Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: Metro Pln Amend.Pub SftEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Discussion Concerning Metro Plan Amendment for Public Safety Special District Meeting Date: May 23, 2005 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 ISSUE STATEMENT Lane County proposes a Metro Plan text amendment to allow formation of a countywide special district limited to public safety activities (i.e., police patrol, enforcement, and corrections). Each Metro agency (Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County) will act separately. Direction by the Eugene City Council is requested at this meeting so that an appropriate ordinance can be prepared. BACKGROUND The three Metro agencies' elected officials held a joint public hearing on this proposed amendment on April 19, 2005. Responses to questions asked at that hearing have been prepared by Lane County, and those responses, as well as draft minutes of the hearing, are attached. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended approval if the proposed text were amended to limit the extent of the special district. The commission acknowledged that the relevant Metro Plan policies were written prior to major changes in Oregon's property tax structure, and that many of the services covered by the proposed amendment were already provided by the County. On May 10, 2005, the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted the ordinance as previously drafted, without the policy text changes as recommended by the Eugene Planning Commission. The Board directed the County Administrator to prepare a letter to the cities offering alternate policy language addressing the loss of funding due to compression. The County ordinance will not go into effect until the board holds a fifth and final "reading" of the ordinance. Springfield is scheduled to consider the amendments on Monday, May 16, 2005. Metro Plan policies regarding service provisions are currently structured to closely follow land use laws. The two cities are expected to eventually provide all services within their respective Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and provide few services outside the UGB. Several circumstances have arisen in recent years that question whether these policies are too strictly written and enforced; for instance, new property tax limits (Measures 47 and 50) for which special districts may offer some relief, re- examination of regional fire services, and attempts to form countywide rural library services. There has not been a comprehensive evaluation of services in light of Eugene's existing Metro plan policy structure. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050523\S050523C.doc RELATED CITY POLICIES The proposed Metro Plan text amendment would change existing policies, which now favor City provision of all services within its UGB, to allow a special district to provide the County's public safety services. Other current policies and restrictions on service districts would remain in effect. COUNCIL OPTIONS For the amendment to be effective, all three jurisdictions must adopt identical Metro Plan amendments, so options are limited or must be negotiated with the other jurisdictions. Failure to agree will send the amendments to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for conflict resolution. Lane County suggests that time is of the essence and requests immediate action. Option 1 Direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance approving the proposed Metro Plan text amendment pursuant to the Lane County proposed amended ordinance. Option 2 Direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance approving the proposed Metro Plan text with amended language to reflect the direction of the Eugene Planning Commission. Option 3 Direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance denying the proposed Metro Plan text amendment. Option 4 Postpone action and request more information. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends Option 1, that the council indicates approval of the Metro Plan text amendments as proposed by the County. An ordinance containing the County's proposed amendments will be crafted for future approval on a consent calendar. The City Manager also recommends, through council direction to the City Manager, that the City of Eugene take a positive leadership role with the other Metro partners in exploring new methods of financing and providing services outside the pressures of individual proposals for Metro Plan amendments. SUGGESTED MOTIONS Move to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance approving the proposed Metro Plan text amendment pursuant to the Lane County proposed amended ordinance. Move to direct the City Manager to comprehensively explore with the City of Springfield and Lane County new methods of providing and financing government services. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050523\S050523C.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Letter from Lane County Board of Commissioners, dated May 10, 2005 B. Responses to the joint elected Officials' questions on the proposed Metro plan amendments for the proposed public safety district (prepared by Lane County) C. Draft minutes of the April 19, 2005, joint elected officials' work session D. Draft minutes of the April 19, 2005, joint elected officials' public hearing E. Draft County ordinance (previously distributed for public hearing) FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Telephone: 682-8379 Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050523\S050523C.doc Lane County Board of Commissioners ATTACUMr NT A Bill Dwyer Bobby Green, Sr. Faye Hills Stewart A~.a Mo~iso. May 1 O, 2005 Peter Sorenson Mayor Piercy Mayor Lieken and Eugene City Councilors Springfield City Councilors Eugene City Hall Springfield City Hall Eugene, OR 97401 Springfield, OR 97477 Subject: Proposed Metro Plan Amendment for Lane County Public Safety District Dear Mayors and Councilors, Today, the Board of County Commissioners deliberated and took action to modify the proposed Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.f. language to address the expressed concerns of Compression. This change to the proposed Ordinance No. PA 1221 will require the Board of Commissioners to conduct a 5th Reading before enacting the ordinance with revised language. We have scheduled our 5th Reading for June 1, 2005, and would be able to take final action at that time unless further changes are made. We hope this addresses most of the concerns with compression and Public Safety District formation sufficiently to reach consensus on the Metro Plan amendment. We hope to be able to continue working with all the cities on