HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04/19/05 JEO Mtg. Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
ME M O RAND UM
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.ci.eugene.or.us
Date: April 1 l, 2005
To: Mayor Piercy and City Council
City Manager Taylor
From: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Subject: Ordinance Concerning Metro Plan Amendment: Public Safety Special District
Format of Agenda Item Summary, April 19, 2005
Lane County, proponent of the proposed Metro Plan text amendment, provided lead staff assistance for
this packet preparation. Therefore, you will notice that the agenda item summary and ordinance are in the
County's standard format. We find that it is better to retain a consistent format for joint hearings and
deliberation, so these materials were not converted to Eugene's standard format. The sole exception is the
addition of a letter from the Eugene Planning Commission.
The ordinance will be converted to Eugene's format prior to adoption.
If you have any questions about this topic or this staff report, please fell free to contact:
Kurt Yeiter
Telephone: 682-8379
E-mail: kurt.m.yeiter~ci.eugene.or.us
AGENDA COVER MEMO
DATE: April 5, 2005 (first reading)
April 19, 2005 (second reading, public hearing)
TO: LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KENT HOWE, LANE COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1221 -- IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO CLARIFY
AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE DELIVERY
IN THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA (METRO PLANt GROWTH
MANAGEMENT, POLICY 15).
I. MOTION
1. For April 5, 2005: I move approval of the first reading and setting the second reading and
joint public hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1221 for April 19, 2005 at 7:00 PM in Harris Hall,
125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene.
2. For April 19, 2005 or later: I move approval of Ordinance No. PA 1221.
II. ISSUE OR PROBLEM
Should the Board and City Councils adopt the proposed amendment to the Metro Plan that will
provide greater clarity and flexibility in providing public safety services in the metropolitan
area? This action is unanimously recommended for approval by the Lane County Planning
Commission. The Planning Commissions. of both cities had concerns with some specific aspects
of the language but generally supported the proposed amendment and recommended approval
with some suggested revisions, as discussed below.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Background
The Metro Plan Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15 provides the requirements for the
creation of new special service districts within the Plan Boundary of the Metro Plan. This policy
was adopted prior to the changes to local government financing that resulted from the passage of
Ballot Measures 5, 47, and 50. These changes have drastically affected the Lane County General
Fund ability to finance public safety. Consequently, public safety services are not able to keep
up with the needs of Lane County citizens, both inside and outside the Metro Plan area.
I:2vlETROLPUBSAFEDISTJEOApril 19Hearing.doc Page 1
The goal of this proposed policy amendment is to clearly authorize a new financing vehicle
without undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan. A countywide public
safety district could help fund many services currently provided almost exclusively by Lane
County agencies. The Sheriff, District Attorney, Youth Services and Health and Human
Services operate within all city limits and provide many services cities do not currently provide.
B. Analysis
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 public safety service district. The fact that the cities
do not generally provide the contemplated public safety services is evidence that these services
are not an element of an urban level of development; rather they are basic, on-going county
services provided regardless of development level. Most of the contemplated services are very
different than the "police protection" described in the Metro Plan definition of "key urban
facilities and services." _ _
The proposal simply does not affect the policies that compel delivery of truly urban development
services by cities rather than special districts. The rest of the Metro Plan policies remain intact.
This proposed policy exception does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative
to the other growth management policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation
of other growth-inducing special districts.
The proposed amendment was presented to the Planning Commissions of the three Metro
jurisdictions for evaluation in a public hearing on February 1, 2005. Following the public
hearing the Commission's each held deliberations, and all three voted for recommending
approval of the Plan amendment, with the specific nuance's described below. Commission
reasoning is set forth in the Minutes of the meetings, attached to this packet.
Eugene Planning Commission Action
The Eugene Planning Commission deliberated at noon on February 28, 2005. Their discussion
established that they generally supported the proposed amendment, but had concerns with the
"not withstanding" language, the "including but not limited to" language and the specificity of
the district. The Eugene Planning Commission recognized that the services to be dealt with in
this amendment are services the County already provides, and the City does not, as required by
State Statute. They also recognized that the proposed policy is not a growth inducing
amendment; it is consistent with the major tenants of the Metro Plan.
They understood the "not withstanding" language was a legal term making this provision an
exception. They were uncomfortable with the exception, but had no alternative recommendation.
Regarding the specificity of the district, they were concerned with limiting the amendment to a
single countywide district and listing only the public safety services that could be provided by
such a district. They agreed that the language to amend the Metro Plan should not be limited to
those services solely required of the County under State Statute. There are some very beneficial
services provided by the County related to public safety that reasonably should be included in the
I:~VIETRO\PUBSAFEDISTJEOApril 19Hearing.doc Page 2
district, if it moves forward. However, they were concemed over control of the services the
district would provide. They concluded with a unanimous recommendation to the elected
officials to approve the proposed Metro Plan amendment with some revisions to address the
single district concerns and the concern of limiting such a district to the proposed list of services
provided.
Springfield Planning Commission Action
The Springfield Planning Commission deliberated on March 1, 2005, and also voted
unanimously to forward a recommendation to the elected officials to approve the proposed Metro
Plan amendment with revisions to address the single district concerns.
Further discussion after their vote regarding the scope of the public safety district resulted in a
suggestion for the elected officials to consider a single district within the county, rather than a
single countywide district. The concern was that adopted language for the amendment should
not preclude a single-benefit district being created within the county even if one or more
jurisdictions do not want to participate in the district to be created by this action. There was no
vote taken on the language suggested. However, the alternative language was considered a way
to facilitate formation of the public safety district if not all jurisdictions ultimately choose to
participate and is worth consideration by the elected officials in their deliberations.
Lane County Planning Commission Action
The Lane County Planning Commission deliberated on March 15, 2005. The revised language
suggested by the Eugene and Springfield planning commissions was discussed. However, the
Lane County Planning Commission did not recommend revised language for adoption by the
elected officials. They did support the rationale of the revised language, and suggested the
elected officials should be the ones to wordsmith any revisions to the proposal that was
presented to the Planning Commissions. Therefore, they recommended adoption of the
amendment as put forth by County staff to the Planning Commissions at the hearing. That
recommendation has been incorporated into Ordinance No. PA 1221.
C. Alternatives/Options
1. Adopt Ordinance No. PA 1221 to amend Metro Plan Chapter II Growth Management
Policy 15 to add Section f. and provide greater clarity and flexibility for public safety service
delivery within the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Boundary.
2. Modify Ordinance No. PA 1221 as directed to amend Metro Plan Chapter II Growth
Management Policy 15 to add Section f. and provide greater flexibility for public safety service
delivery within the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Boundary.
3. Do not adopt Ordinance No. PA 1221 to amend Metro Plan Chapter II Growth
Management Policy 15 to add Section f.
I:hMETRO~PUB SAFEDISTJEOApril 19Hearing.doc Page 3
D. Recommendation
There was general support by all three planning commissions on the proposed amendment to
allow formation of a public safety district within the Metro Plan. However, each planning
commission made different suggestions for the elected officials to consider. Some staff
developed revisions attempting to address the various concerns will be presented at the public
hearing. Ultimately, it will be up to the elected officials to determine the merits of the concerns
and alternative language to be included in the Metro Plan. The Lane County Planning
Commission recommended text is in the presented Ordinance No. PA 1221. Alternative 1
would follow the Lane County Planning Commission recommendation.
E. Timing
Amending the Metro Plan Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15 to add Section f. is the
critical first step in the comprehensive process to form a county service district to fund public
safety services in Lane County. The goal is to complete the necessary formation processes and
negotiations to generate a public ballot measure for the November 2006 general election to
create a special district.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION/FOLLOW-UP
Upon adoption of an identical Metro Plan amendment by all three jurisdictions, the Department
of Land Conservation and Development will be notified of this post acknowledgement plan
amendment, and the Board of County Commissioners will continue discussion with the 12 cities
in the County and prepare the application for formation of the district to the Lane County
Boundary Commission.
¥. ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. PA 1221 with Exhibits "A" and "B"
Exhibit A; Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15 f.
Exhibit B; findings in support of the amendment
2. Planning Commission Staff Reports, Attachments, & Handouts
a. February 1, 2005, with attachments A, B, C, D & E
A. Draft Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15.f.
B. Findings in Support
C. Metro Plan Chapter II.C.5. Growth Management Policies
D. Register Guard Editorial, October 17, 2004
E. Sheriff's Quarterly Volume 3 No. 1, January 2005
b. February 1, 2005 documents distributed at the Joint Planning Commission Workshop
A. Memo from Bill Van Vactor to Joint Planning Commissions
B. Measure 50 Explanatory Statement
C. 2002-2003 Tax Rate & Value Information for Oregon Counties,
Sorted by Comparable Tax Rate (Including O&C Revenue).
I:\METROh°UB SAFEDI STJEOApril 19Hearing.doc Page 4
D. Public Safety District Estimated Permanent Authority
Compression Within Lane County Cities
c. February 16, 2005 Staff Report, with attachments
A. Eugene City Council Mtg. minutes June 28, 2004
B. February 8, 2005 Memorandum from Bill Van Vactor with attachments
C. February 1, 2005 minutes, Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing
3. Draft Minutes of Eugene Planning Commission deliberations; February 28, 2005 (to be delivered in
supplemental mailing)
4. Minutes of Springfield Planning Commission deliberations; March 1, 2005 (to be delivered in
supplemental mailing)
5. Draft Minutes of Lane County Planning Commission deliberations; March 15, 2005
I:2VIETRO~PUBSAFEDISTJEOApril 19Hearing.doc Page 5
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON
) IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-
) SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1221 ) (METRO PLAN) TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE GREATER
) FLEXIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE DELIVERY
) IN THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
) (METRO PLAN, GROWTHMANAGEMENT, POLICY 15).
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2004, the Lane County Board of Commissioners initiated an
amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Growth Manage-
ment Policy 15 to clarify and provide greater flexibility for public safety service delivery to the citizens of
the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area within the Metro Plan boundary; and
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Metro Plan sets forth procedures for amendment, which for Lane
County are implemented by the provisions of Lane Code 12.200 through 12.245; and
WHEREAS, the current Metro Plan, as adopted in 1982 and subsequently amended, contains
fundamental principles and growth management policies in Chapter II that apply to the delivery of public
services to the citizens of the metropolitan area, including policies applicable to the creation of new spe-
cial service districts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15 would
allow the creation of a special service district providing public safety services within the Metro Plan
boundary and clarify the distinction between services provided by the cities to accommodate "urban lev-
els of development" and the described public safety services traditionally provided by Lane County; and
WHEREAS, following a joint public hearing with the Eugene and Springfield Planning Com-
missions on February 1, 2005, the Lane County Planning Commission recommended revision of the
growth management policies by adoption of the proposed amendment to provide flexibility for basic, on-
going county public safety services to the Lane County Board of Commissioners by action taken at a pub-
lic meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Eugene and Springfield planning commissions recommended adoption of the
proposed Metro Plan amendment with revisions to make it clear that the policy would apply to a single
countywide public safety service district; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has conducted a public hearing jointly with
the city councils of Eugene and Springfield on April 19, 2005, and is now ready to take action based upon
the above recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence
and testimony presented at the public hearing held in the matter of amending the Metro Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as follows:
The Metro Plan Growth Management, Policy 15 is amended to add a new subsection "f", as set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein, which new subsection is hereby adopted as
an amendment to the Metro Plan.
Ordinance No. PA 1221-- In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Clarify and Pro-
vide Greater Flexibility for Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Pol-
icy
Page I of 2
FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners adopts the
Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B."
ENACTED this __ day of ,2005.
Chair, Lane County Board of Commissioners
Recording Secretary for this Meeting of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date Lane County
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Ordinance No. PA 1221-- In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Clarify and Pro-
vide Greater Flexibility for Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Pol-
icy 15).
Page 2 of 2
Ordinance No. PA 1221 - Exhibit A
Amend the Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15 to add a new subsection "f." (existing
Metro Plan page II-B-5/Periodic Review revised Metro Plan page II-C-5) to read as follows:
"15. Creation of new special service districts or zones of benefit within the Plan Boundary of the
Metro Plan shall be considered only when all of the following criteria are satisfied:
a. There is no other method of delivering public services which are required to
mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions.
b. The three metropolitan area general purpose governments concur with the
proposal to form the service district or zone of benefit.
c. The district or zone of benefit is an interim service delivery method, and there are
legal assurances, such as annexation agreements, to ensure that annexation to the
appropriate city occurs within the planning period.
d. The servicing city is not capable of providing the full range of urban facilities and
services in the short term, although it is recognized that urban facilities and
services will be provided by a city consistent with adopted public facilities plans
and capital improvement programs.
e. The district or zone of benefit will contract with the appropriate city for interim
service delivery until annexed to the appropriate city.
f. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies
and text in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be created and maintained to
provide preventive and reactive public safety services, including but not limited
to, adult and youth corrections services, crime prevention, prosecution, detention,
supervision, mental health and alcohol and drug services, victim services, drug
court, interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest."
Exhibit B
To Ordinance No. PA 1221
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO
CLARIFY AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
(METRO PLAN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, POLICY 15).
The following criteria from Lane Code 12.225(2), Springfield Development Code Section
7.070(3) and Eugene City Code Section 9.7730(3) shall be applied by the elected officials in
approving or denying an amendment to the Metro Plan:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Lane County Board of Commissioners makes the following findings with respect to the
criteria set forth in Lane Code 12.225(2):
Criterion #1: Lane Code 12.225(2)(a): The amendment must be consistent with the
relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission.
Goal 1--Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
This Metro Plan amendment proposal is subject to the public notification and heating
processes adopted by the City of Springfield in SDC 7.100, City of Eugene in EC 9.118 to
9.136, and Lane County in LC 12.240. This amendment was considered at a joint public
hearing before the Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County Planning Commissions on
February 1, 2005. On January 12, 2005, more than twenty days prior to the February 1,
2005 joint planning commission public heating, a legal ad was published in the Eugene
Register Guard.
Following a recommendation from the planning commissions, the Springfield and Eugene
City Councils and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a duly noticed joint public
hearing to consider approval, modification, or denial of the amendment on April 19, 2005.
On March 30, 2005, more than twenty days prior to the April 19, 2005 joint elected official's
public hearing, a legal ad was published in the Eugene Register Guard.
Exhibit B: Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 1221 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility For Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.)
Page 1 of 5
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received a Notice
of the proposed Metro Plan amendment on December 15, 2004, at least 45 days prior to the
February 1, 2005 joint planning commission public hearing on the Metro Plan amendment.
These processes afford opportunity for citizen involvement during all phases of the planning
process. Therefore, the Metro Plan amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
1.
Goal 2--Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework
as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
This proposal to amend Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15 is consistent with Plan
amendment provisions found in the Metro Plan, as codified in the Eugene City Code,
Springfield Development Code and Lane Code. The Metro Plan is an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, pursuant to provisions specified by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission.
Provisions in the Springfield Development Code (SDC 77.010 to 7.110), Eugene City Code
(EC 9.118 to 9.136), and Lane Code (LC 12.240) specify the means by which the Metro Plan
may be amended. This proposal and the process for reviewing the requested amendment
follow the procedures outlined in the Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County Codes, thus
conforming with the established land use planning process consistent with Goal 2.
The record shows that there is an adequate factual base to support the Metro Plan
amendment, as Goal 2 requires. Therefore, the Metro Plan amendment is consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3~Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 4 Forest Land: To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to
protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest
practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the
leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish
and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Goal S---Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
Goal 6~Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the
air, water and land resources of the state.
Goal 7--Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Exhibit B: Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 1221 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility For Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.)
Page 2 of 5
Goal 8 Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors, and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities including destination resorts.
Goal 9--Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for
a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's
citizens.
Goal 10~Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
The Metro Plan amendment to Growth Management Policy 15 makes no changes to findings,
objectives, policies or land designations in the Metro Plan that affect Statewide Planning
Goals 3 through 10. Therefore, the Metro Plan amendment does not affect these Statewide
Planning Goals.
Goal Il--Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The proposed Metro Plan amendment to growth management policy 15 addresses the orderly
arrangement and provision for basic, on-going county public safety services. The
amendment clarifies the distinction between those facilities and services provided by the
cities to accommodate urban levels of development and the described public safety services
traditionally provided by Lane County. There is a need for clarity and flexibility in the
Metro Plan to enable improved and dependable public safety service for urban and rural
development within the realities of the current financing constraints. Therefore, the Metro
Plan amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12mTransportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The proposed amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility and will not
affect compliance with policies or projects contained in TransPlan, a functional refinement
to the Metro Plan, acknowledged as complying with the requirements of Goal 12. Therefore,
the amendment does not affect Metro Plan compliance with Goal 12.
Goal 13 Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The Metro Plan amendment makes no changes to policies or designations affecting areas
subject to natural disasters and hazards. Therefore, the Metro Plan amendment does not
affect statewide planning goal 13.
Exhibit B: Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 122 i Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility For Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.)
Page 3 of 5
Goal 14--Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
The proposed Metro Plan amendment does not convert land from rural to urban use. The
proposed public safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will encourage
urban sprawl and scattered in-cohesive development. Public facilities such as water,
wastewater, stormwater and transportation services and facilities are recognized as the
drivers of increased density and more urban development. Therefore, the Metro Plan
amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14.
Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The Metro Plan amendment makes no changes to policies or findings in the Metro Plan
affecting the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, the Metro Plan amendment has no
affect on Statewide Planning Goal 15.
Goals 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and
Ocean Resources):
These lands are not present in central Lane County, therefore, these statewide planning goals
are not relevant to the Metro area.
Criterion #2: Eugene City Code Section 9.128(3)(b), Springfield Development Code
7.070(3)(b), and Lane Code 12.225(2)(b): Adoption of the amendment must not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan Public Facilities and Services policies recognize water, wastewater, stormwater
and transportation services or facilities as the drivers of the urban growth form. The Metro Plan
Growth Management and Special Service District policies were developed to guide city
development and provide more uniform and orderly services on the urban fringe. This proposed
pubic safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will encourage urban sprawl.
Service districts or other entities within the Metro Plan are currently providing transit, schools,
parks, fire and EMS, electric, water, communication, either directly or through contract. Lane
County is already providing (or has in the past) the following public safety services countywide:
Adult and youth correction services, prosecution, detention, supervision, mental health and
alcohol and drug services for offenders, drug court, interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol,
investigation, and arrest. In many cases Lane County is the exclusive provider. In some cases,
Exhibit B: Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 1221 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility For Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.)
Page 4 of 5
services are provided by contract and IGA's to assist the city and county citizens. This Metro
Plan policy amendment has been coordinated with the Public Safety providers and will enhance,
not detract from, the public services provided by the cities. Therefore, the proposed amendment
to Growth Management Policy 15 clarifies the status of public safety services and delivery and is
consistent within the Metro Plan.
Thus, the proposed Metro Plan amendment will not make the Metro Plan intemally inconsistent
and the proposed revision is consistent with this criterion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings set forth herein, the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners conclude that the proposed amendment to Metro Plan Growth
Management Policy 15 is found to be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals adopted
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and adoption of the Metro Plan
amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Exhibit B: Findings in Support of Ordinance No. PA 1221 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility For Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.)
Page 5 of 5
AGENDA COVER MEMO
DATE: February 1, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Date
TO: JOINT EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD/LANE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: KENT HOWE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES TO CLARIFY
AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY FOR A PUBLIC
SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT, (METRO PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
15, PAGE II-B-5 OR PERIODIC REVIEW REVISED METRO PLAN PAGE II-C-5).
I. MOTION:
RECOMMEND THE EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
ELECTED OFFICIALS ADOPT THE METRO PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT
POLICY 15 AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE
DELIVERY FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT.
II. ISSUE OR PROBLEM
On August 25, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners initiated a
Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan (Metro Plan) amendment (Order 04-8-25-8) to
Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15 that would provide greater flexibility for
service delivery in the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area.
IIL DISCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
The Metro Plan Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15 provides the requirements
for the creation of new special service districts within the Plan Boundary of the Metro
Plan. This policy was adopted prior to the changes to local government financing
that resulted from the passage of Ballot Measures 5, 47 and 50. These changes have
drastically affected the Lane County General Fund ability to finance public safety.
Consequently, public safety services are not able to keep up with the needs of Lane
County citizens, both inside and outside the Metro Plan.
The goal of this policy amendment is to authorize a new financing vehicle without
undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan.
B. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Lane Code Chapter 12, the proposed amendment is a Type I Metro Plan
amendment because it is a non-site specific amendment of the Plan text. A Metro
Plan text Type I amendment must be approved by all three governing bodies.
The applicable criteria for approval of a Metro Plan text Type I amendment are:
a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan intemally
inconsistent.
