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

Home Browse Search

in Policy 15.f of the proposed amendment text. Mr. Howe said that other countywide districts could be created in the future, citing as an example, that the county could create a library district in the future. Mr. Yeiter added that the language in the Metro Plan may not preclude the county from providing services within the county but outside the Metro areas. Referring to the February 16, 2005 staff report from Mr. Howe, Mr. Yeiter reiterated that "most of those services are mandated by constitutional or statutory provisions that establish county authority to provide the service." Mr. Duncan expressed concern on the Policy 15.f language "including but not limited to", and wanted it to be clear to the City Council that the Planning Commission did its work. In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe said if a dispute arose between the City of Eugetie~and Lane County regarding service districts, the dispute would go to the MetrOpolitan Planning COmssion (MPC). Several commissioners expressed concern that this was being brought to the Planning Commission as a land use issue. Ms. Muir stated that Mr. Van Vactor's memorandum to the Lane County, City of Eugene and City of Springfield Planning Commissions, page 1-10, in th~ggenda packet, outlined the Lane County's reasoning in using the approach. Mr. Howe explained that Lane County would negotiate with each of the'twelve cities involved for creation of additional special districts. He said the special~'districts ~would have governing bodies, but each city would have contracts with Lane County, noting that written agreements would provide the legal support for actions between the county and the cities. Mr. Belcher emphasized that itwas important to include safeguards to allow the City of Eugene to control those services within the City boundaries. Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik, to delete or modify the phrase "in- cluding but not limited to" from the proposed language in the first sentence of Policy 15.f to narrow the scope of the district to just those public safety services discussed during the hearing, those that the County was obligated to provide, and those that the County already provides. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The Commission asked County staff to work on the appropriate language that would satisfy this motion by making the policy clear about the narrow scope of services covered in the new exception. The language would be provided to the elected officials. Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the proposed amendment created more than the Oregon Revised Statutes (O.R.S.) mandated services, and wondered how the roles of the cities and the county would be defined related to police patrol and arrest. Mr. Coyle said this presented a case for saying that everything would connect to land use, and that the costs incurred would be at the expense of other services the city strongly wanted to provide. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 3