CCMInutes - 06/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment because it removed the element of the motion that addressed how such a policy change would address Eugene. Otherwise, the motion was redundant in terms of what the council had done in regard to the Planning Division's work program and neutralized the intent of the motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Papd, and Mr. Meisner voting yes. With the concurrence of Ms. Taylor, the second to the motion, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the City Manager to inform Springfield and Lane County that Eugene is not interested in pursu- ing a Metro Plan amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that he would interpret the motion as minimizing the City's staff time and money spent on the issue of special districts. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the purpose of the motion, City Manager Taylor said the discussion helped clarify the council's position when it approved the Planning Division's work plan. It also gave direction to staff about the sense of the council as it applied to the degree of coordination and interest in the topic of special districts as they related to any solutions concerning Eugene. He thought the motion was helpful. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, although he questioned the inclusion of the phrase ~at this time" as the motion was merely a %napshot in time," and it seemed to cloud the issue somewhat. Mr. Papd said his vote for the Planning Division's priorities was not a vote for forgoing other projects not on the highest priority list. That included an examination of special districts. He did not think the council was uninterested in the question. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Papd thought now was an appropriate time for a break with regard to the %ommand language" governing local land use policies, and the break would help future councils by allowing them to consider other cost-effective service delivery options without going through a lengthy Metro Plan amendment process. Those options might include solutions other than service districts. He noted that the work proposed to be done was to be paid for out of Springfield and Lane County's contracts with the Lane Council of Governments. Mr. Papd said he was unable to support the motion. Ms. Bettman said that at both the Metropolitan Policy Committee and Joint Elected Officials meetings, Springfield and LCOG staff requested direction about the topic from the three jurisdictions. It was her perception the item was moving forward without any body outside Springfield taking definitive action. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between the council ~informing" and the council ~directing" the manager. Mr. Taylor did not think so; he interpreted both as conveying the sense of the council's direction. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor how he would interpret the motion in terms of Mr. Papd's issue MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 8 Work Session