1) Consistency with relevant statewide planning goals:
· Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to
be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Public notice has been provided pursuant to Lane Code requirements. The Metro
Planning Commissions are conducting a public hearing February 1st to involve
citizens and solicit public comment on the draft amendments. Subsequent to the
Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Metro Area elected officials will
also conduct a joint public hearing which will also involve the public and solicit
public comment. The elected officials will consider the public input in the action
they take on the draft Metro Plan amendment.
· Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
The Metro Plan policy amendment is being considered under the framework of
Lane Code Chapter 12, Metro Plan Amendment Process which requires
consistency with the relevant statewide planning goals and internal consistency
within the Metro Plan.
· Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands - Not relevant
· Goal 4 - Forest Lands - Not relevant
· Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Areas - Not relevant
· Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - Not Relevant
· Goal 7 - Natural Hazards - Not Relevant
· Goal 8 - Recreational Needs - Not Relevant
· Goal 9 - Economic Development - Not Relevant
· Goal 10 - Housing - Not Relevant
· Goal 11 - Public Facilities and S~rvices
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities
and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Urban services refers to the apprcpriate type and level of police protection. The
proposed Metro Plan amendment is specifically addressing the orderly and efficient
arrangement of provision for public services for urban and rural development within
the realities of the current financi] ~g constraints.
· Goal 12 - Transportation - Not ][elevant
· Goal 13 - Energy Conservation Not Relevant
· Goal 14 - Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and eJ~ 'cient transition from rural to urban land use.
!
The proposed public safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will
encourage urban scatteration and ~prawl. Statewide Goal 11 and the Public Facility
Rule recognize water, wastewat¢~, stormwater and transportation services or
facilities as the drivers of the urban growth form.
· Goal 15 - Willamette Greenway - Not Relevant
· Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources - Not Relevant
· Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands - Not Relevant
· Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes - Not Relevant
· Goal 19 - Ocean Resources - N )t Relevant
Conclusion: The proposed Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the
relevant statewide planning goal~, adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission.
2) Internal consistency within Me,tro Plan
The Metro Plan Public Facility and Services Policies recognize water, wastewater,
stormwater and transportation services or facilities as the drivers of the urban growth
form. The Metro Plan Growth Management and Special Service District Policies
were developed to guide city development and provide more uniform and orderly
services on the urban fringe. This proposed public safety service district is not a
growth inducing service that will encourage urban scatteration and sprawl.
Service districts or other entities within the Metro Plan are currently providing transit,
schools, parks, fire and EMS, electric, water, communication, either directly or
through contract. Lane County is already providing (or has in the past) the following
public safety services countywide:
· adult and youth corrections services
· prosecution
· detention
· supervision
· mental health and alcohol and drug services for offenders
· drug court
· interagency narcotics enforcement
· patrol
· investigation
· arrest
In many cases Lane County is the exclusive provider. In some cases services are
provided by contract and IGAs to assist the city and county citizens.
C. CONCLUSION
This policy has been coordinated with the Public Safety providers and will enhance
and will not detract from the public services provided by Eugene and Springfield.
This policy does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to the
growth management policies or their ability to annex land or to control the
proliferation of other new special districts.
Therefore, the Metro Plan should not preclude these public safety services from being
provided by special service districts. The proposed amendment to Metro Plan
Growth Management Policy 15 is found to be internally consistent with the Metro
Plan Policies and the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines.
D. ALTERNATIVE/OPTIONS
1. Recommend the Eugene/Springfield/Lane County Elected Officials adopt
proposed Metro Plan amendment to Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15
that would provide greater fie::ibility for service delivery in the
Eugene/Springfield Metro Are a.
2. Recommend the Eugene/Sprit gfield/Lane County Elected Officials modify the
proposed Metro Plan amendrr ent to Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15.
3. Recommend the Eugene/Sprit.gfield/Lane County Elected Officials not adopt the
proposed Metro Plan amendrr ent to Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15.
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1.
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment A - Draft Metro Plan Gro ~ Management Policy~ 5.f.
2. Attachment B - Findings in Support
3. Attachment C - Metro Plan Chapter II. C. 5. Growth Management Policies
4. Attachment D Register Guard Editorial, October 17, 2004
Attachment A
Metro Plan Amendment Proposal to Growth Management Policy 15
Existing Metro Plan page II-B-5/Periodic Review revised Metro Plan page II-C-5
Policy 15. Creation of new special service district ....
f. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies and text
in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be created and maintained to provide public
safety services, including but not limited to, adult and youth corrections services,
prosecution, detention, supervision, mental health and alcohol and drag services for
offenders, drug court, interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest.
Attachment B
Findings in Support
· Significant changes in local government financing have occurred as a result of statewide
Measures 5, 47 and 50.
· Financing changes have affected the Lane County General Fund which finances Public
Safety countywide.
· Consequently, public safety services are not able to keep up with the needs of Lane
County citizens inside and outside of the Metro Plan area.
· Goals of proposed change are to authorize a new financing vehicle without undermining
the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan.
· The growth management and special service district policies were developed to guide city
development and provide more uniform and orderly services on the urban fringe.
· The Metro Plan should not preclude these public safety services from being provided by
special service districts.
· Service districts or other entities are currently providing transit, schools, parks, fire and
EMS, electric, water, communication, either directly or through contract.
· This proposed public safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will
encourage urban scatteration and sprawl. The Statewide Goal 11 and Public Facility Rule
recognize water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation services or facilities as the
drivers of the urban growth form.
· Lane County is already providing (or has in the past) each service listed in 15.f.
countywide and in many cases is the exclusive provider. In some cases services are
provided by contract and IGAs to assist the city and county citizens.
· This policy has been coordinated with the Public Safety providers and will enhance and
will not detract from the public services provided by Eugene and Springfield.
· This policy does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to the growth
management policies or their ability to annex land or to control the proliferation of other
growth-inducing special districts.
Revised Attachment A
Metro Plan Amendment Proposal to Growth Management Policy 1
Existing Metro Plan page II-B-5/Periodic Review revised i
Policy 15. Creation of new special service district...
f. Not withstanding the above provisions of this
in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be
preventive and reactive public safety services,
youth corrections services, ~ervision, mental
health and alcohol and drag services for offenders,
interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol,
Attachment C
C. Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies
To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth
and the urban growth boundary (UGB) are, and will remain, the primary growth management
techniques for directing geographic patterns of urbanization in the community. In general, this
means the filling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as redevelopment inside the UGB.
Outward expansion of the UGB will occur only when it is proven necessary according to the
policies set forth in this Metro Plan, particularly in this element.
Goals
1. Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently.
2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewide goals.
3. Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban encroachment.
Findings and Policies
F~d~gs
1. Many metropolitan areas within the United States that have not implemented geographic
growth management techniques suffer from scattered or leapfrog urban growth that
leaves vacant and underutilized land in its path and encourages isolated residential
developments far from metropolitan centers. Until adoption of the 1990 Plan's urban
service area concept, portions of this metropolitan area were characterized by these
phenomena.
2. Beneficial results of compact urban growth include:
a. Use of most vacant let~over parcels where utilities assessed to abutting property
owners are already in place.
b. Protection of productive forest lands, agricultural lands, and open space from
premature urban development.
c. More efficient use of limited fuel energy resources and greater use of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities due to less miles of streets and less auto dependence than
otherwise would be required.
d. Decreased acreage of leapfrogged vacant land, thus resulting in more efficient and
less costly provision and uSe of utilities, roads, and public services such as fire
protection.
II-C-1
e. Greater urban public transit efficiency by providing a higher level of service for a
given investment in transit equipment and the like.
3. The disadvantages of a too-compact UGB can be a disproportionately greater increase in
the value of vacant land within the Eugene-Springfield area, which would contribute to
higher housing prices. Factors other than size and location of the UGB and city limits
affect land and housing costs. These include site characteristics, interest rates, state and
federal tax laws, existing public service availability, and future public facility costs.
4. Periodic evaluation of land use needs compared to land supply provides a basis for
orderly and non-excessive conversion of rural land to urbanizable land and provides a
basis for public action to adjust the supply upward in response to the rate of consumption.
5. Prior to the late 1960s, Eugene and Springfield had no growth management policy and,
therefore, growth pattems were generally dictated by natural physical characteristics.
6. Mandatory statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) require that all communities in the state establish UGBs to identify
and separate urbanizable land from rural land.
7. Between 1970 and 1983, Springfield's population increased about four percent and
Eugene's about 2.5 percent a year, but unincorporated portions of the metropolitan area
experienced a population decline. About 17 percent of the total increase in the
population was related to annexations. This indicates that growth is occurring in cities,
which is consistent with the compact urban growth concept and limitations on urban
scatteration into unincorporated areas, as first embodied in the 1990 Plan.
8. In addition to Finding 7 above, evidence that the UGB is an effective growth
management tool includes the following:
a. Consistent reduction over time of vacant land within the UGB.
b. Reduction of vacant residential zoned land in Springfield and Eugene.
c. Greater value of vacant land within Springfield and Eugene than similar land
outside incorporated areas but within the UGB.
d. Increase since 1970 of the proportionate share of residential building permits
issued within city limits.
9. Reduction in the use of zoning provisions 'and regulatory processes that favor single-
family detached dwellings on standard size parcels would increase the opportunity to
realize higher net residential densities than are presently occurring, particularly in newly
developing areas.
II-C-2
10. A variety of public services are provided by Lane County and special service districts to
unincorporated portions of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
11. In 1986, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield entered into Urban Transition Agreements
with Lane County which transferred from the county to the cities administration for
building and land use within the urbanizable portion of the UGB.
Obiectives
1. Continue to minimize urban scatteration and sprawl by encouraging compact growth and
sequential development.
2. Insure that land supply is kept in proper relationship to land use needs.
3. Conserve those lands needed to efficiently accommodate expected urban growth.
4. Protect rural land and open space from premature urbanization.
5. When necessary to meet urban needs, utilize the least productive aghcultural lands for
needed expansion.
6. Encourage new and maintain existing rural land uses where productive or beneficial
outside the urban growth boundary.
7. Shape and plan for a compact urban growth form to provide for growth while preserving
the special character of the metropolitan area.
8. Encourage development of suitable vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land
where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures already made for
these services.
9. Protect life and property from natural hazards and natural disasters.
10. Allow smaller outlying communities the opportunity to plan for their own futures without
being engulfed by unlimited outward expansion of the metropolitan area.
11. Identify methods of establishing an urban transition program which will eventually
reduce service delivery inefficiencies by providing for the provision of key urban services
only by cities.
Policies
1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential
means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be
concentrated inside the UGB.
II-C-3
2. The UGB shall lie along the outside edge of existing and planned rights-of-way that form
a portion of the UGB so that the full right-of-way is within the UGB.
3. Control of location, timing, and financing of the major public investments that directly
influence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall be planned and coordinated on a
metropolitan-wide basis.
4. Lane County shall discourage urban development in urbanizable and rural areas and
encourage compact development of outlying communities.
5. To maintain the existing physical autonomy of the smaller outlying communities, urban
development on agricultural and rural lands beyond the UGB shall be restricted and
based on at least the following criteria:
a. Preservation and conservation of natural resources
b. Conformity with the policies and provisions of the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan that borders the metropolitan area
c. Conformance with applicable mandatory statewide planning goals.
6. Outlying communities close to Springfield and Eugene shall be encouraged to develop
plans and programs in support of compact urban development.
7. Conversion of rural and rural agricultural land to urbanizable land through Metro Plan
amendments expanding the UGB shall be consistent with mandatory statewide planning
goal.
8. Land within the UGB may be converted fron. urbanizable to urban only through
annexation to a city when it is found that:
a. A minimum level of key urban facilil es and services can be provided to the area
in an orderly and efficient manner.
b. There will be a logical area and time vithin which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion ofurbanizable [and to urban shall also be consistent with
the Metro Plan.
9. A full range of key urban facilities and servi, es shall be provided to urban areas
according to demonstrated need and budgeta y priorities.
10. Annexation to a city through normal process :s shall continue to be the highest priority.
11. The tax differential concept, as provided for n ORS 222.111 (2), shall be one mechanism
that can be employed in urban transition are: ~s.
II-C-4
12. When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land which
is not contiguous to its boundaries.
a. The area to be annexed will be provided an urban service(s) which is (are) desired
immediately by residents/property owners.
b. The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level of key urban facilities
and services as directed in the Metro Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and
is a logical extension of the city's service delivery system.
c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within the area proposed for
annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory.
13. Police, fire and emergency medical services may be provided through extraterritorial
extension .with a signed annexation agreement or initiation of a transition plan and upon
concurrence by the serving jurisdiction.
14. Both Eugene and Springfield shall examine potential aSsessment deferral programs for
low-income households.
15. Creation of new special service districts or zones of benefit within the Plan Boundary of
the Metro Plan shall be considered only when all of the following criteria are satisfied:
a. There is no other method of delivering public services which are required to
mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions.
b. The three metropolitan area general purpose governments concur with the
proposal to form the service district or zone of benefit.
c. The district or zone of benefit is an interim service delivery method, and there are
legal assurances, such aS annexation agreements, to ensure that annexation to the
appropriate city occurs within the planning period.
d. The servicing city is not capable of providing the full range of urban facilities and
services in the short term, although it is recognized that urban facilities and
services will be provided by a city consistent with adopted public facilities plans
and capital improvement programs.
e. The district or zone of benefit will contract with the appropriate city for interim
service delivery until annexed to the appropriate city.
16. Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the
required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While the time frame for
annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to
urban.
II-C-5
17. Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, Eugene Water & Electric
Board (EWEB) and Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall be the water and electrical
service providers within the UGB.
18. As annexations to cities occur over time, existing special service districts within the UGB
shall be dissolved. The cities should consider developing intergovernmental agreements,
which address transition issues raised by annexation, with affected special service
districts.
19. The realignment (possible consolidation or merger) of fringe special service districts shall
be examined to:
a. Promote urban service transition to cities within the UGB.
b. Provide continued and comprehensive rural level services to property and people
outside the UGB.
c. Provide more efficient service delivery and more efficient governmental structure
for serving the immediate urban fringe.
20. Annexation of territory to existing service districts within the UGB shall occur only when
the following criteria are met:
a. Immediate annexation to a city is not possible because the required minimum
level of key urban facilities and services cannot be provided in a timely manner
(within five years, as outlined in an adopted capital improvements program);
b. Except for areas that have no fire protection, affected property owners have
signed consent to annex agreements with the applicable city consistent with
Oregon annexation law.
Such annexations shall be considered as interim service delivery solutions until ultimate
annexation to a city occurs.
21. When unincorporated territory within the UGB is provided with any new urban service,
that service shall be provided by the following method (in priority order).
a. Annexation to a city;
b. Contractual annexation agreements with a city;
c. Annexation to an existing district (under conditions described previously in Policy
#20); or
d. Creation of a new service district (under conditions described previously in Policy
#15).
II-C-6
22. Cities shall not extend water or wastewater service outside city limits to serve a residence
or business without first obtaining a valid annexation petition, a consent to annex
agreement, or when a health hazard annexation is required.
23. Regulatory and fiscal incentives that direct the geographic allocation of growth and
density according to adopted plans and policies shall be examined and, when practical,
adopted.
24. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text
and on the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential
construction, but not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling
units per gross acre over the planning period.
25. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Pubic Facilities and
Services Plan, consider the orderly provision and financing of public services and the
overall impact on population and geographical growth in the metropolitan area. Where
appropriate, future planning studies should include specific analysis of the growth
impacts suggested by that particular study for the metropolitan area.
26. Based upon direction provided in Policies 4, 8, and 24 of this section, any development
taking place in an urbanizable area shall be designed to the development standards of the
city which would be responsible for eventually providing a minimum level of key urban
services to the area. Unless the following conditions are met, the minimum lot size for
campus industrial designated areas shall be 50 acres and the minimum lot size for all
other designations shall be 10 acres. Creation of new parcels in the urbanizable area will
comply with the following standards:
a. The approval of a conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in
accord with applicable plans and policies.
b. Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policies.
c. The owner of the property has signed an agreement with the adjacent city which
provides:
(1) The owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support
annexation proceedings should the city, at its option, initiate annexation.
(2) The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation of the subject property.
(3) The owner and his or her successors in interest will acquire city approval
for any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification of
use of the property. The city will not withhold appropriate approval of the
use arbitrarily if it is in compliance with applicable plans, policies, and
II-C~7
standards, as interpreted by the city, as well as the conceptual plan
approved under subsection a above.
27. Any lot under five acres in size to be created in an urbanizable area will require utilizing
the following additional standards:
a. The property will be owned by a governmental agency or public utility.
b. A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property are smaller than five
acres.
c. No more than three parcels are being created.
28. The siting of all residences on urbanizable lots served by on-site sewage disposal systems
shall be reviewed by Lane County to ensure the efficient future conversion of these lots
to urban densities according to Metro Plan assumptions and minimum density
requirements.
29. The approval of on-site sewage disposal systems for rural and urbanizable area uses and
developments shall be the responsibility of Lane County, subject to: (a) applicable state
law; (b) the criteria for the creation of new lots in Policies 26, 27 above; (c) the
requirement for the siting of residences in Policy 28 above; (d) requirements of Policy 30;
and (e) the requirements for special heavy industrial designated areas.
30. In order to encourage economic diversification, on-site sewage disposal systems shall be
allowed for industrial development and for commercial development allowed within
Campus Industrial designated areas in conjunction with annexation to a city, when
extension of the public wastewater system is imminent or is identified as part of an
approved capital improvement program.
31. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to involve affected local
governments and other urban service providers in development of future, applicable
Metro Plan revisions, including amendments and updates.
32. If expansion of the UGB is contemplated, all other options should be considered and
eliminated before consideration of expanding the UGB in the area west of Highway 99
and north of Royal Avenue.
Note: For other related policy discussion, see the Public Facilities and Services Element in
Chapter III-G.
II-C-8
T~i B~xt~rro~ / NewsA, t
PUBLIG SAFETY
Lack of adequate hnding cuts to the core of se ces
· ~ G~ e~ent had plen~ ~mone~, It often wasn't ~p~s per resident ~ ~e average of
For ~e Re~ter-Guard ~e, but ~e mes~ge ls~ck:, ' ~ee ne~bo~g s~t~.
' ' As a reset, suppo~ for government h~ O~ lo~ law e~orcement co~iW is
efore B~ot Meas~e 5 p~sed ~ 1~, eroded to ~e po~t where m~y criti~ pro- ~ eVen wome sha~. ~e ~e County Sher-
B Oregon government w~ relativ~y ~a~ ~e held toge~er o~Y by an awkward ~s Office no longer h~' deputies to investi:
stable. M~y of us di~'t re~e ir'at patchwork of tempor~ s~te ~d feder~ gate felony pro~ cr~es. ~you live out-
the time, but o~ government did a pre~y ~an~ 0~ system ~ ~ ~ble. Evidence of side ci~ l~i~, ~d yo~ house ~ b~gl~-
fair job. ~e deterioration is ~ ~o~d us. " iz~, c~g 911 ~ not br~g~police officer
~ess ~e b~-~ St~ ~ yo~ house.
We had a sound education system, includ- ' ~e Oregon S~te P0~'.a~en~ is fo~d ·
ing higher education institutions ~at were to ~m~te ~ o~ chfl~h,~ ~u~9on'for ~e ~'s n~cotics e~or~ment tern
ltmtt~ gene~ ~d sup~ s0 i~ s~has h~ ~n d~solv~, jmt ~ ~e governor ~
strong, accessible ~d affordable. O~ law Ch- iden~g me~mphe~e ~ one of~e
forcement system, though imperfect, was sol- ~n s~ed. ~ ~e agency's ~nsibffi-.
vent ~d by, today's smd~ds, well stuffed, ties have m~p~.~d o~ s~te's ~pffia' . ~test ~eaB to o~ chfl~n ~d co~u-
Our social so,ice programs met most of the ~on h~ ~, we shoed e~t s~te ~li~e ni~.
needs of our least fo~ate citizens. ~ere s~g ~ ~ ~ost double what it w~ ~ ~e ~e ~ty J~, now more ~ ~
was some w~te, ~d there w~ plenty of y~ ~o. It ~n't. ~e Oregon 8~te Ponce y~ old, n~ to be e~ded by more ~
room for improvement in all ~e~, but o~ 'dop~ent a~Y ~ 30 per~nt fewer ~0 b~ jmt to ~t ~e ~m.n~s
gove~ent worked, ~d we had eveU rea- fac~ ~e ja~ ~ so ~ders~ed ~at a nmber
son to be optimistic about the ~e. div~ion h~ ~en sl~hed by ~ ~tonish~g
Me~ure 5 m~ked the begi~ng of a sus- ~ per~nt. We now ~ve ~ ~rcent fe~er ofy~s ago, a f~er~ ju~e ~te~ened to
l~it ~e rimer.of ~ates ~e ja~ co~d .
mined a~ack on gove~ent se~ice in Ore- '"' hold-- ~d ~at was bffore ~e sher~ had to
gon. A persistent cmp~gn of~si~o~a- A~ ~rd~r ~ the ~ ~un~ d~tr~
tion vilified gove~ent agencies ~d work- Ple~e mm to ~B~lC ~, Page B4
a~or~.
ers. Time ~d again, we were told ~at gov-
Public safety: Staff lacks
the resources to do the job
Continued from Page B1 Difficult juveniles don't go
away when they're ignored --
close another 119 beds due to they jtlst become more expert-
understating, sive problems when they ma-
This year. the Lane County ture into difficult adults.
jail is expected to prematurely The mentally ill who no
release between 6,000 and 7,000 longer receive county services
inmates because of (:rowding. are still here ~-- they're j~..~I out
Most criminals will not be h,.~ld wanderim, around without ade-
before trial, and most will quaie tre~trment, medication or
serve only a fraction of their ~upervision, frequently corn-
sentences following convict ion. pounding the problems for the
A woman recently convict,,d of police, jail and emergency mod-
felony theft was released at't c,:- ical systems.
serv!ng only 23 hours of her When we cut the methadon,,:
180-ctay jail sentence -- and program for heroin addicts,
that was before the jail closed
more beds. we're not reducing drug use --
we're just ensuring that the ad-
Lane County desperately dicts find their drugs on the
needs a bigger jail, but our streets and, generally, support
sheriff doesn't even have the their habits through'stealing,
money to operate the little jail prostitution, drug dealing and
we've got. other illegal activities.
