out that the City required annexation as a condition of development in the River Road/Santa Clara area, which was premised on the City's Urban Services Agreement with the County, which was premised on Metro Plan policy. He feared that if the community did not proceed with caution, the City's actions in that area could be called into question. Mr. Pap~ anticipated the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would soon be considering significant changes to State planning laws to bring them up to date. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 5 Work Session