all the specific issues related to district formation. The revised Exhibit A to Ordinance No. PA 1221 showing language to be added to Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15.f. would read as follows: 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. The District shall pay for effects of full compression loss to taxing districts~ not withstanding the loss as the result of urban renewal or enterprise zones. The Board made no changes regarding the alternatives addressing the specificity of the district or the restrictiveness of the list of public safety services because we believe the language is adequate as written to address those issues. If these issues are a concern to your city council, however, the Board wants you to know that we are amenable to reasonable changes. We await further comment and the direction you can provide through your deliberations. Thank you for your considerations. rely, Anna Morrison, Chair Lane County Board of County Commissioners H:~PS\Spec District~BCCLtronPSDMay 10_final.doc PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING / 125 EAST 8TH AVENUE / EUGENE, OR 97401 / (541 ) 682-4203 / FAX (541) 682-4616 ATTACHMENT B Joint Elected Officials Questions on Public Safety District Proposed Metro Plan Amendment Work Session/Public Hearing April 19, 2005 Work Session Questions (answers in italics): 1. How do you reconcile that the need is financial, however, the evaluation criteria are land use?. (Bettman) Existing Metro Plan policies may limit the formation of any new districts regardless of the financial need or services proposed to be provided. The Metro Plan limitation may affect the ability of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to use districts as a mechanism to help finance essential public services. While there might not be Metro Plan conflicts with the formation of this particular countywide public safety district, Lane County felt it prudent to address language that could present the most significant potential for debate. In fact, the services that would be included in a Public Safety District are already provided almost exclusively by Lane County and primari[y benefit the local cities. This sort of district formation restriction in a land use plan is unique to the Eugene- Springfield metropolitan area. Ultimately, the decision to amend the Metro Plan is a policy choice that can be based on a number of considerations. 2. Does it matter that the need has nothing to do with land use? (Bettman) The Metro Plan provisions drag us into this discussion because it may limit new district formation. These policies were developed in a pre-ballot measures 5/47/50 environment. The need and description of services is relevant to explaining the context for the amendment, as well as the scope and nature of services contemplated by the text proposed for addition to the Metro Plan. 3. In the 1st Whereas in the Order: what is the boundary of the proposed service district? (Bettman) All of Lane County. 4. Who pays for the public .safety services for someone who lives inside the donut hole and commits a crime outside the donut hole? (Bettman) Initially, depending on the location, local police agencies, including the Sheriff, state police, and parole & probation might be involved and share the cost of investigation. Then, in most cases offenders and victims would depend on the County for incarceration, prosecution, supervision, treatment and various other services as ordered by the courts. Page 1 of 10 5. The proposed amendment is glaringly inconsistent because if it were consistent, you wouldn't need to render all the policies that the amendment is inconsistent with, moot. Policy 15 a, b, c, and d are basically neutralized with the "notwithstanding" language. How is that internally consistent within the Metro Plan? (Bettman) Basically, the Metro Plan does not address all public safety services. The fundamental Metro Plan principle establishing two cities as the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development does not address or preclude the types of services contemplated in the proposed countywide safety district. The fact that the cities do not generally provide the contemplated district services is evidence that these services are not an element of an urban level of development; but rather they are basic, on-going county services regardless of development levels. Keep in mind that cities are not the only providers of services inside the city. (i.e. schools, electricity, water, park & recreation services). The "notwithstanding" language clarifies that the public safety services described in proposed policy 1509 may be delivered by a county service district. If the Metro Plan were amended, it would clarify that the services proposed by the County then would be consistent with the Metro Plan. The proposed public safety district policy does not affect compact urban growth or other fundamental principles of the Metro Plan. 6. The services "including but not limited to", lists services that are provided by the cities. The list of services seems inconsistent with the rationale that the list of specific services is limited, but yet the services include those on the list but are not limited to those services. (Bettman) For the most part the listed services in the proposedpolicy 1509 are provided by Lane County pursuant to constitutional or statutory mandates. Further limiting the services to those listed was offered in order to provide the elected officials the flexibili~, to restructure the amendment, if necessary. The purpose of the amendment is to recognize the public safety services are mainly provided by Lane County and clarify the cities are not the only appropriate or logical provider of those types of services. 7. Some of the services are provided by an urban entity. If an urban entity funds services, is it not a provider of the service? (Bettman) Providing some funding for services is not necessarily the same as providing the service. Cities provide some funding for some of the described services but the bulk of funding for, and the delivery of the contemplated services is provided by the County (District Attorney prosecutorial function, youth and adult incarceration, parole & probation, alcohol & drug treatment, and other youth and crime prevention services.) Services are delivered directly through the County workforce or through contracts with some agencies or non-profits. Under the Metro Plan the term "provider of service" is not clearly described or very well defined. Page 2 of 10 8. 