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

Home Browse Search

Anna Morrison, Lane County Board of Commissioners chair, commended the efforts of staff to demonstrate the nature of the problem within the public safety system in Lane County. She hoped that Mr. Gangle's discussion of compression issues was helpful. She stressed the crucial condition of the public safety system. She described the composition of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC), which was mandated in all counties by the State. She said the council had discussed at length the lack of resources for public safety and been unable to agree on a solution the public would accept, despite the continuous complaints related to lack of capacity in the system. She said the County's proposal was an effort to address the problem as inacti6n was no longer acceptable and the State would not provide financial assistance. She indicated a willingness to send jail prisoners back to the state if adequate resources to operate that facility did not become available. She noted the presentations from department heads that illustrated the lack of resources throughout'the system. She agreed that methamphetamine use was reaching levels that dramatically affected the community and had personally witnessed its impact during ride-alongs with deputies. Commissioner Hudspeth referred to an e-mail from Eugene City Councilor David Kelly asserting that the City of Eugene was on record as not having any interest in special districts. He asked what the implications of that were for the public safety district proposal. Ms. Morrison said that the e-mail reflected a territorial issue within Lane County, although Eugene had been represented on the PSCC and understood the urgent need for a solution. She said that all of the cities in Lane County would have to agree to the formation of a district. She was disturbed by the e-mail but not surprised because of the territorial issue. She hoped that jurisdictions could work collaboratively and pursue a solution through a communitywide perspective. She noted that cities did not compensate the County for loss of revenue from urban renewal districts, but the County was willing to discuss with the cities all options for moving forward with the public safety proposal. Mr. Howe referred to Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15 and said the County was proposing to add subsection f, which would read: "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 for these public safety services..." He reminded the commissions that their role was to determine whether the amendment was consistent with State goals and guidelines and internally consistent with the Metro Plan policies. Commissioner Kirkham called for public testimony. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, asked that the record be held open 21 days in order to give a person who owned property in each of the jurisdictions 7 days to research the impacts to their investments. He stated that the term "public safety services" was vague, unending, and expandable and should be submitted to a double majority vote. Lauri Segel, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1192 Lawrence Street, Eugene, asked commissioners to consider tightening the language in the proposal but did not have comments on the merit or lack of merit of the proposal. She said the findings and policy amendmentwere in some respects poorly crafted. Regarding the findings in attachment B to the staff report, she said she did not see the appropriateness of the fifth bulleted item as the proposal did not related to providing services on the urban fringe and requested that the public safety services be more defined and the policy amendment did not list a number of services and state "...not limited to these." She said that there were references to interim district provision with the expectation of annexation to the appropriate city but the proposal was not meant to be an interim response; it was meant to be permanent. She did not think the amendment went far enough in addressing consistency with the Metro Plan by only adding a subsection f. MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 4