CCMInutes - 06/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

regarding the Planning Division work program and allocation of funds. Was it implicit in the motion that the council was not interested in the expenditure of resources outside an occasional staff response to a question? She asked City Manager Taylor how he would implement the motion. City Manager Taylor recalled the council's discussion about the Planning Division work program, which he believed allowed for staff work on non-priority items as needed, and the council's work session on special districts as a means to deliver fire and emergency services, at which it agreed to revisit the idea after a year had passed. He did not interpret the motion as being so restrictive it would preclude staff from responding to the council's direction from the work session on fire and emergency services. That effort did not involve Planning Division staff and did not affect the division's work program priorities. He believed it was unlikely staff would do additional work on the subject of special districts as the City had higher priorities and a council majority had expressed no interest in going forward. Ms. Bettman noted the motion specifically mentioned special districts as opposed to changes to Metro Plan policy, which dictated that cities would provide urban services. Mr. Coyle concurred with the comments of City Manager Taylor. He said the City would continue to work with the other jurisdictions on administra- tive issues such as ways to simplify processes. There was no specific work program item related to special districts outside that related to the interest expressed by Springfield and the item related to the fire district question. Ms. Bettman said the Springfield-proposed amendment dealt specifically with the policy governing urban service delivery, and asked that the motion be amended to mention the policies governing urban service delivery. Ms. Nathanson concurred, and offered the following: Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved 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 amendment regard- ing special districts or urban service delivery alternatives at this time. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion and thanked Ms. Nathanson for rewording the motion. Ms. Solomon indicated she would be unable to support the motion as amended because it precluded the City Council from pursuing other alternative or creative service delivery methods. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, he said nothing in the motion prevented the council from having a great idea for an urban service delivery alternative and beginning to explore the idea. It merely informed the current process initiated by the City of Springfield. Mr. Kelly thought the amendment being contemplated was premature given the DLCD's review, and that it was dangerous to invite such broad changes to the Metro Plan. He believed that Springfield would want to know what Eugene supported before it proposed an amendment to the other jurisdictions that Eugene could not vote for. The motion made it more likely Springfield would craft an amendment that was focused on Springfield's needs and that could be supported by Eugene. Mayor Torrey determined from City Manager Taylor that the motion did not preclude the manager from offering suggestions for process improvements to the council. Mr. Pap~ said if the council wanted an alternative service delivery system, it would have to seek a Metro Plan amendment. He wanted to see the amendment from Springfield go forward, and hoped it was MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 9 Work Session