My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution No. 4676
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Resolutions
>
2001 No. 4658-4696
>
Resolution No. 4676
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 4:48:05 PM
Creation date
7/12/2006 5:10:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Recorder
CMO_Document_Type
Resolutions
Document_Date
6/25/2001
Document_Number
4675
CMO_Effective_Date
6/25/2001
Author
Kathleen A. Fieland
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />RESOLUTION NO. 4676 <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LANE <br />CODE CHAPTER 18 REGARDING THE CREATION OF A NEW AMBULANCE <br />SERVICE AREA <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: <br /> <br />A. Ambulance response and transport are critical components of the region's emergency medical <br />services system. <br /> <br />B. The City of Eugene Fire & EMS Department has provided high quality ambulance response and <br />transport services for 20 years. <br /> <br />C. The proposal before the Board of County Commissioners ("the proposal") fails to demonstrate <br />that response time or quality or level of service would be improved if the proposal was approved. <br /> <br />D. The proposal fails to demonstrate whether the new provider could maintain high quality service <br />over time. <br /> <br />E. The proposal would pull over a half million dollars out of the revenue stream that supports the <br />current service system. <br /> <br />F. The proposal is not the result of a collaborative approach to public safety planning, as evidenced <br />by the wide range of opinion on this issue e~pressed by several chiefs in the region, and the medical <br />director for the applicant and the City. <br /> <br />G. The process to date has not allowed for sufficient opportunity for participation from the citizens <br />or elected officials from the two cities most affected by the proposal - Junction City and the City of <br />Eugene, nor has it considered the planning objectives outlined in the Metropolitan Services Plan. <br /> <br />H. There is no compelling reason to implement a significant change in the service system, until the <br />effects on quality and sustainability are understood. <br /> <br />I. Alternatives, such as satellite medic units in the population centers ofVeneta and Junction City, <br />have not been examined. <br /> <br />J. The Eugene/Springfield EMS Design project provides an opportunity for all service providers <br />and stakeholder groups to engage in a collaborative approach toward system design. <br /> <br />K. It is in the public's interest to promote a comprehensive and collaborative approach toward <br />regional planning, especially for services related to the health and safety. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.