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

Home Browse Search

statement seems consistent with the proposed countywide public safety special district. Q. Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienieki requested a copy of the minutes of the June 28, 2004, Eugene City Council meeting. A. Minutes of the June 28, 2004, Eugene City Council meeting are attached. Q. Commissioner Hledik requested clarification on the fundamental principle of the plan addressing cities as the logical providers of urban services and cited language in the County Board Order 04-8-25-8 that appeared to contradict by stating "...Lane County is the logical provider of many countywide public safety services for urban, suburban, and rural Lane County." A. The fundamental Metro Plan principle establishing the 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 district.' The fact that the cities do not generally provide the contemplated district services is evidence that these services are not an element of an urban level of development; rather they are basic, on-going county services regardless of development level. None of the proposed countywide public safety district services are even remotely related to services that accommodate or address urban levels of development. Consequently, the proposal simply does not affect the policies that compel delivery of truly urban development services by cities rather than special districts. Q. Commissioner Belcher asked if the phrase "not limited to" in the proposed language was necessary because he thought it raises issues of ambiguity for future interpretations. He cited the existing criteria in Policy 15 for forming a special district and asked if consistency could be achieved by an amendment that said those criteria could be ignored with the "notwithstanding" language. A. Most of those services are mandated by constitutional or statutory provisions that establish county authority to provide the service. And most of the contemplated services are very different than the "police protection" described in the Metro Plan definition of "key urban facilities and services." Rather than revise all of the Metro Plan policies which address services that accommodate urban levels of development, the proposed "notwithstanding" language provides a narrow exception to the Metro Plan with the addition to Policy 15. None of the proposed public safety special district contemplated services are even remotely related to services that accommodate or address urban levels of development. Consequently, 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