CC Minutes - 01/11/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papé said he had been somewhat nervous about the process given the passion that existed in the area in question, which was not unified about the direction that should be taken. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Reed and his team and commended the work done by Ms. Fisher in regard to neighborhood participation and the white paper prepared by Mr. Rapp. Mr. Papé acknowledged residents of the River Road/Santa Clara community in attendance at the meeting. He voiced his support for the effort and hoped it would continue to be funded. He encouraged councilors to attend the upcoming task force meeting scheduled at Madison Middle School on February 2. Ms. Taylor requested a response to Ms. Wile’s concerns. She also asked what the anticipated transition would be to. Mr. Reed responded that many had interpreted the transition plan as a code term for an annexation plan, and the transition team had indicated the plan would address the issue of annexation, but at the appropriate time. Annexation was an implementation tool, so it would come up at the end of the project. Mr. Reed said the project could have been derailed by the issue given the anxieties that exist about it. The transition team, under the leadership of Ms. Fisher, was currently working with residents in comfortable small group settings to identify their priorities and concerns. That was resulting in some pretty clear statements about residents’ future vision of River Road and Santa Clara. Continuing, Mr. Reed suggested that the community visioning element of the process could ultimately result in suggestions for changes to the City’s Urban Facilities Plan and Land Use Code. The transition plan would also include long- and short-term goals and strategies that addressed the future of the area service providers. Some considered the outcome would be a negotiated annexation plan. He believed the outcome would be a road map that provided an orderly, smooth, and reasonable approach to urbanization in River Road/Santa Clara. Ms. Taylor concluded from Mr. Reed’s response that annexation would be the result of the process and the details were being worked out. She did not know if that was what people wanted or if it would be a good thing. She thought area residents were being “worn down” by spot annexations, which she considered a bad thing for the City to have done. Ms. Taylor said that anytime the council discussed the issue, she wanted to hear about any opposition or concerns raised by citizens as well as the plan of the transition team. Speaking to Ms. Wile’s concerns, Mr. Reed said Ms. Wile expressed concern that the opinion survey had been pushed out to the following year. The transition team believed that a statistically valid survey was needed to gauge public opinion but, in terms of timing, realized that if people were focused on annexation that would color the responses received. Subsequently, the team decided to move forward with the neighborhood conversations to get more information about the sentiments of the community and providers before it proceeded with a survey focused on the conceptual transition plan. Mr. Reed said that Ms. Wile had expressed concern about the nature of the community visioning process; the transition team had determined that given the many widely different characters of the different areas in River Road/Santa Clara, it would be difficult to establish a single visioning process. Speaking to Ms. Wile’s comments about planning and communication with service providers, Mr. Reed said he did not understand Ms. Wile’s concerns in this area. The transition team was well-aware of the financial thresholds associated with the special districts, and EcoNorthwest had prepared a fiscal analysis for the process. He suggested the issue was more one of timing of the change in service providers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 3 Work Session