Item A: Metro Pln Amend.Pub Sft - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. The proposed amendment is glaringly inconsistent because if it were consistent, you wouldn't need to render all the policies that the amendment is inconsistent with, moot. Policy 15 a, b, c, and d are basically neutralized with the "notwithstanding" language. How is that internally consistent within the Metro Plan? (Bettman) Basically, the Metro Plan does not address all public safety services. The fundamental Metro Plan principle establishing two cities as the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development does not address or preclude the types of services contemplated in the proposed countywide safety district. The fact that the cities do not generally provide the contemplated district services is evidence that these services are not an element of an urban level of development; but rather they are basic, on-going county services regardless of development levels. Keep in mind that cities are not the only providers of services inside the city. (i.e. schools, electricity, water, park & recreation services). The "notwithstanding" language clarifies that the public safety services described in proposed policy 1500 may be delivered by a county service district. If the Metro Plan were amended, it would clarify that the services proposed by the County then would be consistent with the Metro Plan. The proposed public safety district policy does not affect compact urban growth or other fundamental principles of the Metro Plan. 6. The services "including but not limited to", lists services that are provided by the cities. The list of services seems inconsistent with the rationale that the list of specific services is limited, but yet the services include those on the list but are not limited to those services. (Bettman) For the most part the listed services in the proposed policy 1509 are provided by Lane County pursuant to constitutional or statutory mandates. Further limiting the services to those listed was offered in order to provide the elected officials the flexibility to restructure the amendment, if necessary. The purpose of the amendment is to recognize the public safety services are mainly provided by Lane County and clarify the cities are not the only appropriate or logical provider of those types of services. 7. Some of the services are provided by an urban entity. If an urban entity funds services, is it not a provider of the service? (Bettman) Providing some funding for services is not necessarily the same as providing the service. Cities provide some funding for some of the described services but the bulk of funding for, and the delivery of, the contemplated services is provided by the County (District ,'lttorney prosecutorial function, youth and adult incarceration, parole & probation, alcohol & drug treatment, and other youth and crime prevention services.) Services are delivered directly through the County workforce or through contracts with some agencies or non-profits. Under the Metro Plan the term "provider of service" is not clearly described or very well defined. Page 2 of 10