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

Home Browse Search

February 8, 2005 To: Lane County Planning Commissioners Eugene Planning Commissioners Springfield Planning Commissioners From: Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator Thank you for your courtesy and careful consideration of the proposed Metro Plan amendment initiated by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Additional material from that Board deliberation and action is enclosed to provide background and insight into the reasons for the proposal. I will try to highlight some of those reasons and explain how the proposal fits the Metro Plan. The public safety community in all of Lane County faces' significant struggles without a more permanent sustainable revenue picture. The proposal to revise Growth Management Policy 15 sets forth a Metro Plan change that could provide for sustainable revenue without affecting the fundamental growth management principles of the Metro Plan. What follows will highlight services that are provided almost exclusively by Lane County. I will also try to point out a few potential revenue benefits to cities should a public safety district formation proceed. 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 themselves currently provide to their own constituents. Most of those 'services are mandated. Constitutional or statutory provisions establish county authority for youth and adult corrections, youth services, criminal prosecution, parole and probation, prisoner transport, civil process and mental health crisis services for urban, suburban and rural Lane County. For example, less than 26% of the felony caseload handled by the District Attorney originates outside the cities of Eugene and Springfield. In addition, those jurisdictions account for 52% of the misdemeanor caseload processed by the District Attorney. 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 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. Most of the contemplated services are 'very different than the "police protection" described in the Metro PI.an definition of "key urban facilities and services." The one area of overlap might be the reference to "patrol" in the proposed amendment. Because patrol levels provided 'by the Sheriff are currently so low and new funding for this will need to compete with all the other contemplated services, we do not believe any duplication of services will occur. In addition, city residents are also beneficiaries of Sheriff's patrol in many ways.