Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

meeting to discuss the issue. He said that if the board served notice, a city could turn services over to the County immediately, so the County needed to be prepared for such an eventuality. He assured the elected officials that the board would explore all the different legal aspects of the matter as well as talk to them to see what could be done to improve the process. He said the board wanted to be cooperative as well as sensitive to the needs of residents living inside the UGBs. Mayor Piercy wanted to ensure that any conversation that occurred not only addressed representation but who paid for what services. She said that was a significant discussion given the financial situation facing every local government. Mr. Fleenor said the board was aware of that and understood there was a cost involved in assuming responsibility for services. He hoped to see a creative process that led to a solution that fit both Eugene and Springfield and met the needs of residents. He acknowledged the board was not certain as to how to proceed. Mr. Stewart said the comments read by Mr. Handy had not been reviewed by the entire board or approved as its official position. He agreed the board had discussed the issue many times and understood that the board’s concern was the reason for the work item. He was not privy to the development of the comments and could not represent them as his own at this point. Referring to Mr. Handy’s comments about another refinement plan for the areas in question, Mr. Clark asked if Lane County intended to have its staff prepare that plan. Mr. Handy said the intent of his remarks was to alert the other elected officials as to what the board was thinking and to avoid later surprises. Mr. Simmons said that if the board was to discuss service provision in the urban transition areas, he thought it appropriate to have costs as part of the discussion so that the public knew what it meant. He said while it was clear the board had some interest related to jurisdictional control, it needed to have money to support that interest. He suggested that Springfield provide services at less expense and more quickly than Lane County. He believed that was very important to avoid inhibiting growth. Mr. Sorenson agreed the board had discussed the issue many times. He said the board was looking at whether Lane County could provide services more efficiently to the unincorporated areas within the UGB. He acknowledged that historically, the data demonstrated that cities could deliver services at less cost. However, he believed Oregon’s government was shrinking relative to its population, and he thought creative thought was needed to address service provision in that context. Mr. Sorenson suggested that the elected officials needed to consider what government was needed, and what government could be afforded. He pointed out an increasingly smaller percentage of residents lived in the unincorporated areas of Lane County. Mr. Sorenson said that government consolidation was an increasingly popular trend and said people were concerned about the efficiency of government when they saw what appeared to be service duplication in the form of three public works departments, three law enforcement agencies, and three planning agencies. Mr. Fleenor agreed with Mr. Sorenson. He questioned the relevance of Lane County government, particularly as the timber payments were threatened, economics worsened, and property values fell. He suggested that there was a need to consider the bigger picture and options like government consolidation. He said that the board would discuss the costs of service provision, and suggested the issue went beyond costs and touched on the cost of not having representational government, which led to a loss of trust on the part of citizens. Mayor Leiken observed that he did not have much time to view the meetings of the Board of County MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 6