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

Home Browse Search

Formation of a countywide public safety district actually might not conflict with the Metro Plan, but we felt it prudent to address language that could present the most significant potential for debate. One source of such a debate is the existing language of Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15. Clarification of authority to form a countywide district in the metroPOlitan area is a logical and straight-forward means to reduce the risk of debate and focus discussions instead on whether citizens want the contemplated county services and wl~at they are willing to pay. Rather than revise all of the Metro Plan parts which address services that accommodate urban levels of development, we crafted a narrow exception to the Metro Plan with the proposed addition to Policy 15. If amended, it would include the following language: f. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies and text in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be created and maintained to provide preventive and reactive public safety services, including but not limited to, adult and youth corrections services, crime preq, ention, prosecution, detention, supervision, mental health and alcohol and drag services, victim services, drag court, interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest. None of those 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 policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation of other growth-inducing special districts. Depending on the outcome of discussions with each city, a public safety district might also assist cities with funding for some of the county-delivered services they currently help pay for within their city limits, and even funding some city. services that are interagency endeavors. Some of the examples we have discussed include jail services, intemgency narcotic enforcement, drag lab cleanup, burglary or property crime task forces, domestic violence investigations, peer courts, school juvenile counselors, continued felony and misdemeanor prosecution, prisoner transport, civil, process service, mental health crises intervention, detoxification services and parole or probation supervision. With various innovative and cooperative approaches, a countywide public safety district might be able to alleviate or replace some of the current funding cities devote to those services. In conclusion, we think the proposed Metro Plan amendment will permit continued or improved countywide public safety services in a way that does not affect any of the fundamental growth management principles of the Metro Plan. The proposed addition to Growth Management Policy 15 will not create an internal inconsistency within the Metro Plan because it is a narrowly drawn exception that recognizes countywide public safety services are already currently provided within cities; a countywide public safety district does not change that fact. The proposed countywide public safety service district would not provide growth inducing services in the metropolitan area.