Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He said the money for public safety is there. He said the Board of Commissioners (if they wanted to) could fully fund public safety, but they don't want to. He commented the Board of Commissioners has chosen to fund a lot of things inadequately. He thought the solution for the County's public safety funding problem is budgeting, not increased taxes. He said the Board needs (with input from the public) to prioritize County services and programs at what is a barely adequate level of funding for each and then fund each program until the money runs out. He commented that one of the reasons that public safety levies keep failing is because it is extortion. He said until the County zeros out everything else, they haven't demonstrated to the public that they are serious. Charles Biggs, Eugene, was opposed to the Public Safety Service District being proposed. He didn't think it was only a Lane County concern. He thought other counties were in the same situation. He didn't think this was the correct direction for the County to take. He thought the County should address where the problem lies with the state. He thought all the counties in the state should get together to address the problem with the state. He said any additional rate increases should be done by a vote of the people, not a Board. He said the compression aspect of the district would hit the children, the schools and libraries that depend on option levies. He didn't think that was what the County wanted to do. Laurie Segel, Eugene, indicated the amendment is too broad. She stated in Chapter 3 of the Metro Plan g) services to development are identified in findings and what policies are listed. She said the services to development such as water, schools, have findings and policies but there are none for public safety services to serve development. She said the "not withstanding" and "all other related policies and texts" had inconsistencies. She said there needed to be findings and policies in Chapter 3 g) Public Facilities and Services, that speak to public safety services for development and that is currently not the case. Rob Handy, Eugene, said the policy they make, the tax breaks they give and the caps at the state level with Measures 5, 47 and 50, are channeling dollars and making decisions about funding priorities. He said it is limiting their ability to use discretionary funds for other things. He asked if urban renewal districts were sharing in compression. He was also concerned with the "notwithstanding" language. He asked that before any amendments to the Metro Plan were approved, to get the tax rate numbers and buy in from the other cities and make it contingent upon their moving forward. He was concerned that without the buy-in from other cities, Eugene would end up subsidizing some services and diminishing their ability to use the discretionary fund. Mona Linstromberg, Veneta, asked if the Metro Plan was the best route if the language of the amendment has any unintended consequences as it is now written. She said it was important to get the other cities on Board. Jim Hale_, Eugene, urged the elected officials to give the District Attorney and Sheriff the broadest possible language to solve a problem that applies to everyone in Lane County. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene. Page 8 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - 7:00 p.m. - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05043/m