The Oregon Constitution We don't need to speculate
identifies the district attorney about the results of our poor
as the law enforcement author- choices; the consequences are
ity within a given jurisdiction, there to be measured.
The district attorney is a gate- In 1999, the juvenile arrest
keeper in the law enforcement rate in Eugene was higher than
system; every felony case from in 90 percent of the cities in the
every police agency in the U.S. During that year, the last
county must move through the year for which I have complete
DA's office to move forward, statistics, the cri~ne rate for Eu-
Unfortunately, the Lane
gene was in the top 15 percent
County DA's office has been of American cities with popula-
crippled by years of increasing tions greater than 25,000. The
caseloads and financial starva. 199t~ index crime rate for lgu-
tion. The office has lost 11 law- gene was higher than the rates
yet positions (more than 30 per. m Los Angeles, New York City;
cent), nine investigator posi- San Francisco, Las Vegas and
tions (more than 80 percent), Phil:~delphia.
and a proportionately large We should attack this prob-
number of support staffsinc,, l,m by subjecting every related
1981, when the caseload was government program to a cost-
less than half of what it is to- benefit analysis that compares
day. the actual costs of each
The DA's office will receive problem-solution pair. We
almost 8,000 cases this year. should first know whether it
Deputy district attorneys' case- costs us more to fix a problem
loads are nearly three times as. or ignore it. With that informa-
heavy as the caseloads of their tion in hand, we should consid-
1981 counterparts. At current er the costs and benefits that
staffing, 200 to 300 cases per are more difficult to quantify --
month are either rejected for such as the equally important,
lack of resources or treated as but more ethereal, "quality of
non-criminal violations, and life" considerations.
the DA's office has been told to For example, let's consider
expect yet another severe cut the question, "Should tax del-
next spring, lars be used to fund treatment
Lane County's Community for criminal drug addicts?" Tho
Corrections department is sim- extreme anti-tax-no-matter-
ilarly understaffed. Parole and what faction would say, "No,
probation officers supervise they put thefnselvos in that sit-
about twice as many offenders uation, they can get themselves
as national standards recom, out of it. We shouldn't have to
mend. To add insult to injury, pay for the consequences of
these officers have been de- their voluntary choices."
prived of most of the tools they Nobody wants to pay for
need to do their jobs. They somebody else's stupidity, but
have little jail space available that response completely miss-
to them, so their ability to sanc-
es the point. If the objective is
tion misconduct is severely to make the community safe
limited. Little drug treatment and save money, we need to
is available, and most of the ask, "Does it cost us more men-
other traditional alternatives ey to treat or ignore the crimi-
for managing offenders are ei- nal drug addicts?"
thor unavailable or over-filled. That question produces a
The staffing situation is al- more useful, solution-driven
most as grim in the county Ju- answer. The data show that for
venile Department and Mental every $1 invested in addiction
Health Department. Our public treatment, $7 is saved by reduc-
servants simply don't have the lng costs in criminal justice,
resources to do what we're ask- health care and emergency-
lng of them. room visits, welfare, disability
Lane County has some great and other costs.
people doing difficult jobs, but
we can't double their work, cut
their resources and then expect.
them to be successful.
' Of course, in Lane County
'. we c.~n't get many of these folks lis as simple as writing a letter
into drug treatment, because or making a call. It may seem
we can't afford to prosecute silly, but the few people who
them properly and, without a regularly gather on the court-
functional jarl, we can't keep house steps exert more influ-
them clean and sober.long ence on the political system
enough to make a clear-headed than the thousands who sit at
decision to get treatment, home grumbling but doing
Crime also changes the way nothing about the choices made
we feel about our community by their representatives.
and what it costs to live here. If the apathetic home-sitters
How do you feel about your would use their phones, their
community as the crime rate computers and their votes, they.
increases and graffiti and van-could pitch the politicians mak-
dalism become increasingly_, lng irresponsible decisions and
commSn? What is the cost of fix these problems quickly.
feeling more vulnerable when At $1.25 per $1,000 of as-
you leave your house for the sessed property value, Lane
weekend? How do you feel County's tax rate ranks 35th
when you're walking with your out of 36 counties. Our citizens
child and you see a mentally ill may be paying plenty of taxes,
man argulng with himself or but the money isn't going to the
urinating on the sidewalk? county. We're goii~g to have to
Crime drives up our insur. ,put political gamesmanship
ance and medical costs. The ~,tside and fix the revenue side
costs associated with car theft, of the county financial equa-
vandalism and uninsured visits tion, or the downward spiral in
to emer§ency rooms are not community safety support will
paid through the generosity of continue in Lane County.
the insurance companies and Please take the time to study
medical providers, we pay them the issues and hold politician~
in the form of higher Premiums accountable.
and medical fees. What does it
cost to i~nOre those problems?
What's it worth to fix them?
· Wouldn't we rather live in a
community that did so? '
Our law enforcement system
works properly only when all of
the essential partner-systems
are intact. If you don't fund
mental health, former patients
end up clogging the emergency
rooms and the criminal justice
system, where, their care costs
much more and is much less ef-
fective. If we don't fund an ade-
quate jail, the police officers
end up re-arresting the same
criminals over and over again,
and without any jail time or
drug.treatment, the cycle re-
peats itself indefmitely.
Right now, we're living the
worst possible scenario: None
of the component programs are
funded to do the job, so we're
spending lots of money and
making little or no progress.
Here's the argument for ade-
quately funding the interrelat-
ed systems of law enforcement,
drug treatment and mental
health:
1) It's the morally right
thing to do. A society should
protect its most vulnerable citi-
zens and take care of people
who are unable to care for
themselves.
2) It's the most effective way
to protect and enhance the
quality of life in our communi-
ty. The cost is worth it because
it pays enormous, dividends in
quality of life.
3) It saves money. In the
long term, it's much less expen-
sive to tackle these problems
head-on than it is to i~nore
them.
4) A safe community pro-
motes healthy growth and eco-
nomic vitality.
The conclusion is inescap-
able: Responsible citizens must
overcome apathy, become in-
formed and act. Sometimes, in-
fluencing the political process
h r,ff's
January 2005
Sheriff's Voice In id :
PAST SHERIFF,
JAN CLEMENTS, LOOKS BACK...
It has been my privilege to be
l¥our elected Sheriff for the
~'~/'7e are currently
last eight years. From the ¥¥ deluged with ·
Pacific to the Cascades, Lane crime scene investiga-
County's natural beaut3, and t. ion dramatizations Sheriff's
unique communities offer our o. TV, emotionally- Voice
citizens and visitors a magnifi- charged law enforce-
cent environment in which to ment shows, real or
live, work, and enjoy. It has otherwise, and melo-
always been our mission to dramatic interroga- ·
make Lane County a safer dons of suspects by Contact
place to be. Together we vehement detectives.
accomplished many deeds. I We have to ask if this
thank and give credit to my is really how it is with
dedicated and hard wot -king crime scenes. Or is
staff and citizen support for the process more ·
ma 'king these accomplishments humbling and down Fonensic8:
a rea:it?: Below is a brief ac-
to earth? According to Forensics: O s I
complishment report. As my Lane County. Forensic
predecessors played a part, so Technician, Richard Lane CountyIs
will my successors. Thank you! 'Sahdy' Sanders, what we
Forest Work Camp: We Own eSI
see on TV is over-drama- ·
reopened 60 beds, inmates tized in many ways. For one thing, investigative personnel are Medical
built 60 bed at a $250 savings actually more specialized in their individual fields and not the
to taxpayers, expanded camp jack-of-all-trades heroes we often see on TV. Ex~miner
to 95+ beds with Federal
A veteran of 12 years with the Lane County Sherifffs _,9
Forest dollars.
(con't. onpage2) Office, Mr. Sanders sees his position as a scientific one, as
opposed to a dramatic one, not that science can't be dramatic ·
on some levels. All crime "All crime investi~ati0ns invesfiga-
fit)ns strive for powerful strive for and positive Grants
conclusions. The devil is, powen'u, and positive as the3, say, and Gifts
conclusions..."
in the details when it ~ comes to
gathering evidence and preparing legally sound evidenfiary
cases for felony crimes. The task of the forensic technician is
to ferret ()ut and evaluate bits of evidence for analysis use in ·
court trials, and for the permanent county record. Wake-Up
Sandy is accompanied by Paula Bell, fellow forensics tech- Call
nician, formerly with the Oregon State Police, who brings 4
considerable skill to the local forensics team. She shares the
Russel Burger field duties with Sandy and also has a special talent for the
New Sheriff of Lane County (con?. on]~c~e 3)
II~ge ~ The Sheriff's r~u~rCerly
T here are approximately 3,000 recorded deaths in Lane Count3, each year. The '
Lane CounU, Medical Examiner takes jurisdiction in approximately 300 of these
(Sheriff's b~oice, con't, from Page 1) annually. Of these, 50 are suicides, 12 are homicides, and 150 require an autopsy per-
Jail: Built $10 million 152-bed jail formed. The Lane Count), Medical Examiner's Office has jurisdiction in deaths relat-
ing to known criminal activity, subjects of unknown identity, subjects under 40 yrs of
addition with state/federal funds,
age with no primary physician, drug-related deaths, on-the-job deaths, major trauma
streamlined inmate booking, made or vehicular acci-
staffing more efficient dents, and emer-
Community Corrections: gency room
Expanded Community Corrections deaths occurring
Center by 29 beds with state funds less than 24 hfs
~ after admission.
Defender & Offender Manage- The Medical
merit Center: Collaborated with Examiner deter-
Pretrial Release and Parole & Pro- mines the cause
bation to develop Assessment Center and manner of
to better place and manage inmates, each death. The
Multi-agency Teams: Formed team who offici-
ates over disposi-
Eugene/County SWAT team,
reformed Major Crimes Investigation tion of the
deceased varies,
team, participated in regional but often
Explosive Disposal Unit, codeployed Johnnie Bergman, Pathology Assistant and
with Oregon State Police to better The Medical Frank Ratti, Depu~ Medical Examiner
respond to police calls, developed
Canine unit Ex~ m [ n e ~'~ s includes the Lane Count3, Sherifes Office in primary scene
mvestigafions of death. The District Medical Examiner, a
Traffic Enforcement: Expanded l'e~m-~ physician, has the fmal word on cause- and manner-of-
Traffic Enforcement Team to reduce
death issues that can be presented in a court of law.
serious injury, and fatal crashes, and Th~ BuC~ Medical examiners are seldom a part of law enforcement,
developed Accident Reconstruction
Team. I~E~iLL'Y and are an appomted (rather than elect-
ed) position.
... The Deputy
Forest
Deputy
Patrol:
Formed
Here
The role of Deput3, Medical i Medical
Stops Examiner is an investigative representa-[
Forest Deputy, Patrol program with
Federal Forest dollars, five of the physician medical examiner. He/she is authorized to i Examiner's
(con't. he/ow) remove (or take custody of) a body from the scene of occurrence, jutisdiclion is...
tie/she may take custodv of propertb; evidence, or weapons from!
To Cont, aot; Us: a scene when that scene requires investigation. The deputy, M.E. ' sensilive and
may also enter and secure the premises when a death investigation!
Adult Corrections .682-2101 .......
.... ~s reqmred. Th~s authority exists m order to preserve evidence
Civil (Serveflapers) .6824156 (and to take custody of remains), and is covered in Oregon
Custodsy Referee's Office .682420 ! Revised Statutes No. 146.
Po/ice Services ~4dmin, . ,682-3729 Our count, Medical Examiners, forensic pathologists Edward E Wilson, M.D. &
Sam Vickers, M.D., recently retired. Presently Lane Coun~ is without a pathologist
JN~on gmergencj #... ~6824 141 who can perform autopsies. Frank D. Ratti, our Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, is
Police Services Records. ,682-3775 part of a team searching for candidates to replacement these distinguished
Jail Records ......... 6824263 pathologists, who served Lane CounU, for over 30 years. This Lane County position
SO Administration .... 682-3980 has been funded by the Oregon State Medical Examiner's Office-
(Con'/. on Page 4)
Towed i/chic/es ....... 6824156 (3'he~ff's [ bice, con'/. J?om leper/q/O
Communications/Reception Counter: Expanded Dispatch Center, created
The Sheriff's Quarterly single reception counter for walk-in customers for fingerprinting, records,
is issued quarterly
as a public outreach sezvice, concealed handgun licensing and civil process services.
edited by Charlene Sabini, volunteer at Organizational Development: Developed Strate~c Plan, reorganized de-
the Lane Count3- Sheriff's Office. partment, reducing divisions from three to two, established Critical Incident
We welcome your questions and concerns
regarding thc Sheriff's Quarterly. Response Team for peer support, established department Chaplain Program,
Please direct them to changed organizational culture to foster staff support and development and
Jackie Mikalonis at 54D682-4115 instill customer service values.
or to jacqlyn.mikalonis~co.lane.or, us
administrative details connected to forensics. No piece of evidence moves through
the system without a full and accurate record of everyone who handled it. and GIFTS
The Lane County Sheriff's Office forensics program was a work-in-progress until
2001, when new equipment and investigative/analytical tools were added to the ''~ O ~' ga.an_
office. Of especial note is the digital imaging hardware/software capabili .ty. With the
acquisition of good digital cameras and the equipment needed to download, store, r .-uh-ment
and access crime scene images, the Sheriffs Office is now able to provide instant
access of images to the District Attorney and other authorized agents. This one capa- ...and Morel
bility alone has paid for itself m time saved, evidence presented expediently and m
general expenses reduced. The State Department of ~ tuman
Forensics' office location, while very compact and small compared to other juris- .i-Services recently awarded The
dictions, was physically remodeled during this same period. New flooring, furnishings, Lane Count3,, Sheriffs Office funds
' from the Rural Access to Emergency
computers, bm-code filing systems, analytical equipment, evidence lockers and storage Devices Program. The grant will allow
areas were installed. Available space was optimized and redesigned for efficienc3: A the Sheriffs Office to purchase an
barcode evidence filing system using the Bar-coded Evidence Analysis Statistics & automated external defibrillator (or
Tracking software ("BEAST"), has saved hours of paperwork and tedium over recent AED) that can save lives. When a sud-
years. The newer fingerprint processing chamber and sealed evidence drying cabinets den cardiac arrest occurs, acting quickly
have assured that evidence is more carefully handled and accuracy attained. Large new is necessary. AEDs deliver shocks to
rolling file shelves allow easier access to evidence. Forensic evidence can consist of the heart in order to restart a heart that
has gone into arrest. The equipment
anything at all: Drugs, guns, weapons, clothing, perishable soft tissue samples, blood, has to be light, durable, and reliable. All
urine, household objects, documents-anything, including subtleties like fingerprints 394 SherifFs Office employees receive
and residual DNA. These items require secure storage. Much of the space occupied training in first aid,
in forensics is dedicated to storage of evidence and records. Physical evidence is CPR, and the usc of "The ~rant is
intended to supply
stored while awaiting court trials or appeals. Court cases under appeal can take years, AEDs. The new remote rural areas
which means the evidence needs storage and accessibility during long time periods. AED will be placed with this life-
Is there job satisfaction in the life of a forensics technician? Of course there is. in one of the Forest savin9 device."
When science steps in and brings evidence to the stucface, there is considerable fulfill- Work Camp Vehicles
that travel on isolated rural sections of
merit and the strong possibili~, for solution of a crime. Sandy said that when he
Lane CounD~ daily. The grant is intend-
approaches a crime scene and "walks up someone's driveway, that means they're ed to supply remote rural areas with
probably already having a very bad day." Sandyg work may be the last honorable this life-saving device. Currently, the
service performed for a crime victim. Conducting a thorough and professional inves- Sheriffs Office has 13 AEDs placed
tigafion and assisting the family with closure while executing justice is the ultimate throughout the organization-from the
goal. ~ Marine Patrols to the Search and
Rescue crew. This new device will add
to the life-saving capacity of the
Sheriff's Office.
..................................................................... Fhe Alliance for Communi~ Traffic
Q: Knowing that Lane County extends all the way out to the Safety. had awarded the Sheriff's Office
Pacific Coast, does the Sheriff's Office have any jurisdiction with a $5,000 Building Safer Com-
over activity on our beaches...? munities Mini-Grant. The grant will be
used to purchase bike helmets, booster
A: Yes. The SherifFs Oregon Dunes Patrol is staffed by a deputy scats and bike repair supplies for the
"Bikes For Kids" event to be held in
through a grant fund from Oregon State Parks and Recreation the fall of 2005. The event is supported
Department's ATV Fund and federal reimbursements to Lane through volunteer efforts on thc part
County. This unit provides law enforcement, emergency medical of the Sheriff's Office staff in collabo-
ration with several other agencies and
response, search & rescue, and public education services to visi-
community parmers. The Bikes for
tots frequenting this beautiful recreation area. Trained reserve Kids event targets specific populations
deputies routinely assist on weekends, holidays and with special and promotes bike and child passenger
safety.. Be on the lookout next fall for
events. ~ this fun-fried day. ~
I~ge 4 The Sheriff's r~us¢~e¢ly
District Attorney's Office, largely coordinates and facilitates investigations connected to
When hiking outdoors in (~..~,~_~. i deaths and interacts with county investigators, police departments, pathology technicians,
winter think 'small and (~.~,~ and other specialists connected to the medical examiner's office and with the families or col-
functional' when it comes ~/ ~ leagues of the deceased. Frank has been with the Medical Examiner's Office for 19 years and
to survival ge.ar. Dark- ~-I has occupied several other critical positions as well (Search and Rescue, EMT, Ski-Patrol).
ness and cold can sneak Without local pathologists, however, many bodies for autopsy are being sent to Portland.
up quickly and strand you or put you The home team feels that a pathologist drawn from our own community may provide more
at serious risk. valuable insights in certain investigations, owing to knowledge of the local public health svs-
Your vehicle: Have a good battery tern, the local law enforcement agencies, and first hand-knowledge of scenes of death.
in the vehicle, carry extra blankets, For three decades Lane County has used a small morgue facility within Sacred Heart
food, flashlights/batteries, gloves, Medical Center in Eugene. Mr. Ratti is assisted in death investigations by former paramedic
plastic tarp, and tire chains.
Lynn M. Walter, by a local anthropology specialist, Jeanne McLaughlin, and by a surgical
Your person: Small compass, fire
starter materials, matches/cigarette nurse, Robert Christensen, RN. Each is registered with the American Board of Medicolegal
Death Investigators. Johnnie Bergman, employed as an autopsy assistant for Sacred t teart
lighters, flashlight/batteries, two large Hospital since 1971 also assists during autopsies. Mr. Bergman's services can include assist-
garbage bags for emergency shelter, ing at autopsies required for medical reasons, brain tissue screenings for diseases (such as
half-inch closed cell foam for sitting Mad Cow Disease), obtaining specimens for toxicology analyses, dental records matching,
on, 50-ft of parachute cord for make- examination of unknown skeletal remains, identification of accident or crime victims, and
shift shelter, 50' of bright surveyors'
flagging and a marking pen. Take more. The retail value of an average autopsy can be approximately $1,200. Civilian next-of-
along personal medications, too. kin may order an autopsy if the medical examiner declines, but the cost defaults to the citi-
Include a cell phone or a GPS device, zen ordering it.
One common thread in the careers of this team is the attention to detail and the thor-
too, even though the cell may not oughness with which the work is done--both for the sake of professionalism and for rea-
function where you are.
