CCMinutes - 04/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He asked what prospects were for funding the buildable commercial land survey. Mr. Coyle replied that this would be covered in discussions yet to come. Mr. Kelly stated that the amendment indicated what part of the list was not a priority for the council. He commented that the Metro Partnership study was ill-defined and whether he supported it was dependent upon what lands were included in the study. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bett- man voting yes; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap6 voting no. Mayor Torrey was not present to cast a deciding vote and the motion failed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to move item 5(c) regarding the service provi- sion/special district issue to the "Other" list. Mr. Meisner said staff resistance to special districts was so great it was not worth maintaining the item as a priority. Ms. Solomon questioned why the item was on the priority list. She related that, in earlier discussions, compression had weighed heavily on the issue. Mr. Taylor explained that most of the concern regarding special districts seemed to arise from the issue of service provision and declining or capped resources. He said people looked to special district service provision as a way to provide for new revenues. He added that in this situation evidence had been presented that indicated special districts would not provide the same flexibility as other jurisdictions because of the problem with compression due to the ceiling imposed by Ballot Measure 5. Mr. Carlson stated that compression was an issue for local government entities. He related that the reason it was on the list was that a joint meeting of elected officials had directed staff to develop a work program and bring it back to the Metropolitan Policy Committee. He emphasized that the impetus behind it had been the move by the City of Springfield to provide fire and emergency medical services through such a district. Mr. Pap6 hoped revisions to the Metro Plan could occur so that all services did not all have to be provided by municipalities only. He noted that he was working with elected officials in Springfield to try and put forth amendments to the Metro Plan. He asked if this item would only apply to the Metro Plan. Mr. Coyle responded that the item would acknowledge that the Planning Division would have to be consulted in connection with land use decisions that would result from any Metro Plan amendments. Mr. Taylor commented that service delivery was a large question and would take much staff time and resources, even if the work was undertaken by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He noted a similar discussion on what the level of services should be and how this should be addressed in the Metro Plan had been held in 1995. Ms. Bettman asserted that the joint elected officials had determined that it would be beneficial to have a sense of the scope of the work involved to take to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Instead the council was given a specific and expedited timeline. She called this ;~jumping the gun," and questioned the wisdom of prioritizing this issue above many City priorities. She supported the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 4 Work Session