CCMInutes - 06/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

make expenditures in a way that was inconsistent with the council's previous direction in regard to the Planning Division work program. She believed the motion on the floor could be interpreted as being non- cooperative. Mayor Torrey agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He suggested the council accomplish what it wished to accomplish and not attempt to dictate to Lane County or Springfield what they do. Mr. Kelly pointed out that Springfield could initiate any Metro Plan amendments it wished to. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's concerns, he invited alternate wording. He said he included the last sentence in the motion to indicate it was the sense of the council that proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield. Mr. Lidz determined that Mr. Kelly was not attempting to limit the scope of the amendments offered by Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that Springfield could proceed as it wished. Ms. Bettman said the motion she initially suggested was much broader in intent. It had suggested Springfield could move forward in its best interest but Eugene was not interested in changing the policies in the Metro Plan at this time. She thought Eugene would be a better partner to indicate it was not interested in a fundamental change in the way services were provided before Springfield went through an expensive and time-consuming amendments process. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Springfield City Council recently gave its legal counsel direction to examine the question of opting out of the Metro Plan altogether. She asked what would happen if Springfield moved forward with that while the community was going through the amendments process. She reiterated that the responsible thing to do was to provide input early in the process. If Eugene was not to weigh in on the topic at this time, Ms. Bettman suggested the council propose a broader time line for the process that provided for more public input and for the elected officials to have input into the scope of work. The existing time line did not allow for that. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She did not want to spend tax money on the effort. However, she did not think the last sentence in the motion was needed. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by striking the last sen- tence. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her preference for different language in the motion. She suggested the following alternative wording: Move to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan policy amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Ms. Nathanson declined to offer her text as an amendment to the amendment to the motion, preferring rather to vote the motion down. Mr. Kelly endorsed the concepts in Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion. He indicated opposition to the amendment because it did not communicate that the council was not interested in a Metro Plan policy change that applied to Eugene's actions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session