Stay hydrated and stay dry. Those sons of personal responsibility. It's not without considerable pride that this coun~ investiga-
tions team performs its work. Toughest part of the job? Mr. Ratti regularly communicates
two things will go a long way toward
with the deceased's next of kin or colleagues, and this interaction is predictably sensitive, but
keeping you comfortable and alive. ~
necessary. ~
Lane County Sheriff's Office .............
125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
LANE COUNTY c.'~ [.,~lC~c ~_~t.~O ~
PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING, 125 EAST 8TH AVENUE, EUGENE, OR 97401/(541 ) 682-4203/FAX (541) 682-4616
February 1, 2005
To: Lane County Planning Commission
Eugene Planning Commission
Springfield Planning Commission
From: Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator
Property tax changes
1982 -- The year the Metro Plan was acknowledged as being in compliance with the state's land use
planning goals. General purpose governments' property tax base grew at 6% per year.
1990 -- Ballot Measure 5 passes, property tax capped at $15.00 per $1,000 of assessed value
excluding bonds: $10.00 for general government and $5.00 for schools. Creates the concept of
compression when voters approve rates in excess of limits. The issue of compression will be the
subject of focused discussion before the boundary commission as financial impact is a substantive
criterion in district formation proceedings.
1996 -- Ballot Measure 47.
1997 -- As a result of legislative action Ballot Measure 50 supersedes Ballot Measure 47. This
measure rolled assessed values back by 17% and capped growth at 3% annually. It created
"permanent" tax rates. Unlike the old tax base law, there is no legal mechanism by which a general
purpose government may seek to have its permanent rate increased. Local option levies are limited
to five years. See explanatory statement.
Current condition
What we have learned over the last seven years is that Lane County's tax rate of $1.27 per $1,000 is
not adequate to provide the services necessary to serve 325,000 citizens. Lane County's tax rate,
even when the revenue from Secure Rural Schools is added in, is 35 out of 39 (three counties have
different rates between cities and rural areas). See chart. Lane County is significantly below
comparable counties, and within Lane County its rate is more appropriate for a limited purpose
special district than a general purpose government charged with providing critical life, health and
safety services. See chart.
The bottom line is that how Oregon finances general purpose governments has changed drastically
since 1984. Lane County now needs to find a permanent source of sufficient revenue with which to
provide critical public safety services. What the amendment does is allow Lane County to propose
a new financing vehicle without altering the compact urban growth policies in the Metro Plan. Once
this plan amendment is approved, Lane County can proceed to file its formation petition with the
Boundary Commission. As a matter of that process, if the new district's tax rate is to apply inside a
city, that city's city council must adopt a resolution approving the petition.
MEASURE NO. 50
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
In 1996, voters approved Measure 47, an amendment to the Oregon Constitution that limits the amount
of property taxes that may be collected from each parcel of property. The limitation first applies for the
1997-1998 tax year and reduces taxes on each parcel of property to their level in a prior tax year.
Measure 47 permits a three percent increase in taxes each year for tax years following 1997-1998.
Measure 47 permits a taxing district to impose new or additional taxes if the taxes have been approved
by voters. Measure 47 creates a number of exceptions that allow for taxes to be increased by more than
the otherwise applicable limitation. Measure 47 imposes certain spending priority requirements and
expenditure limitations.
This measure would replace the percentage of tax limitations in Measure 47 with a reduction in the
maximum assessed value of property for the 1997-1998 tax year and a limitation on the percentage
amount that the maximum assessed value of property may increase each tax year. This measure also
directs the Legislative Assembly to generally reduce property tax levies by an average of 17 percent.
Specifically, this measure does the following:
* Reduces the maximum assessed value of property for the 1997-1998 tax year to 90 percent of the
property's assessed value for the 1995-1996 tax year. For tax years subsequent to 1997-1998, the
maximum assessed value of property would increase by three percent per year.
* Limits increases in assessed value for new property, improvements and certain other events to a
fraction of the property's real market value.
* Directs the Legislative Assembly to reduce the total amount of levy of taxing districts by a statewide
average of 17 percent for the 1997-1998 tax year. Excepts certain taxes from reduction. Adopts policy of
distributing reductions so as to approximate Measure 47 reductions. For subsequent tax years, requires
the district to permanently fix tax rate at 1997-1998 level.
* Permits voters of taxing district to elect to impose local option property taxes in excess of amount
otherwise constitutionally permitted. Limits duration of local option tax to five years or ten years, if
used to fund capital projects. Prescribes voter participation requirements.
* Prohibits local government from increasing fees as alternative revenue source to make up for property
tax revenue reduction caused by initial implementation of this measure, unless approved by voters.
* Retains existing property tax rate limitation of $5 per $1,000 of value for schools and $10 per $1,000
of value for nonschool government (1990 Measure 5). Retains existing constitutional exception from all
tax limitations for taxes levied to pay bonds if bonds are approved by voters. Prescribes voter
participation requirements.
(This impartial statement explaining the ballot measure was provided by the 1997 Legislature.)
http://www, sos.state.or.us/elections/may2097/voters.guide/M50/M50EX.HTM 01/28/2005
Appendix B
~L1 wno. I K I I °1""-I° ~1 ~ I~ ~1~°1 ~ ~
~,~-R~=~= / I o/ / ~/ ~1 ~/~ 15~1 ~1
~ .o~ Il, m/ / ~/~ I~ / / /~ ~ I
Lane County, OREGON 463 FY 04-05
I City of West Fir 9.3~
2 Cit~ of Cottage Grove 7.21
3 City of Oakrid~ 7.20
4 City of Eugene 7.01
5 City of/unction City 6.04
6 City of Veneta 5.04
7 City of Springfield 4.74
8 City of Coburg 3,75
9. Lake Creek EFPD 3,08
10 River Road Pnrk & Rec 3,06
1 ! City of Florence 2,86
12 Lowell EFPD 2,70
13 City of Ct~well 2,67
14 Eugene 1 EFPD 2,54
! 5 Bailey-Spencer RFPD 2.39
16 Zumwalt RFPD 2.34
17 Lorane RFPD 2.30
18 City of Lowell 2.16
19 Swisshome RFPD 2.15
20 Lane Rural Fire & Res 2.12
21 Rainbow Water & Fire 2.06
22 Lane Co 1 RFPD 1.98
23 Willamalane Pank & Rec 1.97
24 River Road Water 1,97
25 Mohawk Valley RFPD 1.91
26 Olenwood Water 1.90
27 Willakenzie RFPD 1.88
28 Goshen RFPD 1.72
29 Mo?roe RFPD 1.69
30 McKenzie RFPD 1.61
31 Siustaw RFPD 1.54
32 ID~xter RFPD 1.42
33 Mapleton RFPD 1.39
34 Coburg RFPD 1.33
35 Lane County 1.27
36 ~Upper McKenzie RFPD 1.20
37 Pleasant Hill RFPD 1.10
38 So Lane County EFPD 1,05
39 ;Santa Clara RFPD 1.04
40 Creswell RFPD · 1.02
41 Junction City EFPD 0.98
42 Blue River Water 0,95
43 Siuslaw Public Library 0.52
44 IMarcola Water 0.40
45 IFern Ridge Library 0,38
..... 46 :McKenzie Palisades Water 0,36
47 =West Lane Ambulance 0,32
48 River Road Sub l Water 0.28
49 Junction City Water 0.25
50 Siuslaw Port 0.15
OTHER OREGON COUNTY TAX RATES:
Washington County (2003) 2.90
Multnomah County t2003) 5.27
Marion County (2003) - '3.0'l
Clackamas County (2003) 2.40
Lane County
Public Safety District
Permanent Authority Compression Within Cities
$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00
I Coburg '
IBefore Compression 445,526 445,526 445,526 445,526 445,526
IAfter Compression 445,526 445,526 441,460 428,305 409,207
[Loss From Compression 0 0 4,065 17,221 36,318
I Cottage Grove
Before Compression 2,588,481 2,588,481 2,588,481 2,588,481 2,588,481
After Compression 2,588~481 2~560~298 2,490~784 2~364,957 2,235;139I
Loss From Compression 0 28,183 97,697 223,524 353,342~
Creswell
Before Compression 457,320 457,320 457,320 457,320 457,320
LossAfter FromC°mpressi°ncompressEon 457~3200 ' 457~3200 457~3200 457~3200 457~32~1
I Eugene
Before Compression 64,731,358 64,731,358 64,731,358 64,731,358 64,731,358
After Compression 64,731,281 64,134,280 63~097~288 61 ~607,468 59~240~836I
Loss From Compression 76 597,077 1,634,070 3,123,889 5,490,5211
I Florence I
Before Compression 1,597,873 1,597,873 1,597,873 1,597,873 1,597,873
After Compression 1,597,873 1 ~597,873 1 ;597~873 1,597,873 1,595,628
Loss From Compression 0 0 0 0 2,245
I Junction City
Before Compression 1,381,854 1,381,854 1,381,854 1,381,854 1,381,854
After Compression 1,381,854 1,375,693 1 ~354r567 1 ~324,738 1 ~288,523I
Loss From Compression 0 6,161 27,287 57,116 93,331
Before Compression 71,392 71,392 71,392 71,392 71,392
After Compression 71 ~392 71,392 71 ~392 71 ~277 70,233I
Loss From Compression 0 0 0 115 1,159I
I Oakridge
Before Compression 687,279 687,279 687,279 687,279 687,279
After Compression 687,279 677,151 652,055 621,106 587,072I
Loss From Compression 0 10,128 35,224 66,173 100,207I
I Springfield
Before Compression 13,300,600 13,300,600 13,300,600 13,300,600 13,300,600
After Compression 13~300~600 13~298~246 12,998,164 12~657,228 12,197~282I
Loss From Compression 0 2,354 302,436 643,372 1,103,318I
I Veneta I
Before Compression 679,890 679,890 679,890 679,890 679,890
After Compression 657~291 636~883 608~551 578~745 550,858I
Loss From Compression 22,599 43,007 71,339 101,145 129,032I
Westfir
Before Compression 82,805 82,805 82,805 82,805 82,805
After Compression 80,388 77,228 73,529 69,853 66,081
Loss From Compression 2,417 5,577 9,276 12,952 16,724
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation
Numbers are estimated based on 2004 information and are not actual.
I:~AdminXProjects\Tax Gap\Lane CountyXAllAreas.doc
Lane County {5.
Public Safety District
Permanent Authority Compression Summa~
I $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00
Coburg 4,065 17,221 36,318
Cottage G rove 28,183 97,697 223,524 353,342
Creswell
Eugene 76 597,077 1,634,070 3,123,889 5,490,521
Florence 2,245
Junction City 6,161 27,287 57,116 93,331
Lowell 115 1,159
Oakridge 10,128 35,224 66,173 100,207
Springfield 2,354 302,436 643,372 1,103,318
Veneta 22,599 43,007 71,339 101,145 129,032
Westfir 2,417 5,577 9,276 12,952 16,724
Lane County 6,168 130,708 362,514 693,494 1,189,184
Total 31,260 823,195 2,543,908 4,939,001 8,515,382
Permanent Authority Compression Within Cities
$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00
COBURG RURAL FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT 0 0 1,439 17,221 12,857
SOUTH LANE COUNTY LANE
FIRE & RESCUE (Creswell) 0 0 0 0 0
SOUTH LANE COUNTY FIRE
& RESCUE (Cottage Grove) 0 4,503 15,609 35,712 56,458
FERN RIDGE LIBRARY
DISTRICT 1,339 2,921 5,295 7,702 9,927
LANE COUNTY FIRE
DISTRICT #1 6,947 15,132 27,427 39,895 51,399
LOWELL RURAL FIRE
PROTECTION 0 0 0 143 1,447
SlUSLAW PUBLIC LIBRARY 0 0 0 0 4o5
PORT OF SIUSLAW o o o o 116
WEST LANE AMBULANCE o 0 o 0 251
JUNCTION CITY RURAL FIRE
PROTECTION 0 1,003 4,444 9,302 15,200
Willamalane Gap Bond o 9 1.148 2,443 4,19o
Willmalane Park and
Recreation o 980 125,892 267.81o 459,268
JUNCTION CITY WATER o I 2 3 4
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation
Numbers are estimated based on 2004 information and are not actual.
I:XAdmin~Projects\Tax Gap\Lane CountyX~.llAreas.doc
Lane Co 'tty
Public Safety District
Local Option Compression Summary
$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00
CE City of Eugene - LO
Library 593,646 1,054,640 1,765,687 2,953,602 3,912,058
CE City of Eugene - LO
Youth 977,474 1,736,530 2,907,313 4,863,288 6,441,445
City of Springfield - Police 11,367 461,523 614,572 926,643 1,300,670
City of Springfield - Fire 6,200 251,740 335,221 505,442 709,456
Gain to Urban Renewal Districts from Public Safety District
$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00
Coburg Urban Renewal 20,832 41,664 61,926 80,107 95,689
Eugene Downtown Urban
Renewal 81,433 159,969 232,812 277,620 347,894
Eugene Riverfront Urban
Renewal 20,229 39,533 57,072 71,387 82,891
Veneta Urban Renewal 25,329 48,401 68,401 85,865 101,139
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation
Numbers are estimated based on 2004 information and are not actual.
I:XAdmin~Projects\Tax Gap\Lane CountyXAIIAreas.doc
AGENDA COVER MEMO
(Supplemental)
DATE: February 16, 2005
TO: EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD & LANE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSIONS
FROM: KENT HOWE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DELIBERATION/RECOMMENDATION: IN THE MATTER' OF AMENDING
THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
POLICIES TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE
DELIVERY FOR A COUNTYWIDF~PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT,
(METRO PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY 15, PAGE II-B-5 OR
PERIODIC REVIEW REVISED METRO PLAN PAGE II-C-5).
I. BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2005, the Joint Eugene/Springfield/Lane County Planning
Commissions conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the
Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan (Metro Plan) to Chapter II Growth Management
Policy 15 that would provide greater flexibility in the service delivery of a countywide
public safety special district in the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area;
.The Joint Planning Commission closed the public hearing and left the record open for
comments for seven days. Staff received two written comments: 1) a copy of the
minutes from the June 28, 2004, Eugene City Council work session; and 2) written
comments with attachments from Lane County Administrator, Bill VanVactor, dated
February 8, 2005.
II. PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS/STAFF RESPONSE
This section provides answers to the questions asked by Planning Commissioners.
Q. Commissioner Hudspeth asked what were the implications of the e-mail from
Eugene City Councilor David Kelly asserting that the City of Eugene was on
record as not having any interest in special districts ?
A. It is not clear from the email if Counselor Kelly understood the nature of the proposed
countywide public safety special district. In the June 28, 2004, minutes of the Eugene
City Council, Counselor Kelly stated that he concurred with Metro Plan policies
stating that cities were the logical provider of urban services, although he could see
economies of scale that might be realized from the formation of countywide service
districts overseen by the Board of County Commissioners. Counselor Kelly's
statement seems consistent with the proposed countywide public safety special
district.
Q. Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienieki requested a copy of the minutes of the June 28,
2004, Eugene City Council meeting.
A. Minutes of the June 28, 2004, Eugene City Council meeting are attached.
Q. Commissioner Hledik requested clarification on the fundamental principle of the
plan addressing cities as the logical providers of urban services and cited
language in the County Board Order 04-8-25-8 that appeared to contradict by
stating "...Lane County is the logical provider of many countywide public safety
services for urban, suburban, and rural Lane County."
A. The fundamental Metro Plan principle establishing the 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 public 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; rather they are basic, on-going county services regardless of
development level. None of the proposed countywide public safety district services
are even remotely related to services that accommodate or address urban levels of
development. Consequently, the proposal simply does not affect the policies that
compel delivery of truly urban development services by cities rather than special
districts.
Q. Commissioner Belcher asked if the phrase "not limited to" in the proposed
language was necessary because he thought it raises issues of ambiguity for
future interpretations. He cited the existing criteria in Policy 15 for forming a
special district and asked if consistency could be achieved by an amendment that
said those criteria could be ignored with the "notwithstanding" language.
A. Most of those services are mandated by constitutional or statutory provisions that
establish county authority to provide the service. And most of the contemplated
services are very different than the "police protection" described in the Metro Plan
definition of "key urban facilities and services."
Rather than revise all of the Metro Plan policies which address services that
accommodate urban levels of development, the proposed "notwithstanding" language
provides a narrow exception to the Metro Plan with the addition to Policy 15. None
of the proposed public safety special district contemplated services are even remotely
related to services that accommodate or address urban levels of development.
Consequently, the proposal simply does not affect the policies that compel delivery of
truly urban development services by cities rather than special districts. The rest of the
Metro Plan policies remain intact. This proposed policy exception does not weaken
the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to the other growth management
policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation of other growth-
inducing special districts.
The proposed addition to Growth Management Policy 15 will not create an internal
inconsistency within the Metro Plan because it is a narrowly drawn exception that
recognizes countywide public safety services are already currently provided within
cities; a countywide public safety district does not change that fact. The proposed
countywide public safety service district would not provide growth inducing services
in the metropolitan area.
Q. Commissioner Cole was concerned about how many districts could be created
under the amendment and wanted to see revisions to the language that would
restrict the amendment to a single district.
A. The proposed language is written in the singular - "A district or zone of benefit" may
be created and maintained to provide preventive and reactive public safety
services..." The proposed public safety special district is a single countywide public
safety special district that would provide the unique county services described in the
proposed policy.
III. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment A- June 28, 2004, minutes of Eugene City Council meeting
2. Attachment 13- February 8, 2005, Memorandum from
County Administrator, Bill VanVactor with attachments
3. Attachment C- February 1,2005 minutes, Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing
M I N U T E S EXCERPT
· Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
June 28, 2004 $:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner,
David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon.
As his Honor Mayor James D. Torrey was unable to attend the meeting in person to act as chair,
City Council President Bonny Bettman called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
.C. WORK SESSION: Examination of Potential Changes to Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan Concerning Special Districts
Planning and Development Director Tom Co~le joined the council for the item. He reported that
Springfield had initiated an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area. General
Plan (Metro Plan) to allow for the possibility of special districts to provide urban-level services;
the details of the amendment were overviewed in a memorandum included in the packet that was
prepared by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff, dated May 5, 2004~ and entitled Scope
of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendment Related to Urban Services Delivery. Mr. Coyle noted
questions that had arisen about the issue of funding and distributed the e-mail response that had
been sent out. He reviewed the questions and answers.
1. What'are cost, time, and resource differences between a Metro Plan amendment initiated.by a
single jurisdiction and an amendment processed by LCOG? .
Mr. Coyle said there would be no significant difference between the coSts of the two processes.
2. Will LCOG be using regional funds for this effort?
Mr. Coyle said that LCOG had assured the City that no funds from ~he Planning Division's
annual contribution to LCOG would be used to process the amendment.
3. Has the Lane Board of County Commissioners discussed this topic since May?
Mr. Coyle said that the commissioners had not discussed the issue, but hoped to by early fall.
Mr. Coyle called attention to an intended motion prepared by staff for Ms. Bettman. ·
Mr. Coyle thanked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter for their
contributions to the materials provided to the council. Ms. Bettman clarified that the first question
actually referred to the difference in the process for an amendment initiated solely by just one
jurisdiction. She was also concerned about cost, and noted thatCommissioner Bobby Green,
among Others, had requested information about that subject, but she had yet to see it.
Ms. Bettman said her interest in holding the work session was because Springfield's proposal
represented a fundamental change to the Metro Plan. She termed it the "mother of ali policy
issues." Ms. Bettman said the amendment spoke to the underlying premises behind who had the
authority to provide services and levy taxes.
In the spirit of home rule, Ms. Bettman said she did not object to Springfield pursuing a site-
specific amendment to the Metro Plan. She did not object if Springfield wanted to pursue the
ability to create special districts to provide its citizens with public safety services, but did not
want Eugene to be pulled along in the process by default. She wanted the council to weigh in on
the issue sooner rather than later. Ms. Bettman called the council's attention to the ambitious
work program associated with the amendment, which did not provide for input from the council
until nearly the end of the process.
Mr. Kelly agreed what was contemplated by Springfield represented a very fundamental change
to the Metro Plan. He said that he concurred with Metro Plan policies stating that cities were the
logical provider of urban services, although he could see economies of scale that might be
realized from the formation of countywide service districts overseen by the Board of County
Commissioners. That could provide greater public accountability than a small district board.
However, like Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly did not object to Springfield moving on alone.
Mr. Kelly underscored the council's previous direction regarding the topic as reflected in its
approval of the Planning Division's work program, when it deleted special districts as a priority.
He indicated he would offer the motion prepared for Ms. Bettman to the body with some slight
modifications. Mr. Kelly said that given that Eugene would be part of the amendment process in
any case, he did not want to spend City money until it was necessary to do so.
