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

Home Browse Search

There being no one else wishing to testify, Commissioner Kirkham called for deliberation by commissioners. Commissioner SiekieI-Zdzienicki requested a copy of the minutes of the Eugene City Council meeting during which action on a special service district was taken in order to better understanding why the council had adopted its position. Regarding amending the Metro Plan and internal consistency, Commissioner Hledik called for information and further discussion on the fundamental principle of the plan addressing cities as the logical providers of urban services, citing language in Lane County 04-8-25-8 that stated "...Lane County is the logical provider of many countywide public safety services for urban, suburban, and rural Lane County." He said that language appeared to contradict the fundamental principle that cities were the logical providers. Commissioner Herbert said that a request during public testimony to hold the record open so that property owners could analyze the financial impact of a special district on their investments was unrealistic as it would take months of negotiations among the jurisdictions before financial impacts could be ascertained. He said that the special district was chosen as the .financing vehicle for public safety because it was permanent and stable instead of a five-year levy that would have to go back to the voters. He interpreted the Metro Plan policy to say that if something came under the jurisdiction of a city because of an annexation, at that point it would revert to the city, which was a different issue; one related to stable funding and the other to a change in jurisdiction. He listed four issues that would need to be addressed from the perspective of the County: · public safety issues, broadly defined, were compelling and systemic · the County was legally responsible for providing certain services and was the most efficient vehicle for providing those services' · was the amendment consistent with the planning goals and did it fit the criteria · was the amendment defined in such a narrow way that it did not open "Pandora's box" and create an easy way for special service districts to be created to fund other things Commissioner Herbert said he felt that those issues were satisfactorily addressed and his recommendation from the Lane County Planning Commission was to recommend approval to the Board of Commissioners immediately. Commissioner Esty agreed with Commissioner Herbert's remarks. She added that the proposal was clearly drawn, easy to understand, and did not conflict with the interests of cities. She also had witnessed the problems created by methamphetamine use, which was a countywide issue that affected all aspects of community life. She thanked staff for their presentations and urged support for the proposal. Commissioner Belcher said that he understood the significance of the problem but the issue before the commissions was a Metro Plan amendment and that should be the' focus of their attention. He asked of the phrase "...not limited to" in the proposed language was necessary as it raise 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. Commissioner Beyer agreed that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. He reflected on the adoption of the Metro Plan at a time when general purpose governments had the ability to create revenue that the public supported in order to deliver services and that situation had now changed. He said the plan was not written for the purpose that was being discussed and if that was an agreed upon direction then other changes that recognized some services would always be done by the County should also be MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 5