Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the cities’ and county’s roles as providers of various key urban services within the <br />Metro Plan area. <br /> <br />Currently, the Metro Plan refers to general services, public services, urban <br />services and key urban services at both the minimal and full range level, but only <br /> <br />the latter term is defined with descriptions of various services. <br /> <br />: <br />The minimum level of key urban services are defined as wastewater service, <br />stormwater service, transportation, solid waste management, water service, fire <br />and emergency medical services, police protection, citywide parks and recreation <br />programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public <br />schools on a district-wide basis (in other words, not necessarily within walking <br />distance of all students served). <br /> <br />The full range of key urban services adds urban public transit, natural gas, street <br />lighting, libraries, local parks, local recreation facilities and services, and health <br />services. <br /> <br />A logical interpretation of these definitions might assume that county provided <br />services, such as Sheriff and correctional services, would fall within the scope of <br />“police protection” or, that county mental health and public health services would <br />be included within “health services“. Unfortunately, these distinctions are not <br />clearly specified within the Metro Plan and, as discussed above, this lack of <br />clarity can be problematic when faced with exploring options for financing those <br />and other services. <br /> <br />Modifying existing fundamental principle or goal and policy language within the <br />Metro Plan to provide this needed clarity may cause far reaching and unintended <br />problems with the cities’ land use and annexation review criteria and processes. <br />th <br />This potential issue was discussed at the December 15 meeting of the Metro <br />Planning Directors. During that meeting staff from the three jurisdictions <br />discussed the possibility of simply adding a definition within the Metro Plan <br />Glossary to articulate the key county-provided urban services. While this option <br />would provide some recognition of the county’s role as an urban service provider <br />and would not run the risk of impacting existing city land use and annexation <br />review criteria, it is unlikely that this approach would go far enough to fully <br />recognize and incorporate the county’s urban service provider role within the <br />Metro Plan and maintain financing flexibility to support those services similar to <br />what exists in all other parts of Lane County. <br /> <br />Lane County staff is recommending that a more comprehensive analysis <br />continue to be conducted to determine which specific components of the Metro <br />Plan would require revision to acknowledge the county’s role as a key urban <br />service provider and to determine what possible externalities those revisions <br />would have on existing city processes. Additionally, staff is recommending that <br />any future Metro Plan revisions to address this issue be coordinated with city <br />staff as they develop the bundle of proposed amendments associated with <br />HB3337. These amendments could be brought before the Board and the City <br /> 3 <br /> <br />