Mr. Meisner said that sometimes solutions are contemplated without complete consideration of
all the ramifications involved. He sympathized with Springfield's interest in pursuing the issue
given its interest in forming a fire district. However~ he believed what Springfield contemplated,
if not site-specific, was a fundamental shift in th.e Metro Plan, which was a reflection of Senate
Bill 100. The proposal was a contradiction of statewide planning rules. While he understood the
budget crisis impelling the proposal, Mr. Meisner called for caution. He pointed out that the City
required annexation as a condition of development in the River Road/Santa Clara area, which was
premised on the City's Urban Services Agreement with the County, which was premised on
Metro Plan policy. He feared that if the community.did not proceed with caution, the City's
actions in that area could be called into question.
Mr. Pap6 anticipated the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would
soon be considering Significant changes to State planning laws to bring them up to date.
Mr. Pap6 wanted to see more flexibility in the Metro Plan. Because of the difficulty of revising
the Metro Plan, Mr. Pap6 thought different approaches to service delivery needed to be
considered. He pointed to the Tualatin Fire District as an example of regional service delivery he
would like the local community to be able to replicate. At this time, the Metro Plan did not allow
for that, and the community was further constrained by the financial limits imposed by past ballot
measure such as Ballot Measure 5 and Ballot Measures 47/50.
Mayor Torrey suggested a subcommittee of the local elected officials be brought together to
discuss the topic. He did not want to break up the local land use compact if that could be avoided,
but thought Springfield had legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed. He did not think it
was necessary for the amendment process to take so long.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager not to expend City
funds or staff time and resources for an LCOG study of the use of special districts to provide
urban services or for processing a Metro Plan amendment initiated by the City of
Springfield or Lane County regarding special districts. This motion would not prohibit
reasonable use of stafftime to review and consult with staffof Lane County and Springfield
on these matters. Furthermore, any proposed amendments should be specific to
Springfield.
Mr. Kelly said that while his motion spoke to the staff resources expended by Eugene staff, it did
not preclude Springfield staff from picking up the telephone and asking Eugene staff a question.
Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Pap6's long-time interest in the formation of a fire district but
pointed out a council majority did not share that interest.
Mr. Kelly also acknowledged that the DLCD intended to review Senate Bill 100 and consider
possible changes, but that was a two- to three-year process. He thought it was premature to make
amendments to the Metro Plan in anticipation of the outcome of that process.
Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner to change the word
"should" to "shall" in the last sentence of the motion. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the motion
should be revised to provide either Springfield or Lane County with the authority to initiate a site-
specific amendment.
Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor regarding the intent of the motion, Ms.
Bettman said the intent of the motion was to narrow the City's scope of involvement in the study
to be conducted by LCOG and initiated by Sl3ringfield.
Ms. Bettman welcomed Commissioner Bobby Green to the meeting.
Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the motion was restrictive and unfriendly to Eugene's partners in
the land use compact. He continUed to advocate for sufficient flexibility in the Metro Plan that
ensured most urban services were provided by cities but did not foreclose the possibility of other
approaches.
Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that, through the motion, the council would be sending a
message that did not reflect its intent. She said if it was council's intent that it did not want to
pursue such changes for Eugene, she wished to state it differently. Ms. Nathanson suggested a
motion directing the manager not to make expenditures in a way that was inconsistent with the
council's previous direction in regard to the Planning Division work program. She believed the
motion on the floor could be interpreted as being noncooperative.
Mayor Torrey agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He suggested the council accomplish
what it wished to accomplish and not attempt to dictate to Lane County or Springfield what they
do.
Mr. Kelly pointed out that Springfield could initiate any Metro Plan amendments it wished to.
Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's concerns, he invited alternate wording. He said he included the last
sentence in the motion to indicate it was the sense of the council that proposed amendments
should be specific to Springfield.
Mr. Lidz [City Attorney] determined that Mr. Kelly was not attempting to limit the scope of the
amendments offered by Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that Springfield could proceed as it wished.
Ms. Bettman said the motion she initially suggested was much broader in intent. It had suggested
Springfield could move forward in its best interest but Eugene was not interested in changing the
policies in the Metro Plan at this time. She thought Eugene would be a better partner to indicate it
was not interested in a fundamental change in the way services were provided before Springfield
went through an expensive and time-consuming amendments process.
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Springfield City Council recently gave its legal counsel
direction to examine the question of opting out of the Metro Plan altogether. She asked what
would happen if Springfield moved forward with that while the community was going through
the amendments process. She reiterated that the responsible thing to do was to provide input early
in the process. If Eugene Was not to weigh in on the topic at this time, Ms. Bettman suggested the
council propose a broader time line for the process that provided for more public input and for the
elected officials to have input into the scope of work. The existing time line did not allow for that.
Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She did not want to spend tax money on the effort. However,
she did not think the last sentence in the motion was needed.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion by striking the last sentence.
Ms. Nathanson reiterated her preference for different language in the motion. She suggested the
following alternative wording: Move to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform
Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan
policy amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time.
Ms. Nathanson declined to offer her text as an amendment to the amendment to the motion,
preferring rather to vote the motion down.
Mr. Kelly endorsed the concepts in Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion. He indicated opposition
to the amendment because it did not communicate that th~ council was not interested in a Metro
Plan policy change that applied to Eugene's actions.
Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment because it removed the element of the motion that
addressed how such a policy change would address Eugene. Otherwise, the motion was redundant
in terms of what the council had done in regard to the Planning Division's work program and
neutralized the intent of the motion.
The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pap6, and Mr. Meisner voting
yes.
With the concurrence of Ms. Taylor, the second to the motion, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion.
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the
City Manager to inform Springfield and Lane County that Eugene is not interested in pursuing
a Metro Plan amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this
time.
Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that he would interpret the motion as
minimizing the City's staff time and money spent on the issue Of special districts.
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the purpose of the motion, City Manager Taylor
said the discussion helped clarify the council's position when it approved the Planning Division's
work plan. It also gave direction to staff about the sense of the council as it applied to the degree
of coordination and interest in the topic of special districts as they related to any solutions
concerning Eugene. He thought the motion was helpful.
Mr. Meisner supported the motion, although he questioned the inclusion of the phrase "at this
time" as the motion was merely a "snapshot in time," and it Seemed to cloud the issue somewhat.
Mr. Pap6 said his vote for the Planning Division's priorities was not a vote for forgoing other
projects not on the highest priority list. That included an examination of special districts. He did
not think the council was uninterested in the question.
Speaking to Ms, Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Pap~ thought now was an appropriate time for a break
with regard to the "command language" governing local land use policies, and the break would
help future councils by allowing them to consider other cost-effective' service delivery options
without goi.ng through a lengthy Metro Plan amendment process. Those options might include
solutions other than service districts. He noted that the work proposed to be done was to be paid
for out of Springfield and Lane County's contracts with the Lane Council of Governments. Mr.
Pap~ said he was unable to support the motion.
Ms. Bettman said that at both the Metropolitan Policy Committee and Joint Elected Officials
meetings, Springfield and LCOG staff requested direction about the'topic from the three
jurisdictions. It was her perception the item was moving forward without any body outside
Springfield taking definitive action.
Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between the council "informing" and the
council "directing" the manager. Mr. Taylor did not think so; he interpreted both as conveying the
sense of the council's direction.
Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor how he. would interpret the motion in terms of Mr.
Papa's issue regarding the Planning Division work program and allocation of funds. Was it
implicit in the motion that the council was not interested in the expenditure of resources outside
an occasional staff response to a qUestion? She asked City Manager Taylor how he would
implement the motion. City Manager Taylor recalled the council's discussion about the Planning
Division work program, which he believed allowed for staffwork on non-priority items as
needed, and the council's work session on special districts as a means to deliver fire and
emergency services, at which it agreed to revisit the idea after a year had passed. He did not
interpret the motion as being so restrictive it would preclude staff from responding to the
council's direction from the work session on fire and emergency services. That effort did not
involve Planning Division staff and did not affect the division's work program priorities. He
believed it was unlikely staffwould do additional work on the subject of special districts as the
City had higher priorities and a council majority had expressed no interest in going forward.
Ms. Bettman noted the motion specifically mentioned special districts as opposed to changes to
Metro Plan policy, which dictated that cities would provide urban services. Mr. Coyle concurred
with the comments of City Manager Taylor. He said the City would continue to work with the
other jurisdictions on administrative issues such as ways to simplify processes. There was no
specific work program item related to special districts outside that related to the interest expressed
by Springfield and the item related to the fire district question.
Ms. Bettman said the Springfield-proposed amendment dealt specifically with the policy
governing urban service delivery, and asked that the motion be amended to mention the policies
governing urban service delivery. Ms. Nathanson concurred, and offered the following:
Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the manager
to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a
Metro Plan amendment regarding special districts or urban service delivery alternatives at this
time.
5
Ms. Bettm'an indicated support for the motion and thanked Ms. Nathanson for rewording the
motion.
Ms. Solomon indicated she would be unable to support the motion as amended because it
precluded the City Council from pursuing other alternative or creative service delivery methods..
Mr. Kelly supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, he said nothing in the
motion prevented the council from having a great idea for an urban service delivery alternative
and beginning to explore the idea. It merely informed the current process initiated by the City of
Springfield. Mr. Kelly thought the amendment being contemplated was premature given the
DLCD's review, and that it was dangerous to invite such broad changes to the Metro Plan. He
believed that Springfield would want to know what Eugene supported before it proposed an
amendment to the other jurisdictions that Eugene could not vote for. The motion made it more
likely Springfield would craf~ an amendment that was focused on Springfield's needs and that
could be supported by Eugene.
Mayor Torrey determined from City Manager Taylor that the motion did not preclude the
manager from offering suggestions for process improvements to the council.
Mr. Pap6 said if the council wanted an alternative service delivery system, it would have to seek a
Metro Plan amendment. He wanted to see the amendment from Springfield go forward, and
hoped it was sufficiently broad to allow for flexibility in Eugene in how urban services were
delivered.
Mr. Meisner did not think Springfield contemplated an amendment that was sufficiently broad to
accomplish what Mr. Pap6 had discussed. He suggested that in order for Mr. Pap6 to accomplish
his goals, he would need to propose a second amendment and get the council's support. Mr.
Meisner said the amendment being proposed was intended to allow Springfield to accomplish the
proposal for annexation to the Willakenzie Fire District that had been denied by the Lane County
Local Gove.rnment Boundary Commission.
Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Lidz that the State would review any Metro Plan amendments
for consistency with statewide goals.'
Ms. Bettman said the question before the council was who provided the urban services the City
was now providing. In times of tight budgets, service districts allowed for the creation of another
layer of government able to levy taxes, so it was another way to increase taxes. She .said that the
fact the municiPalities were the provider of urban services was consistent with State land use
goals and she believed was the most appropriate way for such services to be provided. Ms.
Bettman said if the community'expressed a desire for a regional government or overlapping
layers of government, the council should move to institute an inclusive and broad-based public
outreach process. She said the Springfield proposal represented a unilateral decision by one
jurisdiction which, by virtue of existing laws, would drive other jurisdictions along with it unless
the Eugene council made a definitive statement at this time.
Ms. Bettman said the City should let Springfield and Lane County know where it stood on the
issue.
The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition.
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
February 8, 2005
To: Lane County Planning Commissioners
Eugene Planning Commissioners
Springfield Planning Commissioners
From: Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator
Thank you for your courtesy and careful consideration of the proposed Metro Plan amendment
initiated by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Additional material from that Board
deliberation and action is enclosed to provide background and insight into the reasons for the
proposal. I will try to highlight some of those reasons and explain how the proposal fits the
Metro Plan.
The public safety community in all of Lane County faces' significant struggles without a more
permanent sustainable revenue picture. The proposal to revise Growth Management Policy 15
sets forth a Metro Plan change that could provide for sustainable revenue without affecting the
fundamental growth management principles of the Metro Plan. What follows will highlight
services that are provided almost exclusively by Lane County. I will also try to point out a few
potential revenue benefits to cities should a public safety district formation proceed.
A countywide public safety district could help fund many services currently provided almost
exclusively by Lane County agencies. The Sheriff, District Attorney, Youth Services and Health
and Human Services operate within all city limits and provide many services cities do not
themselves currently provide to their own constituents. Most of those 'services are mandated.
Constitutional or statutory provisions establish county authority for youth and adult corrections,
youth services, criminal prosecution, parole and probation, prisoner transport, civil process and
mental health crisis services for urban, suburban and rural Lane County. For example, less than
26% of the felony caseload handled by the District Attorney originates outside the cities of
Eugene and Springfield. In addition, those jurisdictions account for 52% of the misdemeanor
caseload processed by the District Attorney.
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 public 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; rather they are basic, 'on-going county services
regardless of development level. Most of the contemplated services are 'very different than the
"police protection" described in the Metro PI.an definition of "key urban facilities and services."
The one area of overlap might be the reference to "patrol" in the proposed amendment. Because
patrol levels provided 'by the Sheriff are currently so low and new funding for this will need to
compete with all the other contemplated services, we do not believe any duplication of services
will occur. In addition, city residents are also beneficiaries of Sheriff's patrol in many ways.
Formation of a countywide public safety district actually might not conflict with the Metro Plan,
but we felt it prudent to address language that could present the most significant potential for
debate. One source of such a debate is the existing language of Metro Plan Growth Management
Policy 15. Clarification of authority to form a countywide district in the metroPOlitan area is a
logical and straight-forward means to reduce the risk of debate and focus discussions instead on
whether citizens want the contemplated county services and wl~at they are willing to pay.
Rather than revise all of the Metro Plan parts which address services that accommodate urban
levels of development, we crafted a narrow exception to the Metro Plan with the proposed
addition to Policy 15. If amended, it would include the following language:
f. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies and text
in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be created and maintained to provide
preventive and reactive public safety services, including but not limited to, adult and
youth corrections services, crime preq, ention, prosecution, detention, supervision, mental
health and alcohol and drag services, victim services, drag court, interagency narcotics
enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest.
None of those contemplated services are even remotely related to services that accommodate or
address urban levels of development. Consequently, the proposal simply does not affect, the
policies that compel delivery of truly urban development services .by cities rather than special
districts. The rest of the Metro Plan policies remain intact. This proposed policy exception does
not weaken the. position of Eugene and Springfield relative to the other growth management
policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation of other growth-inducing special
districts.
Depending on the outcome of discussions with each city, a public safety district might also assist
cities with funding for some of the county-delivered services they currently help pay for within
their city limits, and even funding some city. services that are interagency endeavors. Some of the
examples we have discussed include jail services, intemgency narcotic enforcement, drag lab
cleanup, burglary or property crime task forces, domestic violence investigations, peer courts,
school juvenile counselors, continued felony and misdemeanor prosecution, prisoner transport,
civil, process service, mental health crises intervention, detoxification services and parole or
probation supervision. With various innovative and cooperative approaches, a countywide public
safety district might be able to alleviate or replace some of the current funding cities devote to
those services.
In conclusion, we think the proposed Metro Plan amendment will permit continued or improved
countywide public safety services in a way that does not affect any of the fundamental growth
management principles of the Metro Plan. The proposed addition to Growth Management Policy
15 will not create an internal inconsistency within the Metro Plan because it is a narrowly drawn
exception that recognizes countywide public safety services are already currently provided within
cities; a countywide public safety district does not change that fact. The proposed countywide
public safety service district would not provide growth inducing services in the metropolitan
area.
AGENDA COVER MEMO
DATE: August 25, 2004
TO: Lane County Board of Commissioners
DEPT.: Lane County Sheriff's Office
Lane County Administration
PRESENTED BY: Jan Clements, Russ Burger- Sheriff's Office
Bill VanVactor - County Administrator
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ORDER ./IN-THE MATTER OF CONSIDERING
CONCEPTS OF A PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT
AND INITIATION OF METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS TO
CLARIFY AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN
SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA
I. MOTION
MOVE TO APPROVE ORDRR NO. . DIRECTING FURTHER STAFF WORK
NECESSARY TO IN1TIATE FORMATION OF A PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL
DISTRICT AND INITIATING METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY AND
PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR SERVICE. DELIVERY IN THE. EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
Il. ISSUE OR PROBLEM
There are two related issues for the Board to consider. Thc first issue' is the concept of a
countywide public safety special district. Thc second issue is to consider initiating non-site
specific text amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) in order to provide greater clarity in thc formation of a public safety special
district while retaining consistency with the fundamental growth management principles of
thc Metro Plan.
HI. DISCUSSION
A. Back~round
Many county public safety services are funded primarily with property tax revenue, which
flows to the county's general fund. Local property taxes are subject to constitutional,
statutorial, and political and practical constraints. These revenue constraints are
increasingly pressuring local governments to make difficult choices of either thivnlng
BCC Agenda Cover Memo - County Special Service District Page 1 of 6
· ' August 25, 2004
service capacity or foregoing some services in order to maintain others. County residents
and visitors continue to expect at least adequate and in many cases improved services fi.om
county government.
Lane County is faced with the challenge of straggling to keep rapidly escalating costs
balanced within modest revenue growth. In the discretionary general fund this meant
cutting $2.7 million from county services for FY 04/05, primarily because the cost of
contributing to PERS and medical coverage for employees and retirees has increased by six
per cent per year, while voter-approved property tax limitation measures cap property tax
increases to three per cent annually.
With expenses outstripping revenues, public safety activities are impacted more so than
other services, because those services use approximately 70 percent of the county's
discretionary general fund.
The five-year general fund forecast predicts the r~venue/expenditure gap to grow each year.
Additional reductions leave Lane County's law enforcement, .corrections programs
(including the jail), juvenile justice programs, the DistriCt Attorney's prosecution services,
.. and parole and Probation services with very little caPacity to meet the criminal justice
system demands in this region. Continued reductions in the law enforcement arena create a
substantial public safety risk for the community.
To address the chronic financial problems and to focus on the "First Priority" of the
County's Strategic Plan, which calls for allocating resources to services addressing critical
life & health safety needs, a countywide public safety district has been suggested. This
proposal is a strategy that would provide stable, dedicated funding for necessary public
safety services that have historically been provided by the county. Because a special
district typically has its own permanent property tax rate, it may provide sustainable
· funding of its particular services. Each proposal for use of a special district requires careful
fiscal and legal analysis, and extensive intergovernmental and community input. This
agenda item does not provide this level of analysis, but presents a launching point for the
Board of County Commissioners to discuss a draft outline of public safety special district
components and direct further staff development ofnecessary information to formally
initiate formation of such a district. It also provides an opportunity for the Board to
consider initiating Metro Plan amendments to clarify and provide for greater flexibility in
the provision of services in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area to facilitate the
formation of a public safety special district consistent with the fundamental principles of
the Metro Plan.
B. Analysis
Special Districts
Revenue
Cities and counties are unable to maintain the services they provided in the past, much less
meet increased demands. Special districts can be used as a strategy to provide revenue for
B'CC Agenda Cover Memo - County Special Service District Page 2 of 6
August 25, 2004
necessary countywide or specific services. Each type of special district is authorized by
State statutes to provide particular services fun ded by its own independent revenue sources.
A special district may provide more stable and adequate funding for the district's particular
services than can be provided within the count t's permanent property tax rate limit because
a special district typically has a voter-appmve{ permanent property tax rate limit dedicated
for its purposes and not shared with other prog ams and services or with other time-limited
local option levies.
Formation
Each plan for use of a special district requires 5seal and legal analysis and extensive
intergovernmental and community involveme~ ~t. Since the concept of a proposed
countywide public safety special district woul~ include both unincorporated areas as well
as incorporated dries, the formation doeumen! must include approval by resolution from
the governing body of each city within the dis~ ict.
County service districts are established under, ~egon Revised Statutes Chapter 451 and
formation of a countywide public safety distri~:t is governed by ORS 198.705 to 198.955, as
well as the provisions of ORS chapter 199 gm eming the Local Government Boundary
Commission. There are two options for fortaz fion of a county service district. One is by
petition, the other by resolution or order of the Board of County Commissioners. The
Board may initiate formation of a district, to b located entirely within the county, by an
order setting forth:
* The intention of the Board of County ¢ommissioners to initiate the formation of a
district and citing the principal Act;
* The name and boundaries of the propc ;ed district;
· If any part of the territory of the propo zed district falls within a city, the order shall
be accompanied by a certified copy of the city approval; and
· The county shall bear the cost of form: ~tion of a district, except costs for
preliminary engineering studies and st rveys in connection with the district shall be
reimbursed by the new dislr/ct if form ~on is ultimately successful.
A county service district is allowed by its prir cipal Act to provide law enforcement among
other services.
Local Government Boundary Commission
The State Legislature first required comprehem ire local land use plans in 1963. In 1973, the
Legislature adopted Senate Bill 100, adjusting I ~lanning requirements and providing for
detailed statewide land use planning goals. Bol mdary Commissions were intended by the
Legislative Assembly to establish policies and ~.~ercise powers in order to create a
governmental structure that promotes efficient,, and economy in providing the widest range
of necessary services in a manner that eneoura es and provides planned, well-ordered and
efficient development patterns.
Boundary Commissions were formed to guide he creation and growth of special service
districts and were intended to reduce fragmented approaches to service delivery by
BCC Agenda Cover Memo - County Special Service Distr/ct Page 3 of 6
!
