Laserfiche WebLink
A combination of Lane County assuming public safety responsibilities that are currently <br />paid for by the city (i.e. jail contract, INET, etc), and cash payments equal to the loss <br />under compression. The amount lost to compression would change each year as the <br />government property tax billing rate, the real market value and the assessed value <br />change. Further discussion with each of the cities on this issue will need to take place in <br />the second step of the process. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Questions (answers in italics): <br /> <br />1. Do the same amendment criteria apply to a fire district, library district or park <br /> district? (Sorenson) <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />2. Is the creation of a public safety district within urban growth boundaries consistent <br />with the Statewide Planning Goals? (Sorenson) <br /> <br />Yes. Statewide Planning Goal 11 only requires a Public Facility Plan for water, <br />wastewater and transportation, as the primary growth-inducing services. None of the <br />goals require any particular resolution of public safety service issues and leave that to <br />local discretion. <br /> <br />3. Was there any testimony at the planning commissions about growth inducing policies <br />outside the urban growth boundaries to create a public safety district that would extend <br />outside the urban growth boundary? (Sorenson) <br /> <br />No, there are no other comprehensive plans in Lane County that address this kind of <br />district formation. Therefore, outside of the Metro Plan area, public safety services are a <br />matter of local discretion. Because the proposed Public Safety Service District does not <br />affect services that are growth-inducing, the amendment is consistent with the <br />fundamental principles of the Metro Plan. <br /> <br />4. Will ask city staff a question on the effect of compression on future city levies? <br />(Bettman) <br /> <br /> Compression data has been provided and will be part of the ongoing discussions. <br /> <br />5. County sponsored HB3301 would remove the prohibition on overlapping districts and <br />would eliminate the cities authority to approve or disapprove. The proposed Metro Plan <br />amendment removes Policy 15(b), which requires the 3 Metro Area general-purpose <br />governments to concur with the proposal to form the service district. Doesn't the <br />proposed amendment override this provision and result in the City giving up its <br />authority? (Bettman) <br /> <br /> Page 6 of 10 <br /> <br /> <br />