Agenda - 04/19/05 JEO Mtg. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The goal of this proposed policy amendment is to clearly authorize a new financing vehicle without undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan. A countywide public safety district could help fund many services currently provided almost exclusively by Lane County agencies. The Sheriff, District Attorney, Youth Services and Health and Human Services operate within all city limits and provide many services cities do not currently provide. B. Analysis The fundamental Metro Plan principle establishing two cities as the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development does not address or preclude the types of services contemplated in the proposed countywide public safety service district. The fact that the cities do not generally provide the contemplated public safety services is evidence that these services are not an element of an urban level of development; rather they are basic, on-going county services provided regardless of development level. Most of the contemplated services are very different than the "police protection" described in the Metro Plan definition of "key urban facilities and services." _ _ The proposal simply does not affect the policies that compel delivery of truly urban development services by cities rather than special districts. The rest of the Metro Plan policies remain intact. This proposed policy exception does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to the other growth management policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation of other growth-inducing special districts. The proposed amendment was presented to the Planning Commissions of the three Metro jurisdictions for evaluation in a public hearing on February 1, 2005. Following the public hearing the Commission's each held deliberations, and all three voted for recommending approval of the Plan amendment, with the specific nuance's described below. Commission reasoning is set forth in the Minutes of the meetings, attached to this packet. Eugene Planning Commission Action The Eugene Planning Commission deliberated at noon on February 28, 2005. Their discussion established that they generally supported the proposed amendment, but had concerns with the "not withstanding" language, the "including but not limited to" language and the specificity of the district. The Eugene Planning Commission recognized that the services to be dealt with in this amendment are services the County already provides, and the City does not, as required by State Statute. They also recognized that the proposed policy is not a growth inducing amendment; it is consistent with the major tenants of the Metro Plan. They understood the "not withstanding" language was a legal term making this provision an exception. They were uncomfortable with the exception, but had no alternative recommendation. Regarding the specificity of the district, they were concerned with limiting the amendment to a single countywide district and listing only the public safety services that could be provided by such a district. They agreed that the language to amend the Metro Plan should not be limited to those services solely required of the County under State Statute. There are some very beneficial services provided by the County related to public safety that reasonably should be included in the I:~VIETRO\PUBSAFEDISTJEOApril 19Hearing.doc Page 2