August 25, 2004
encouraging single agency service delivery over service delivery by several agencies.
The Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission was created under ORS Chapter
199, and has jurisdiction over local government boundary changes for many special districts.
Today, the Lane County Boundary Commission is the only local government boundary
commission still existing in tho state.
The Boundary Commission policies regarding efficient delivery of services do not prohibit
the use of special districts. The local comprehensive plan is the primary tool employed to
express legislative policy about local service delivery needs. Part of the requirement for
Boundary Commission action is a determination that the proposal is consistent with the
comprehensive plans of the involved area. In this case, only the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) was adopted with specific expressions of what
entity should provide services under these policies.
However, the Metro Plan was developed and acknowledged before voter-spproved property
tax limitations, Measures 5 and 50, restricted local government's ability to finance services
via property tax increases.
Metro Plan
The Metro Plan is the official long-range general plan of metropolitan Lane County and the
cities of Eugene and Springfield. Its policies and land use designations apply only within the
area under the jurisdiction of the Plan. The Metro Plan sets forth general planning policies
and land usc allocations and serves as the basis for the coordinated development of programs
concerning thc use and conservation of physical resources, furtherance of assets, and
development or redevelopment of the metro area.
Any proposed new special district within the area of the Metro Plan must be consistent with
the Plan. Depending on the content of a public safety service district, the Metro Plan does
appear to contain policies and perhaps definitions that might act as obstacles to formation of
a new district. All other adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plans within Lane
County do not seem to preclude formation of a public safety service district but will need to
be carefully reviewed and analyzed to ensure consistency if the proposed public safety
special district concept proceeds.
The Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy//15 addre~es creation of new servic~ districts
and states that service districts are considered "interim" service delivery methods. Thc Metro
Plan calls for annexations to occur over time and existing service districts within the urban
growth boundary to be dissolved. The Metro Plan does recognize that Lane County provides
a variety of public services to unincorporated portions of the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. Currently, Lane County provides countywide public safety services such
as corrections, juvenile justice, prosecution, and parole and probation, in incorporated as well
as unincorporated areas of the county.
The Metro Plan, Cu'owth Management, Policy # 8 states ':land within the urban growth
boundary may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city
BCC Agenda Cover Memo - County Special Service District Page 4 of 6
August 25, 2004
when it is found that:
a. A minimum level of'key urban facilities' and services can be provided to the
area in an orderly and.efficient manner."
The Metro Plan Glossary defines minimum level of "key urban facilities and services" to
include "police protection" as well as other services including but not limited to stormwater
service, solid waste management, water service, fire and emergency medical services and
public schools. "Police protection" is not further defined and may present an interpretation
issue when trying to form a public safety special district.
· Lane County was and is the logical provider of many of the countywide public safety
services for urban, suburban, and raral Lane County. It was not anticipated that cities would
provide these services once any region or area reached an urban density level and these
services do not encourage or promote growth or development. In addition, historically, there
have been other mutijurisdictional law enforcement services such as drug interdiction,
SWAT, and domestic violence investigation services provided by Lane County, within and
outside of Eugene/Springfield's urban growth boundary. The emphasis of the Metro Plan
and the land use planning goals it supports reduce the fragmented approach to service
delivery by encouraging single agency service delivery over service delivery by several
agencies. None of the public safety services currently or historically provided by Lane
County outside the urban growth boundary have discouraged compact growth or augmented
sprawl.
Public Safety Special District
There are several public safety services traditionally provided by, or statutorily mandated
for, Lane County. These include, but are not limited to corrections (both youth and adult),
parole and probation, prosecution, and unincorporated patrol. The decline in the county's
financial resources has led to system degradation as indicated by: · A reductitn in jail beds
· A 'matrix' system at the jail that releases inmates into the community on a dally basis
· More than 100 parolees per parole officer to manage
· Fewer and fewer crimes prosecuted by the District Attorney's Office
· A youth detention facility operating at minimal capacity
· Rural and suburban police patrol minimized to unacceptable levels
· The elimination ofinteragency drug team participation
· The elimination ofinteragency special tactics teams to deal with critical incidents
The goal of creating a countywide service district is to provide a separate funding source for
public safety services. The goal of the district would be to make available the kinds of public
safety services the county currently is under authority or mandated to provide, not to displace
any other jurisdiction or create a duplication of services.
The timeline goal is to put the proposal on the November 2006 general election ballot. The exact
description of a Lane County public safety district is in the preliminary stages. A district of this
type will need input fi.om a variety of sources and comprehensive analysis before decision
makers can finalize the details and outline the specifics of the district's components.
BCC Agenda Cover Memo - County Special Service District Page 5 of 6
August :25, 2004
Creation of some form of a public safety district in 2006 will help close the expense/revenue gap
of the county general fund and at the same time help sustain a rapidly deteriorating public safety
system. This is a strategy that allows the organization to move forward in a time of fiscal stress.
C. Alternatives/Options
1. Move approval of the Board Order to direct more staffwork on forming a public safety
special district and initiating Metro Plan amendments in order to provide greater clarity in
the formation of a public safety special district consistent with the Metro Plan.
2. Do not approve the Board Order at this time. If the Board decides to pursue special
district formation at later date, tho timeline for putting the issue on a November 2006 ballot
is shortened and compromises the timeframe for getting the necessary work completed.
D. Recommendations
Staffrccommends Alternative 1, above, to move approval of tho Board Order.
E. Timine
In order for a special district proposal to be placed on a November 2006 ballot, work
needs to begin promptly following Board Order approval.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION/FOLLOW-UP
Staffwill begin work immediately to put together a work plan for formation.of a special
district to be voted on in the November 2006 general election. StaffWill also complete
work on analyzing the Metro Plan in order to process specific amendment
recommendations consistent with thc Board Order.
V. ATTACHMENTS
1. Board Order
BCC Agenda Cover Memo - County Special Service District Page 6 of 6
. August 25, 2004
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDER 04- ) IN THE MATTER OF CONSIDERING CONCEPTS OF A
) PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT AND INITIATION OF
) METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE
) GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE
) EUGENE-SPRiNGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
WIIEREAS, revenue constraints are increasingly pressuring local governments to make
difficult choices; and
WlIEREAS, Lane County is faced with the challenge of struggling to keep escalating
costs balanced with modest revenue growth; and
WlIEREAS, the Lane County Strategic Plan calls for allocating resources to those
services that are effective in addressing immediate and critical life and health safety needs as a
first priority; and
WtIEREAS, special districts can be used as a strategy to provide revenue for certain
necessary countywide services; and
WI:[IgRIgAS~ any proposed special district within the area of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) must be consistent with the Plan; and
WlIEREAS, the Metro' Plan appears to contain policies and definitions that make it
unclear whether formation of a new public safety special district would be consistent with the
Metro Plan; and
WttEREAS, Lane County is the logical provider of many countywide public safety
services for urban, suburban and rural Lane County; and
WlIEREAS, these public safety services do not encourage.or promote growth or
development.
NOW TI-IERElrORE IT IS I:IIgREBY ORI)EREI), that the Board of County
Commissioners directs further staff work necessary to allow the Board to formally initiate
formation ora public safety special district.
IT IS HEREBY FLIRTtIER ORDERED, that the Board of County Commissioners
initiates Metro Plan amendments to clarify and provide greater flexibility in service delivery in
the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Dated this day of August 2004.
Chair, Lane County Board of Commissioners
xo
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDER 04- 8- 25=~ ) IN THE MATTER OF CONSIDERING CONCEPTS OF A
) PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT AND INITIATION OF
) METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE
) GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE
..)...EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
WHEREAS, revenue constraints are increasingly pressuring local governments to make
difficult choices; and
WI{ER~AS, Lane County is faced with the challenge of straggling to keep escalating
costs balanced with modest revenue growth; and
WHEREAS, tho Lane County Strategi.c Plan calls for allocating resources to those
services that are cfi .~.tive in addressing immediate and critical life and health safety needs as a
first priority; and
WHEREAS, special districts can be used as a strategy to provide revenue for certain
necessary countywide services; and
WHEREAS, any proposed special district within the m'ea of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) must be consistent with the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan appears to contain policies and definitions that make it
unclear whether formation of a new public safety special district would bo consistent with the
Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, Lane County is the logical provider of many countywide public safety
services for urban, suburban and rural Lane County;, and
WHEREAS, these public safety services do not encourage or promote growth or
development.
NOW TI:IEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners dire, em further staffwork necessary to allow the Board to formally initiate
formation of a public safety special district.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, that the Board of County Commissioners
initiates Metro Plan amendments to clarify and provide, greater flexibility in service delivery in
the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
--~ed this/L~~ay of August 2004.
", ~ u~ ' Commissioners
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Da,, fi'- t ~'~ :~.~c n~
g-~l~E OF-L~dAL (~UNSEL
Get .rock xo
Clements'public safety plan is Worth considering
E ven ff the idea goes no- *'county governmel~t. Publi~ safety
where .... a (listH~ct possi- programs currently make t~p about
bilily--Lane County Sher- 70 percent of the county's general
iff Jan Clements deserves fund budget. Splitting those pro-
poin'[s'Tor.~creati, v~!!y~.n.d, persistenc0 grams -- anti' the budgets thai go
for his proposal lo establish an inde- with them -- off to a new and sepa- ~-"~
pendent countywide public safety rate taxing district, one with its own
district, governing board, would radically
.. Dtlrillg his nearly two terms as change the character and nature of
sheriff, Clements' quest for a stable, county government. While such a
reliable source of funding for publi.c ,move would ease commis.sioners' an-
safety programs has had a Si- nual budgeting migraines, it re-
syphe~n q~mlity. Like tile ancient mains to be seen how they would W needto be a~
king of Greek mythology. Clements' feel about such a maim* downsizing
lot has been to endlessly roll a huge of their p.olitical domain. Jerry Har,*is (lc
· stone up a hill oi~ly to watch it turn- Hill No. 3 would be determinin§ an interesting
hie each time back. to the bottom, the sl ructure of the new'public safe- whether The Regi
.Well. almost every time. County tv district, and deciding who has fi- pr. iht letters to the
- - - ' offensive racist sta'
voters in 1997 approved, a one*year hal sa.,.' over critical budget and poll-* On the one hah
levy for law enforcement, bt~t they cy m~ter~. How. for example, would one fi'om Brian Ro
rejected nine other different public a new district board re]ate to the 28) blaming affirm;
safety .proposals. including innova, shei'ffl' and district attorn.ey, both of · lice misconduct se
rive plans to create a sp/~cial law- whom are indepen.dent~ected . ion of an isolated
enforcement district in the Mohawk officials': extremely uninforr
and.McKenzie valleys and lohhpos~' J-iii] No. ,1 .... they're §etting taller and who is trying
acountywide incmne tax. More con-...~--= would be determmingthe tax Should the twisted
ventional strategies also haVe failed in,acts. Clements favors a two-tier informed person
includ0~g fom'*yea~;property tax lev- tax system loc the new district, one The Register-Guarz
'les and bon. d issues for improvemen~ that woukl ensure equity betwee~ On the 6ther ha
of'corrections and la~,:, enforcement urban areas that already pay for representative, of
facilities. ' their own police protection. ._- commur/ity. Here i
Now. the resilient Clements has That's the-simple part of the tax hear white people C
returned with yet another- proposal equation. Next comes, dealing with. racism, insisting t
one that potentially could put the the impacts, on the county's budget. .gene is racist. If
county's habitually underfunded If countv..voters approve a new d~s-. sent a part of our
- we need to hear hi:
and overextended.public.safety pro- trict, then the tax dollars th~'t cur- in order to be awar,
· ' grams on soun. d financial footing, rently flow into the general fund and truly exists in our c
While still in the conceptual stage pa_v. for public safety programs
and lacking in detail, the.basic idea ' woukl"be freed up for. other county SUSAN ROGEF
is to create a new countywide taxing services. Eugene
district that would raise tax reve- Clements rightly argu.es.that tax-
nues dedicated e~:clusively to public payers won't go along with his plan Terrorists, libe/a
safety, servi'ces such as rural patrols, unless they receive a proportionate
narcotics enforcement, prosecution, reduction in their county [general Part of the abu
adtilt and juvenile corrections and fund taxes. And there's the rub. One highly partisan
parole-and probation services, of the biggest incentives for'county elect Jo. hn-Ke.rry,
That sounds both iimple and logi~' officials in considering the plan is defea~ George.Bus!
cover Kerry;s mos
cal. But befoye it could become reali- the 'proSpect of using those, freed-up, almost daily flip-rio
ty, suPport'ers would have to to.Il general fund dollars-to patch the If you've ever dr
this very large and unwi.eldy propos-- gaping holes m the remainder of the letter, published
al up not one but several hills, the county's budget. Guard, then now
steepest of which would be the well- And that brings us to the last aad write anything, no
established skepticism of county final hill-- the on.e known as, Mount but include' that
voters. . . Voter, a treacherous, ice-covered Bush is also a flip;fi
Hill No': I would be amending the slope that Clements knows all too golden.
Met):o Plan, which 'governs long- b/ell. Liberal idiocy:
range planning and'land-us~ in ur- Despite the many obstacles, dundant-- is af
- ban areas in the county and Eugen6- Clements' idea is'wort, h considering, fort to corn)ret Kef
· Springfield metrop, olitan area. Commissioners. who are scheduled war record revelat
.... . While'not an insurmountable obsta- to discuss the plan on Wednesday, ways suspected a
cie] the .plah would have -to be should direct staff to take the pre- Welcome, is p~ooftl
changed to allow formation of a new liminary steps necessary for a Metro ard, a .self-pr.o'mot~
~- district. -- Plan amendment and-io do the fl°pper'0famagnit'
Hill No. 2 would be we'ighing the' groundwork necessary to get this .now.
favorite. Kef
'propdsa'l's impacts on ~ting rockrolli.ng; :' . [~ of
' say whatever his
hi~ rnndomnin~, nf
....... ~' ...................... gOR O[IIUI}~I8 lallt%l tO ~Ultl,;Ipatu a,~u But it is important to visualize a So Anna
Sunday, B ne said his troops were were shamefully unprepared to society ~ :ng both responsible and been offended
not adequately equipped to engage fi more-1. ,lc, fun, healthy, com- Nov. 1) about
in cdnflict with an insurgency that
stages regular and deadly attacks on Members of Oregon's congres- munity-oriented and economically faith on the day.
Convoys with rocket-propelled gte- sional delegation, including Rep. Pc- sttfficient. The Europeans are demon- most important
hades and powerful roadside bombs, ter DeFazio, have been hammering strafing this While outcompeting us New Year. She
In particular, the general cited an the military for more than a year to on many socioeconomic fronts. It's liked the articl,
inadequate supply of fully armored do a better job of equipping National time t~) embrace the future while lear- which, she im
ing the frontier mentality behind. It's what some Chr
Humvees, a shortage that has forced Guard and Reserve troops. There. time to rejoin the world, holiday.
troops to retrofit vehicles with bolt- have been some improvements, but It's time to talk about solutions 'Does that
on armor that leaves the bottoms of the job remains inexcusably far and suPport leadership which does. satisfied ff the
the vehicles unprotected. That's from f'mished. TOM BOWERMAN tion of The
Eugene pagan beliefs as
tian ones? Thai
Springfield's bold move
The benefits of mail elections the paper on a
but 'somehow I
I realize that not everyone is in fa- zier would be
-.County should now address jail-bed shortage vor of Orsgon's vote-by-maU elec- Does she re-'
tions, but wasn't it nice that wedidn't resent Christia
'have to wait in line in the elements gion to be th~
T ane county officials may proving that. its estimates, which for 45 minutes, show a picture ID, an- much as she re
~ not like Springfield's deci- county corrections officials have swer questions by lawyers, or ._chal-' that Christian:
~ sion to take corrections warned may be low; are acctnmte, lenges by' observers and not' have knowthat'the~
,L~ matters into the city's own . Meanwhile,. cOunty Officials, in someone follow us to our car to take of Christians
hands -- and out of the county's ~ particular those who have insisted down our plate number? our Mothe~ ]~
but they have to admire the forceful, that corrections sh6uld be addressed ROBERT DICKINSON desecration to
innovative, leadership that pulled it at the county and not municipal lev- Eu~kn~ or-treating on
off. el, now have a prime opportunity to her?.
Frustrated by the revolving door demonstrate their own leadership If she trul:
at the county jail and the city's by resolving the county's shortage of We must stop carnage in Iraq
Would hope tl~
· stratospheric property Crime rate, .jaUbeds. While it ~omes as no great surpr)se diversity does
the Springfield City Council' asked County commissioners, who have that .George Bush is supported by andmany oth~
city residents to pay $28.7 million to ·
build a new downtown pubUc safety tolerated an intolerable corrections mainstream Christians and their er having to'
status quo for far too long, have single-mindedness, I was just curious view without
center that includes a 100-bed jai~. talked recently, about creating a how these Christians *reconcile the sent~d as well.
The measure not only passed, it countywide PubUc *service*. disl~ict deaths ofmore*tha,x l00,000 Iraqi civil- er see our bo]J
passed by a substantial margin at a that would address the'jail-bed lans. Is death by *abortion different pUblic forums
time when many other money, mea- shortage and an array of. other pub- fromf~mfliesdeathgrievebY smartless? Areb°mbS?ArabsD° less'the savethat seemsf°r onCeto
sures were exploding like' shot- Uc safety-concerns. But so far, the human or a{,~iuished in God's eyes'* readers.
gunned skeet across the county and commissioners have been long on because they are not Christians? CATHgRI
state. And it passed in a community talk and short on action. Where i~ the outrage? F_,ugene
that has previously demonstrated its Any attempt t° form a pubUc safe- The Iraqi people were not involved
willingness to shoot down tax
proposals, ty district would face serious obsta- with SepL 11, To lend any support to
Even more sUrPrising is the fact cles, the most daunting of which this crusading president in h~ quest U0 band:ha.'
that Springfield residents voted in would be convincing county votbrs tois impo~etantamounthis willto Onpr.omotinganOther countrYfurther iikeTheto corre(Oreg0
to go along with creating a new layer
favor of a jarl that might never be of local government an~ increasing, death to innocents. * .
built. While city offici.a]s planto*pro- taxes to pay for it. Thats hardly an Thebloodis onall ourshand, s ifwe. sions resultirthe Veterans
ceed with building the new poUce attractive prospect for county o. ft-l- refuse to stop this carnage..
station and municipal .court,' they . Guard, Nov.
'*have pledged not to build the jail' cials who haven't passed, a money I,F, SLI~ MARTI * · gonMarchin~
· .portion of the project ~ or issue the measure for nearly a decade. ' ' ~.E .en~. refuse .to pa
bonds needed to do so -- until they .Commi~ioners should be open to We simply
devise a way to pay for*the estimated other possibilities, as well. For ex- i~a~ial harmony.wishful'thinkin§ due to sched,
$1.4 million in operating costs. 'ample, the county might consider co- . . . All 'of our
They also have said the jail won't operating with Springfield's jail With all the ad nanseamtalk about volved in
be built if the county t'mds a way to project, perhaps even leasing beds racism and racial proFding, there is a Bands comp,
expand its jail capaci{y and satisfy from the city in an arrangement different voice in the wilderness.* night on Sab
the city's corrections needs, similar to the one in which the city Diversity and harmony between On Sunday
In approving the public safety has leased jail beds from the county the races is wishful thinking at the must return
measure, Springfield voters made an in*the past. least, a dream at best., ter the .les!
· * The reality is that ~ we haven't, and about 8,,
impressive statement of trust in the That may or may not be aviable - reached the utopia in these hundreds Rest ass~
city's leadership. Now, the · City strategy. The point is that commis- of years by now, it will never come to ored to par
Council and administration must sioners should be bold and innova- fruition. The majority of people- re- events, just
demonstrate that trust was merited tive in addressing the county's cot- gardless of their respective races -- in other con
by not only showing' that it can cov- rections crisis -- just as Springfield .are simply more comfortable relating the years.
er operations costs,* but also bY was in deciding to build its own jail. to people who look like themselves, cia!..~, ibute
MINUTES
Joint Planning Commissions
Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene
Public Hearing
Harris Hall
125 East 8th Avenue - Eugene, Oregon
February 1, 2005
7 p.m.
PRESENT: Juanita Kirkham, Chair; Marion Esty, Jacque Betz, Mark Herbert, James Carmichael, Ed
Becker, Lisa Arkin, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Lane County Planning Commission
members; John Lawless, President; Rick Duncan, Jori Belcher, Randy Hledik, Phillip
Hudspeth, Eugene Planning Commission members; Steve Moe, Chair; Lee Beyer, Frank
Cross, Gayle Decker, David Cole, Springfield Planning Commission members; Kent
Howe, Stephanie Schulz, Jerry K.endall, Lane County Planning staff; Susan Muir, Kurt
Yeiter, Eugene Planning staff.
ABSENT: Steve Dignam, Lane County Planning Commission member; Mitzi Colbath, Anne Marie
Levis, Eugene Planning Commission members; Greg Shaver, Bill Carpenter, Springfield
Planning Commission members.
1. Welcome and Introductions
Commissioner Kirkham welcomed those present to a joint public hearing of the Lane County,
Springfield, and Eugene planning commissions.
Commissioner Kirkham opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission.
Commissioner Moe opened the public hearing for the Springfield Planning Commission.
Commissioner Lawless opened the public hearing for the Eugene Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kirkham called for public comments on non-agenda items.
2. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items
There was no one wishing to speak.
3. Joint Public hearing-Amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan Policies to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility in Service Delivery for a Public
Safety Special District.
Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, stated that pursuant to his remarks during the work session,
the County had determined that because of the ambiguity in the Metro Plan language the "surgical"
approach proposed by the County was the best way to make district formation consistent with the plan.
He said that Growth Management Policy 15 of the Metro Plan was proposed for amendment and criteria
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page I
for review were that the proposal was consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals and resulted in
internal consistency with the Metro Plan. He said staff had found that both of those criteria for amending
the Metro Plan were met and supported a recommendation for the amendment. He said that the planning
commissions could deliberate following the staff presentations and either act as a joint body or deliberate
and act separately.
Bill Van Vactor, Lane County Administrator, stated that when the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982
funding of local government was significantly different and consisted of a tax base system that could
grow at six percent per year. He said that Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield all had a funding
mechanism that allowed for a reasonable amount of growth to occur each year; subsequently ballot
measures had capped property taxes at $15 per thousand, with $5 for education and $10 for general
government. He said that when voters approved measures that exceeded those limits compression
occurred, first of local option levies and then of permanent rates. He said that subsequently Ballot
Measure 50 had the effect of rolling back assessed values statewide by 17 percent and capping growth at
3 percent annually, creating permanent tax rates for which no legal mechanism existed for requesting a
permanent rate increase from the voters. He said that the service district was a permanent solution to
stabilize funding and preferable to a local option levy that would be limited to five years. He stated that
Lane County's current tax rate of $1.27 per thousi~nd was completely inadequate to provide the necessary
services for 325,000 county residents. He said that the addition of Secure Rural Schools revenue still left
Lane County with almost the lowest tax rate in the State and one more appropriate to a limited or special
purpose district than a unit of general purpose government charged with providing critical life, health, and
safety services. He indicated the public safety district would be established as an Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS) 451 financing vehicle and the Board of County Commissioners would remain the
governing body with a five member citizen budget committee. He said the language was very narrowly
drafted to avoid raising policy issues with regard to urban growth or the creation of other districts. He
stated that the planning commissions' review was the first step in a lengthy process; when the proposal
went before the Boundary Commission it would focus on the compression issue and viability for
financing for the proposed district. He pointed out that in order for the district rate to apply inside the
corporate limits of a city, the city would have to provide a resolution of support for inclusion in the
petition formation application; a resolution of consent and approval would be required from all 12 cities
within Lane County and a collaborative process to set the rate and services was anticipated.
Commissioner Arkin asked if revenue from the district would be overseen by the county commissioners.
Mr. Van Vactor said that a budget committee composed of the five commissioners and five citizens
would provide oversight.
Russ Burger, Lane County Sheriff, stated that the public safety system included services ranging from
prevention, enforcement, arrest, incarceration, prosecution, treatment and transition, and supervision. He
said the system was broken and he and other County department heads were there to discuss degradation
of the system currently utilized to address public safety in Lane County. He said that there were 119
empty beds at the jail, no burglary or property crime investigators, the domestic violence position was in
jeopardy each year, and the interagency narcotics enforcement team was closed last year due to budget
cuts. He said those were issues faced by the Sheriff's Office and similar problems existed throughout the
system. He stressed the importance of the fact that the system had degraded to the point that a permanent
solution was critical. He said the Metro Plan amendment to allow for a public safety district was the
opportunity for citizens to decide if they wanted dedicated funding for public safety in Lane County.
Lisa Smith, Lane County Department of Youth Services (DYS), declared that the public safety system in
Lane County faced persistent and significant financial and resource challenges. She pointed out that the
challenges did not occur in isolation within any department but were interconnected; what impacted one
part of the system impacted all other parts of the system and ultimately affected citizens and communities.
She said that DYS was the sole juvenile justice provider, by statute, for detention and probation services
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 2
in Lane County. She used charts to illustrate referrals by area, with 42 percent of referrals from the
Eugene area, 27 percent from the Springfield area, and 31 percent from rural areas. She commented that
citizens' expectations of DYS were threefold:
I. hold youth offenders accountable,
2. lock up youth offenders who posed the greatest risk to the community, and
3. provide appropriate and adequate treatment to juveniles so they left the system with more skills
than when they entered.
Ms. Smith said the current system had incurred such significant reductions that those expectations were at
peril and reductions in beds and treatment options undermined DYS' ability to provide a balance of
correction and treatment services, with most facilities operating at less than 50 percent capacity. She
indicated that DYS had sustained major cuts in State funding and was facing significant reductions in
federal funding. She stated that while DYS had been successful in securing grant funding over the past
ten years, those grants were expiring and a permanent, stable funding source was essential in order to
provide a balance of correction and treatment services to ensure community safety.
Alex Gardner, Lane County Assistant District Attorney, said the County's proposal would not be before
the commissions if there was any other feasible way to establish permanent, stable funding for public
safety services. He said that County employees had been struggling with grossly inadequate staffing for a
long time and there had been some by-products of that disadvantage that would allow citizens and elected
officials to determine if they were getting "bang for the buck." He encouraged commissioners to compare
caseloads in the District Attorney's office and supervisor to line worker ratios; the organization was very
lean and had existed in starvation mode for some time - there was no place else to cut. He pointed out
that by Constitution the District Attorney (DA) was a State employee and the DA's duties could not be
assumed by the cities. He said that given current caseloads the DA provided services at about one-third
of the cost for a city to provide those services. He provided as an example of a collaborative effort in the
DA's office the "24 hour team" services for victims. He said that one employee was dedicated to
supervising the team's 30,000 vOlunteer hours and the office provided a car, telephone, and pager system.
He said the program had been eliminated because the paid employee position was cut from the budget.
Rob Rockstroh, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), said that his department's role in the
public safety system was parole and probation, mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment. He
described the services provided by his department that could not be provided by other entities because it
required police power, including civil commitment holds, closure of restaurants because of unsafe
practices, and quarantine for communicable diseases. He said that DHHS services were funded primarily
by the County with state and federal matching grants. He noted that while parole and probation services
were countywide, in reality most offenders were from the cities. He said that a partnership between the
State and County resulted in provision of services throughout the County. He described the probation and
parole services that provided supervision of offenders in the community and had not been funded
adequately in many years. He discussed the impact to DHHS of cuts in the Oregon Health Plan,
including loss of methadone treatment. He emphasized the seriousness of problems related to
methamphetamine, which demanded services from across the system.
Jim Gangle, Lane County Assessor, provided a brief overview of the issue of compression that resulted
when passage of Measure 5 limited the maximum rate, based on the real market value, on which property
could be taxed. He said there was a $5 rate for education and a $10 rate for government and any time that
$10 rate was exceeded based on the real market value, the tax collected was compressed down to $10. He
said the vehicle proposed to fund the public safety district was property tax by creating a new permanent
rate for the district and as a consequence there would begin to be compression in other governmental
districts depending on the amount of rate established for the public safety district. He reminded the
commissions that local option levies would be compressed first, then the permanent rates.
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 3
Anna Morrison, Lane County Board of Commissioners chair, commended the efforts of staff to
demonstrate the nature of the problem within the public safety system in Lane County. She hoped that
Mr. Gangle's discussion of compression issues was helpful. She stressed the crucial condition of the
public safety system. She described the composition of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC),
which was mandated in all counties by the State. She said the council had discussed at length the lack of
resources for public safety and been unable to agree on a solution the public would accept, despite the
continuous complaints related to lack of capacity in the system. She said the County's proposal was an
effort to address the problem as inacti6n was no longer acceptable and the State would not provide
financial assistance. She indicated a willingness to send jail prisoners back to the state if adequate
resources to operate that facility did not become available. She noted the presentations from department
heads that illustrated the lack of resources throughout'the system. She agreed that methamphetamine use
was reaching levels that dramatically affected the community and had personally witnessed its impact
during ride-alongs with deputies.
Commissioner Hudspeth referred to an e-mail from Eugene City Councilor David Kelly asserting that the
City of Eugene was on record as not having any interest in special districts. He asked what the
implications of that were for the public safety district proposal.
Ms. Morrison said that the e-mail reflected a territorial issue within Lane County, although Eugene had
been represented on the PSCC and understood the urgent need for a solution. She said that all of the
cities in Lane County would have to agree to the formation of a district. She was disturbed by the e-mail
but not surprised because of the territorial issue. She hoped that jurisdictions could work collaboratively
and pursue a solution through a communitywide perspective. She noted that cities did not compensate the
County for loss of revenue from urban renewal districts, but the County was willing to discuss with the
cities all options for moving forward with the public safety proposal.
Mr. Howe referred to Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15 and said the County was proposing to
add subsection f, which would read: "Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other
related policies and text in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be created and maintained to
provide for these public safety services..." He reminded the commissions that their role was to determine
whether the amendment was consistent with State goals and guidelines and internally consistent with the
Metro Plan policies.
Commissioner Kirkham called for public testimony.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, asked that the record be held open 21 days in order to give a
person who owned property in each of the jurisdictions 7 days to research the impacts to their
investments. He stated that the term "public safety services" was vague, unending, and expandable and
should be submitted to a double majority vote.
Lauri Segel, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 1192 Lawrence Street, Eugene, asked commissioners to consider
tightening the language in the proposal but did not have comments on the merit or lack of merit of the
proposal. She said the findings and policy amendmentwere in some respects poorly crafted. Regarding
the findings in attachment B to the staff report, she said she did not see the appropriateness of the fifth
bulleted item as the proposal did not related to providing services on the urban fringe and requested that
the public safety services be more defined and the policy amendment did not list a number of services and
state "...not limited to these." She said that there were references to interim district provision with the
expectation of annexation to the appropriate city but the proposal was not meant to be an interim
response; it was meant to be permanent. She did not think the amendment went far enough in addressing
consistency with the Metro Plan by only adding a subsection f.
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 4
There being no one else wishing to testify, Commissioner Kirkham called for deliberation by
commissioners.
Commissioner SiekieI-Zdzienicki requested a copy of the minutes of the Eugene City Council meeting
during which action on a special service district was taken in order to better understanding why the
council had adopted its position.
Regarding amending the Metro Plan and internal consistency, Commissioner Hledik called for
information and further discussion on the fundamental principle of the plan addressing cities as the logical
providers of urban services, citing language in Lane County 04-8-25-8 that stated "...Lane County is the
logical provider of many countywide public safety services for urban, suburban, and rural Lane County."
He said that language appeared to contradict the fundamental principle that cities were the logical
providers.
Commissioner Herbert said that a request during public testimony to hold the record open so that property
owners could analyze the financial impact of a special district on their investments was unrealistic as it
would take months of negotiations among the jurisdictions before financial impacts could be ascertained.
He said that the special district was chosen as the .financing vehicle for public safety because it was
permanent and stable instead of a five-year levy that would have to go back to the voters. He interpreted
the Metro Plan policy to say that if something came under the jurisdiction of a city because of an
annexation, at that point it would revert to the city, which was a different issue; one related to stable
funding and the other to a change in jurisdiction. He listed four issues that would need to be addressed
from the perspective of the County:
· public safety issues, broadly defined, were compelling and systemic
· the County was legally responsible for providing certain services and was the most efficient
vehicle for providing those services'
· was the amendment consistent with the planning goals and did it fit the criteria
· was the amendment defined in such a narrow way that it did not open "Pandora's box" and create
an easy way for special service districts to be created to fund other things
Commissioner Herbert said he felt that those issues were satisfactorily addressed and his recommendation
from the Lane County Planning Commission was to recommend approval to the Board of Commissioners
immediately.
Commissioner Esty agreed with Commissioner Herbert's remarks. She added that the proposal was
clearly drawn, easy to understand, and did not conflict with the interests of cities. She also had witnessed
the problems created by methamphetamine use, which was a countywide issue that affected all aspects of
community life. She thanked staff for their presentations and urged support for the proposal.
Commissioner Belcher said that he understood the significance of the problem but the issue before the
commissions was a Metro Plan amendment and that should be the' focus of their attention. He asked of
the phrase "...not limited to" in the proposed language was necessary as it raise issues of ambiguity for
future interpretations. He cited the existing criteria in Policy 15 for forming a special district and asked if
consistency could be achieved by an amendment that said those criteria could be ignored.
Commissioner Beyer agreed that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. He reflected on the
adoption of the Metro Plan at a time when general purpose governments had the ability to create revenue
that the public supported in order to deliver services and that situation had now changed. He said the plan
was not written for the purpose that was being discussed and if that was an agreed upon direction then
other changes that recognized some services would always be done by the County should also be
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 5
included. He agreed with Commissioner Belcher's remarks about internal consistency issues. He urged
caution in considering amendments to the Metro Plan. He suggested that the Springfield Planning
Commission take additional time to deliberate the matter and reminded the commissions that it was
essential for elected officials to support the proposal.
Commissioner Carmichaei thanked staff for their compelling presentations and agreed with
Commissioner Beyer about the magnitude of the issue and the need for support from elected officials. He
suggested that the commissions take an additional seven days to review the language, leave the record
open, and then meet individual to vote.
Commissioner Lawless agreed with commissioners Beyer and Carmichael that it was important to take
additional time to carefully consider the implications of a Metro Plan amendment and the proposed
language. He suggested that the Eugene Planning Commission also deliberate the matter independently
and supported the seven day extension of time.
Commissioner Herbert moved that the Lane County Planning
Commission recommend approval of the Metro Plan Growth
Management Policy 15 amendment to provide greater flexibility in
service delivery for a public safety district.
Commissioner Kirkham declined to accept a motion until deliberations had been concluded.
Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienicki agreed with Commissioner Carmichael that the commission should
extend the comment period and deliberations for seven days and tighten the language and discuss the
matter separately. He repeated his request for a copy of the June 28, 2004, Eugene City Council work
session minutes.
Commissioner Cole said his main concern was uncertainty about how many districts could .be created
under the amendment and wanted to see revisions to the language that would restrict the amendment to a
single district.
Commissioner Decker remarked that a recommendation from the planning commission to the council
carried some weight and she agreed with the need for additional time to review and discuss the proposed
Metro Plan amendment.
Commissioner Moe said it was the consensus of the Springfield Planning Commission to delay action on
the amendment.
Commissioner Lawless said it was the consensus of the Eugene Planning Commission to delay action on
the amendment.
Commission Hudspeth disagreed with Commissioner Lawless. He said he did not feel that action should
be delayed and the commission should move forward with a vote of support and further deliberations
would occur when the issue came before the City Council.
Commissioner Herbert moved, seconded by Commissioner Esty, to
recommend that the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopt the
Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15 amendment to provide
greater flexibility in service delivery for a public safety district.
Commissioner Herbert expressed confidence that the commission had the support of local elected
officials, specifically the Board of County Commissioners. '
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 6
Commissioner Becker asked if the motion reflected certainty that the applicable criteria had been
satisfied. Commissioner Herbert replied that it did.
Commissioner Arkin expressed appreciation for comments from staffand elected officials and supported
the concept of increasing taxes to support public services. She was hesitant to vote affirmatively only
because she felt more time was needed to discuss the implications to assure that the language was
appropriate to the commission's intentions.
The motion failed,, 5:3; commissioners Betz, Esty, and Herbert voting in
favor.
Commissioner Carmichael moved, seconded by Commissioner Siekiel-
Zdzk/nicki, that the Lane County Planning Commission extend the
deadline for public comment for seven days and reevaluate the matter at
its next meeting.
Commissioner Siekiel-Zdzienicki stated that he always voted for taxes as taxes operated the government.
Commissioner Herbert said he did not perceive a negative vote on his motion as being against the
proposal; he was sensitive to the need to move forward with the matter given the number of jurisdictions
that would need to be involved.
The motion passed, 7:1; Commissioner Betz voting in opposition.
Commissioner Beyer moved, seconded by Commissioner Decker, that
the Springfield Planning Commission leave the public record open for
seven days and take up the item at a future meeting. The motion passed,
5:0.
Commissioner Belcher moved, seconded by Commissioner Duncan, that
the Eugene Planning Commission leave the public record open for seven
days and work with staffto schedule deliberation of the matter on a
future agenda.
Commissioner Duncan thanked staff for the information provided to the commission. He said that the
language of the proposal would be reviewed to assure it was acceptable to .Eugene's elected officials,
which was why additional time had been requested.
The motion passed, 4:1; Commissioner Hudspeth voting in opposition.
Commissioner Kirkham adjourned the joint public hearing.
Commissioner Moe adjourned the meeting of the Springfield Planning Commission at 8:25 p.m.
Commissioner Lawless adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 8:25 p.m.
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
m:12OOS~joint meetings~planning commissions~jtpcphO 502O l. doc
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing February 1, 2004 Page 7
MINUTES
Lane County Planning Commission
BCC Conference Room - Lane County Courthouse
March 15, 2005
$:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Steve Dignam, Chair; James Carmichael, Vice Chair; Lisa Arkin, Ed Becker, Jozef Siekiel-
Zdzienicki, Marion Esty, Juanita Kirkham, members; Stephanie Schulz, Staff; Bill Van
Vactor, Doug Harcleroad, Rob Rockstroh, Russ Burger, Lisa Smith, Jim Gangle, Alex
Gardner, Anna Morrison, Karen Gaffney, Ralf Christensen
ABSENT' Mark Herbert
I. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004 MINUTES
Mr. Dignam convened the meeting at $:30 pm. He asked for public comment on issues not being
discussed that evening.
There were no members of the public wishing to speak.
Mr. Dignam noted that that Commissioner Jacque Betz had resigned from the Commission and took an
opportunity to thank Ms. Betz for her years of service.
Mr. Becker, seconded by Ms. Kirkham, moved to approve the minutes of
November 16, 2004. The motion passed unanimously.
II. DELIBERATION/RECOMMENDATION - Amendment to the Eugene Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan Policies to clarify and provide a greater flexibility in
service delivery for a public safety special district. (Metro Plan Growth Management
Policy 15, Page H-B-5 or Periodic Review Revised Metro Plan page II-C-5.)
Mr. Dignam noted that additional information from Bill Van Vactor and Kent Howe had been distributed
to the commissioners.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding action taken by the Eugene and Springfield Planning
Commissions on the issue, Kent Howe said the Eugene Planning Commission had recommended adding
language to 15(f) by adding a single county wide zone of benefit. He said the Eugene Planning
Commission had unanimously recommended that language. He said Springfield Planning Commission
had recommended the same language. He noted that, after that action had been taken, there had been a
recommendation to have further discussion over the term 'single, county wide, district' because it might
create an inconsistency in the Metro Plan. He said the suggested language was a 'single district within
the County.' He said both commissions had unanimously voted to move the matter on to elected officials.
He said staff had determined that the two criteria for approving an amendment had been met.
The criteria were:
1. The amendment must be consistent with the relative statewide planning goals adopted by
LCDC
2. The adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
In response to a question from Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki regarding whether the Eugene Planning Commission
had discussed the compression aspect they would face, Mr. Howe said that was not within their purview.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding whether some cities could opt out of the special district
and would therefore not be served, Mr. Howe said this was why the Springfield Planning Commission had
suggested the wording of 'a single district within the County' rather than a single County Wide district.'
In response to a question fi.om Ms. Arkin regarding whether services would be available to cities that opted
out of the special district, Bill Van Vactor said, from a practical point of view, if one or two small cities
opted out then there would be annexation issues later if they wanted to be included. He said if larger cities
did not consent then that would effectively kill the proposal.
In response to a question from Ms. Esty regarding whether there was a timeline for cities to be included in
the district, Mr. Van Vactor said no timeline was set but noted that there was always the option of filing an
annexation application with the Boundary Commission.
In response to a question from Mr. Becker regarding whether the concerns of the Eugene City Council had
raised were addressed, Mr. Howe said the meeting packet contained the answers to the questions had been
asked by elected officials. He noted that no policy language had been changed as a result of questions
asked.
In response to a question from Mr. Dignam regarding what the staff recommendation was, Mr. Howe said
the intent of the language was clear enough that the County needed to be unanimous with the other
planning commissions, but offered the caveat of considering the language suggested by the Springfield
Planning Commission regarding the wording of a single district within the county.
In response to a question fi.om Ms. Arkin regarding what would happen if the voters did not approve the
amendment, Mr. Van Vactor said voters might not approve the amendment. He said the only way to get
funding for public safety was a special district. He added that the suggested language by Springfield
should be added. He said the district was a last resort but was a viable option if it was financed. He noted
that if the amendment were approved now then the matter could be put before voters numerous times.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding the costs of getting the matter to the voters, Mr.
Dignam urged the commission to focus their efforts on the two criteria described by planning staff. He
said there was a broad scope of information within public safety financing but stressed that they were not
in the purview of the planning commission discussion.
Ms. Arkin said she was trying to determine whether the special district would be viable if it were not
approved by the voters.
Planning Director Howe reiterated that the proposal was an option for financing public safety services.
MINUTES--Lane County Planning Commission March 15, 2005 Page]..,
Mr. Becker said he was convinced that the staff recommendation was the best way to proceed.
Ms. Kirkham agreed with Mr. Becker and said it was not the place of the planning commission to word
craft the amendment document.
Mr. Carmichael said the testimony provided had been among the most compelling that he had ever heard.
He said the testimony should be given to the public to ensure that there was public support. He stressed
the importance of the issue. He said he agreed with Ms. Kirkham that the planning commission should not
try to wordsmith the recommended language but said he was in favor of adding the suggested language in
section F of the document.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he was in favor of the suggested language addition so the whole thing would
not fail if a large city opted out.
Mr. Dignam said he was in favor of approval of the document. He said there was no conflicrwith either
of the criteria identified by staff.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin regarding compression and whether the tax rate would be the
same for people in rural districts as people within a city under compression, Mr. Howe noted that the
hearing was closed and said any answers provided by Mr. Gangle would be open to rebuttal.
County Counsel reiterated that the record was closed. He questioned how Ms. Arkin's question was
relevant to the criteria for approval identified by staff. He said there was some legal risk in getting an
answer to Ms. Arkin's question in that rebuttal to any new information had to be allowed.
Mr. Carmichael said the answer was not pertinent to the planning portion of the discussion that the
commission was deliberating that evening.
Ms. Arkin withdrew her question and stated that she wholeheartedly supported the district. She
commented that if the matter did not feel fair to the citizens, then they would not vote for it.
Ms. Kirkham, seconded by Mr. Becker, moved to approve the amendment as
proposed in Revised Attachment A.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki said he would support the motion but raised a concern that Eugene and Springfield
residents would not vote in favor of it.
The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES--Lane County Planning Commission March 15, 2005 Page~l
(Planning
& Devel pment
Planning
City of E~ugene
99 West 10th Avenue,
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5481
(541) 682-5572 Fax
March 28, 2005
Mayor Piercy and City Council
Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Subject: Special Districts
Dear Mayor Piercy and Councilors:
On February 28, 2005, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to you to
approve, with minor amendments, language to amend the Metro Plan as proposed by
Lane County related to a Public Safety Service District. During our deliberations, we had
discussion on additional items that, as a group, we decided to bring to your attention.
The public safety services to be dealt with in this amendment are services the County
already provides, and the City does not, as required by State Statute. However, the
language to amend the Metro Plan should not be limited to those solely required of the
County under State Statute. There are some minor, and very beneficial, services provided
by the County related to public service that reasonably should be included in the district
if it moves forward. We believe that the proposed language allows these non-mandated
services, but are concemed once the district is formed this language does not prevent the
County from adding additional services - both safety related and otherwise - without
concurrence from the cities of Eugene or Springfield. We asked staff to develop
additional language for your consideration that addresses this concern.
In our role as Planning Commissioners, an advisory body to the City Council on land use
matters, the recommendation represents compliance with the land use findings in the
Metro Plan; it is not a recommendation on the financial, political and other issues related
to forming the district. The historic basis for Policy 15 of the Metro Plan has changed
over time and we believe a very specific amendment for the reasons illustrated by Lane
County seems reasonable and consistent with other Metro Plan principles. This is not a
growth inducing amendment; it is consistent with the major tenants of the Metro Plan, per
our findings.
Current legislative structures indicate the County Board will be the governing body over
the district. If the district is formed, we suggest you consider what role the City Council
should have in decision making for the district to protect City interests related to
administration of our current services.
Please do not hesitate to contact one of us should you have any questions or concerns
over our deliberations. This letter is intended to supplement the minutes and written
material you will be receiving on this matter. Thank you for your consideration.
~e~ne ?lanning Commission
c: Eugene Planning Commission
Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director
Dennis Taylor, Eugene City Manager
Tom Coyle, Eugene Planning and Development Director
Susan Muir, Eugene Planning Director
AGENDA COVER MEMO
(SUPPLEMENTAL)
DATE: April 19, 2005 (second reading, public hearing)
TO: LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KENT HOWE, LANE COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1221 -- IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
(METRO PLAN) TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE GREATER
FLEXIBILITY 'FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN .AREA (METRO PLAN,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, POLICY 15).
Attached are draft alternative language options requested by the Eugene
and Springfield Planning Commissions for your consideration along with
the Draft minutes of the Eugene Planning Commission deliberations on the
above referenced proposed Metro Plan amendment. We will supplement
your packet when we receive the Draft minutes of the Springfield Planning
Commission.
Attachements: A) Alternative Language Options for Proposed
Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15.f.
B) Draft Eugene Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment A
Alternative Language Options for
Proposed Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15.f.
Both Springfield and Eugene Planning Commissions had concern over the
specificity of the district described in the proposed new Metro Plan, Growth
Management, Policy 15.f. Bo, th Commissions recommended limiting the
proposal to a single countywide district. The Springfield Planning
Commission suggested the language in Alternative 1 to alleviate potential
problems if not all of the cities in the county are included in the district.
In response to the Eugene Planning Commission (EPC) request, staff have
developed alternative language for your consideration that might address the
EPC concerns regarding a limitation on the public safety services the County
could add in the context of the "including but not limited to" phrase of the
proposed policy amendment. The EPC recommended deleting or modifying
that phrase.
The EPC understood that the County should not be limited to those services,
most of which are required by State Statute. They recognize that there are
additional and desirable public safety services that augment the mandated
services. They understand that the proposed language allows the non-
mandated services, but are concerned that the language does not prevent the
County from adding additional services, including non public safety services.
Staff provide you the following four alternatives for the proposed Metro Plan,
Growth Management, Policy 15 f. amendment recommended by the Lane
County Planning Commission, if the LCPC language is unacceptable.
(Bracketed language would be deleted, underlined language would be added.)
The alternatives present increasing limitations on creation of a public safety
service district within the Metro Plan boundary. The amended language in
Alternative 1 reflects the Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions'
concern regarding the single district and is also included in the subsequent
alternatives.
1. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related
policies and text in this Plan, a single district or zone of benefit within the
county may be created and maintained to provide preventive and reactive
public safety services, including but not limited to, adult and youth
corrections services, crime prevention, prosecution, detention, supervision,
mental health and alcohol and drug services, victim services, drug court,
interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest.
Alternative 2 provides examples of the types of preventive and reactive public
safety services, implying other public safety services could also be included.
2. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related
policies and text in this Plan, a single district or zone of benefit within the
county may be created and maintained to provide preventive and reactive
public safety services, including [but not limited to,] adult and youth
corrections services, crime prevention, prosecution, detention, supervision,
mental health and alcohol and drug services, victim services, drug court,
interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest.
Alternative 3 provides specific examples of the types of preventive and
reactive public safety services and implies a more limited list of qualifying
services.
3. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related
policies and text in this Plan, a single district or zone of benefit within the
county may be created and maintained to provide preventive and reactive
public safety services, such as [including but not limited to,] adult and
youth corrections services, crime prevention, prosecution, detention,
supervision, mental health and alcohol and drug services, victim services,
drug court, interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and
arrest.
Alternative 4 specifically limits the types of preventive and reactive public
safety services to those listed in the policy.
4. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related
policies and text in this Plan, a single district or zone of benefit within the
county may be created and maintained to provide preventive and reactive
public safety services, which shall be limited to [including but not
limited to,] adult and youth corrections services, crime prevention,
prosecution, detention, supervision, mental health and alcohol and drug
services, victim services, drug court, interagency narcotics enforcement,
patrol, investigation and arrest.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium Building-99 West 10t~ Avenue
February 28, 2005
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi Colbath Vice Presi~:~ii'Jon Bel~r, Rick Duncan,
Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, members; Tom!iCoyle, ex offi~i er; Susan Muir,
Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Devei~ent ~artm Mc!~eel, Pub-
lie Works Department; Glen Potter, Fire and Em §ervices D
Harcleroad, Alex Gardner, Kent Howe, Faye Stew~~B.i.~]~Van Vacto'r,'¥~iWils~n,
Rob Rockstroh, Lane County; Terry Connolly, ch~i , Lara SkinnerS'Dave Van
Sorkle, Tim Seabury, Terry Froemming, guests.
ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGEND& ~EMS
I. DELIBERATION/POSSIBLE X~TION: PUBLIC-'S~ETY SPECIAL DISTRICT
METRO PLAN
Mr. Belcher moved, second~ by Mr. Hledik, to delete "including but not limited
to" from the proposed language in the first sentence of Policy 15.f. The motion
passed unanimously, 6:0.
II. DISCUSSION: KEY CODE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Duncan moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, to approve the Citizen Involve- .~
ment Program for Phase 2, Key Code Amendments to the Lane Use Code. The
motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
IlL ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
1
SUMMARY MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 1
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium Building-99 West 10th Avenue
February 28, 2005
I 1:30 a.m.
PRESENT: John Lawless, President; Mitzi C ~lbath Vice President; Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan,
Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, ~nembers; Tom Coyle, ex officio member; Susan Muir,
Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Plan aing and Development,Department; Gary McNeel, Pub-
lie Works Department; Glen Port ~r, Fire and Emergeae~Services Department; Doug
Harcleroad, Alex Gardner, Kent towe, Faye Stewart, Bill Van Vactor, Teresa Wilson,
Rob Rockstroh, Lane County; Tc try Connolly, Charles Biggs, LaraSkinner, Dave Van
Sorkle, Tim Seaberry, Terry Froe mming, guests~:~:~!~:.
ABSENT: Anne Marie Levis, member.
Mr. Lawless convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11 ~.33;a~
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA IT r~MS
Mr. Lawless introduced the item and explai~;fi e process for public comment.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eu~g~!;eX~ 'essed concern that the purpose statements did not meet
the criteria for nodal development.
Mr. Duncan arrived at 11:35 a.m.
Ms. Muir reported that the City Coundl, Would c induct a work session on April 11, 2005 on the Chase
Node.
I. DELIIBERATION/POSSIBLE ACT [ON: PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
Ms. Colbath declared a potential conflict of inte'est as she was currently working under contract as a
financial advisor with the City of Coburg. She ~ded that she had read the minutes from previous
meetings at which thc topic was discussed.
Ms. Muir reported that she had discussed Ms. lbath's potential conflict of interest with the City
Attorney, who had ruled that Ms. Colbath could ~articipate fully in the discussion and vote on the topic.
Ms. Muir said that thc role of the Planning Corn aission was to make recommendations on the criteria in
the Metro Plan, noting that thc proposed Metro i lan amendment had bccn initiated by Lane County. She
added that staff replied heavily on Lane County for support in processing the request.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 1
Ms. Muir distributed a document entitled Revised Attachment A and Attachment B to the agenda
packet.
Ms. Muir introduced Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, who said he was here to answer any
questions Planning Commissioners may have regarding the proposed Metro Plan Amendment.
In response to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Muir said that City of Eugene staff concurred with the'
recommendations developed by Lane County staff.
Mr. Belcher observed this was a fundamental change in how specialdi~tfi~ts were used.
Mr. Hledik noted Policy 15 had been crafted when circumstance~i~Were different, wi~ eparate fire and
....... ~.i~ii~':;. ~i~. . , ~,:~i?~. . ~
water d~stncts, and the c~t~es were logastmal providers of those s~ees..~e quest~on~!~.~this amend-
. . '?i~!::. ~ .~:: i~::,:,'' :"~,: ~:
ment was really necessary, asking ~f an alternate way to address th~i~iie had been consi~d/~t2ed...
Mr. Lawless said this proposal provided a way to clarify service d~StriCt~:~bss the county which
currently was unclear, adding that this provided a method to untangle Lan~*~un~ s .c~d'ces across
multiple jurisdictions. ~ ....... ~.~ ~.~ ,:~:~ ~ ,~:~:
Mr. Duncan said he was inclined to support the proposal but was~bothered~by the structure.
Mr. Lawless said the proposal offered more clarity oathe issue of single.versus plural service districts,
but expressed concern that the proposal woulc~:open the d~for a flood of other requests.
Ms. Colbath noted that in other jurisdicfi6~, services such as~iibfades and sewers were commonly done
on a county-wide basis. :~!i~ ~e Pl~g Commission may see more of this type of request as a
land use issue rath~!~~ 'issue in the future.
Mr. Duncan ~ed if the City Attomey'~d reviewed the proposed amendment, noting that he wanted to
see a narrow interpretation. Mr. Yeit~ ,e,o_ nfinned that the proposed amendment had been reviewed by
the City Attorney.
Mr. Coyle saidi~[i~lar issues in many other states were handled outside of the land use process,
adding this be~gger questio~ that being was there a need to focus on special districts.
Mr. Belcher said the r~ ~n was not land use but fiscal issue, noting it was challenging to refrain
from making the ~ onerous. He asked if the proposed amendment would create one or
more districts or if it was.~untywide.
Mr. Howe replied that the amendment would create a single district that encompassed the whole county.
At the suggestion of Mr. Belcher, the Commission unaminously agreed that the word "single" should be
inserted in the first sentence of the policy amendment to make it clear that only one district were
contemplated.
Both Mr. Belcher and Ms. Colbath expressed concern about the language "including but not limited to"
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 2
in Policy 15.f of the proposed amendment text.
Mr. Howe said that other countywide districts could be created in the future, citing as an example, that
the county could create a library district in the future.
Mr. Yeiter added that the language in the Metro Plan may not preclude the county from providing
services within the county but outside the Metro areas. Referring to the February 16, 2005 staff report
from Mr. Howe, Mr. Yeiter reiterated that "most of those services are mandated by constitutional or
statutory provisions that establish county authority to provide the service."
Mr. Duncan expressed concern on the Policy 15.f language "including but not limited to", and wanted it
to be clear to the City Council that the Planning Commission did its work.
In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe said if a dispute arose between the City of Eugetie~and Lane
County regarding service districts, the dispute would go to the MetrOpolitan Planning COmssion
(MPC).
Several commissioners expressed concern that this was being brought to the Planning Commission as a
land use issue. Ms. Muir stated that Mr. Van Vactor's memorandum to the Lane County, City of Eugene
and City of Springfield Planning Commissions, page 1-10, in th~ggenda packet, outlined the Lane
County's reasoning in using the approach.
Mr. Howe explained that Lane County would negotiate with each of the'twelve cities involved for
creation of additional special districts. He said the special~'districts ~would have governing bodies, but
each city would have contracts with Lane County, noting that written agreements would provide the legal
support for actions between the county and the cities.
Mr. Belcher emphasized that itwas important to include safeguards to allow the City of Eugene to
control those services within the City boundaries.
Mr. Belcher moved, seconded by Mr. Hledik, to delete or modify the phrase "in-
cluding but not limited to" from the proposed language in the first sentence of
Policy 15.f to narrow the scope of the district to just those public safety services
discussed during the hearing, those that the County was obligated to provide, and
those that the County already provides. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
The Commission asked County staff to work on the appropriate language that would satisfy this motion
by making the policy clear about the narrow scope of services covered in the new exception. The
language would be provided to the elected officials.
Mr. Belcher expressed concern that the proposed amendment created more than the Oregon Revised
Statutes (O.R.S.) mandated services, and wondered how the roles of the cities and the county would be
defined related to police patrol and arrest.
Mr. Coyle said this presented a case for saying that everything would connect to land use, and that the
costs incurred would be at the expense of other services the city strongly wanted to provide.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 3
Mr. Belcher stressed the importance of advising the City Council that the Planning Commission did not
strongly support all of the issues identified by Lane County.
Mr. Coyle left the meeting.
In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Ms. Muir said a letter from the Planning Commission would
be sent to the City Council, adding that the issue had not yet been scheduled on the City Council
calendar.
In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe said the proposed amendments would be
considered by the Springfield Planning Commission on March 1, 2005 and b~tho::Lane County Planning
Commission on March 15, 2005. :::::::::::::::::::::::
Ms. Colbath reiterated the Planning Commission's contention that the proposed ametidment wa~:a land
use issue only, and that the Planning Commission did not support now and would not suppo~!:~::the
future creation of a taxing district. ;,:;~ :: :~
There was consensus to support a change offered by Mr. Belcher on Attachmefi;~l~B, Findings in Support,
item six as follows: Goals of proposed change are to allow fo= 9 new financing::~ehiele without
undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro P!~,
Ms. Muir noted consensus of the Planning CommissiOners on the remaind~ of the findings.
Mr. Howe said he would convey the concems..of the Planning Commission to the Lane County Planning
Commissioners.
Mr. Belcher expressed appreciation to the Lane County staff for the hard work they put into drafting the
proposed amendment language,
Mr. Hledik leR at 12:40 p.m.
II. DISCUSSION: KEY CODE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Nystrom stated~that, the Planning Commission was acting as the Citizen Involvement Committee
(CIC) for the Key Code Amendments process.
Mr. Nystrom reviewed the process and identified the three key milestones: · Solicit amendments to be considered from the public, noting the staff list was completed.
· Prioritizing the combined lists of the community and staff, noting that the resulting list will be
too long to complete.
· Consultant preparation of potential solutions and Planning Commission review of the recom-
mendation.
Mr. Coyle returned.
Mr. Nystrom said the public involvement process would include a number of workshops, meetings, and
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 4
public hearings that would likely mn into the fall. Staff had identified the need to hire a consultant to
serve as a project manager to perform the bulk of the work due to the sheer volume of work involved.
The background of the consultants considered for the project manager would likely be land use
consultants, architects, aha or other qualified individuals.
In response to a question from Ms. Colbath, Ms. Muir said that the Planning Commission would see the
entire list of proposed amendments. Ms. Muir added that staff would work with the consultant to
establish screening criteria.
Mr. Nystrom said the council buddy relationships would be very important during ..~..'s process, and
would be beneficial in getting informal feedback from council members :
Mr. Coyle said that the level of discussion was lower than policy issues but highe~:th..~an the Land Use
Code Update (LUCU) process, in which there were line by line discussions. ' 'ii~i?~:
Mr. Nystrom said that the website would be updated to include code amendment information.
Mr. Belcher said the proposal was a giant leap forward in the public process, and noted that use of the
website would be important. He thanked staff for the effortsin completing the code'amendments.
Mr. Nystrom said the Planning Commission's suggested organizations would be added to the interested
parties list.
Ms. Muir asked Planning Commission membem to send names of additional interested parties to her.
Mr. Duncan moved, seconded by Ms. Colbath, to approve the Citizen Involve-
ment Program for phase. 2, Key Code Amendments to the Lane Use Code. The
motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Commission
Ms. Colbath reported that she would be traveling to Washington, D.C. with the United Front lobbying
group.
B. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Muir reported that fee increases were tentatively scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2005. The
increases reflected increasing cost recovery from 24 percent to 40 percent. Comments had been received
from three people, two opposed to the fee increase, and one in favor of the action.
Mr. Muir reported that State of Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) had
upheld the minor housekeeping amendments that had been appealed by the Home Builders Association of
Lane County.
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 5
Ms. Muir said that the Planning Commission would be discussing Goal 5, buildable land supply issues, in
the near future.
Mr. Lawless questioned the timing of the role of the CIC in relation to the Parks planning process.
Ms. Muir said that the CIC was dissolved in July 2004, as a result of city wide budget cuts. She added
that the land swap discussion had been taking place for several years with the Parks and Open Space
Board (POS).
Mr. Yeiter said the role of the Planning Commission as a CIC was tied to land use decisions, noting that
the original parks plan was not intended to be a land use decision.
Mr. Lawless said it was not clear when the Planning Commission:i::~hould get involved in a number of
processes. He said it was important that the Planning CommissiOn!cover all of its bases, or that they
cover no more than they have to
Mr. Coyle said only 20 percent of the projects that come into the permit and Information Center for
review and approval ever come about, making it challenging on deciding at what point the Planning
Commission should become involved. Mr. Lawless stressed the need for conversations about CIC issues
and the importance of the Planning Commission not engaging in projects that never got done.
Ms. Muir said she and Mr. Ny3trc, m Yeiter attended most of the POS meetings related to the POS plan,
noting that it was not being done without public involvement. She added that POS staff had met with
interested citizens to review the survey instant that had been discussed at a previous Planning
Commission meeting. :::
Mr. Lawless adjourned the Planning C6~iOn meeting at 1:30 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m: ~20051planning and development departmentlplanning division [planning commission~l~OSO228.doc
MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission February 28, 2005 Page 6