70 percent of the County's General Fund represents $35 million. How much will the new Public Safety District displace of the $35 million and how much from the new revenue stream will be substituted for the $35 million? (Bettman) Lane County is still working on the mix of services and the level of services to be included in the proposed Public Safety District. It is our hope to work out with each of the cities what the level of service needs to be. Some public safety services may still need to rely on significant amounts from the County General Fund. 9. It seems that it is a slight-of-hand to use the "notwithstanding" language to make the proposed amendment not internally inconsistent. Would like legal feedback. (Kelly) The "not withstanding" language was selected to draft as narrow an amendment as possible. The purpose is to make it clear what the public safety services are, and who might be the main funder or provider of those services. Exception language in the Metro Plan is not that unusual. Other exceptions include water and wastewater services to the Eugene airport, the Metropolitan l'Vastewater facility, water service to the water districts of Hillcrest, Bethel, and Oakway, and the extension of wastewater and water to areas outside city limits to residents of Santa Clara and River Road. In addition, kVillamalane and River Road Park and Recreation Districts also provide services inside the urban growth boundary and cities as well. Electrical services are delivered by a variety of service providers. 10. Does it matter, legally, what the definition is of who provides services? If you provide funding are you a provider of the service? (Kelly) In the land use arena, provider of services may have no particular legal meaning except as the Metro Plan describes the two existing cities as the "logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development." The Metro Plan recognizes several entities as service providers without clearly defining the term. (Please refer to answers to work session question No. 7 above). The services described and contemplated by the proposed amendment address public safety service needs regardless of the level of development. 11. Packet does not provide a description of the tax rate for the district, what services will be provided, or what services the cities now provide would go away because of compression? (Kelly) Detailed information regarding tax rates and compression are issues to be discussed with the cities in the second step of the process. It is not anticipated that city services will be eliminated because Lane County anticipates working with each city and addressing concerns to each participant's mutual satisfaction. Measure 5, which is Article XI, section 1 lb of the Oregon Constitution, limits the amount of property tax an individual property owner must pay. Taxes billed to an individual Page 3 of 10 property are first placed into the categories of general government, education, and unlimited. The general government category is for taxes imposed by all non-education local governments. The education category is for taxes imposed by school districts, education service districts, and community colleges. The unlimited category is usually for taxes imposed to repay general obligation bonds. If the taxes extended against a property are more than allowed in any category, then the taxes in that category are reduced to the limit. This process of reduction is called "Measure 5 compression." Local option taxes are reduced first. If the taxes in the category are still too high, then permanent rate limit taxes are reduced proportionately. The limit for the general government category is SlOper $1,000 of real market value. The education limit is $S per $1,000 of real market value. What makes estimating the compression losx so difficult is that property taxes are first calculated using the permanent rate limit and assessed value rate from Measure 50, where Measure 5 limits are based on the rate limit by category and the real market value. 12. What is the specific list of public safety services that are required by statute? (Bettman) Prosecution, parole &probation, incarceration, including County jail and SBl145 functions, youth services, mental health crisis response, and while not specifically described in ORS, most alcohol & drug treatment by court order from a state judge. 13. A) Doesn't it cost more to provide services inthe rural area than in the urban area? It is not clear that the cost in the rural areas is more. It would depend on the specific service under discussion. ,4 majority of the crimes and clients served by the listed public safety services occur or come from inside the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. B) Did the Planning Commissions address any of the financial issues? Financial issues were discussed but no conclusions were reached. C) The Planning Commission only applied the Metro Plan amendment criteria? The planning commissions applied the land use criteria, recommended approval based on compliance with those criteria and the Eugene Planning Commission sent a letter explaining some of their discussions. All the commissions discussed financial concerns but each decided those topics were not part of their charge of issues to resolve. D) Did the Planning Commission compare the services being recommended verses those required by statute? (Bettman) Page 4 of 10 Yes, there was a discussion and recognition that some services are necessary and compelled by statute, while others are not mandated but are appropriate for the district. It was felt that the non-statutory services are equally important and should not be excluded from the district. 14. Ifa city opts out of the proposed district, do the citizens of thc city get to vote on the proposed district? (Woodrow) No. The district boundary would be drawn to exclude the city. Only citizens within the district would be eligible to vote on the district formation. 15. If there is a countywide vote, but some cities opt out, isn't the County still mandated by statute to provide the public safety services? (Bettman) It depends on the service and the resources available. There are mandates in Oregon law. Few of those mandates define the required level of service. Currently the District Attorney's office is processing drug crimes as violations, which may be prosecuted as felonies in other parts of the state. Citizens within the area excluded from the district would receive some level of services funded by the County. The public safety district is being proposed because stability is needed in the system that serves cities and unincorporated areas. If cities opt out the solution is weakened. That is why Lane County would like to work with cities to find common ground on the ultimate composition of the proposed district. 16. Why did Lane County decide to do the Metro Plan amendment first, before going to the 10 small cities to get their support first? (Bettman) Only the Metro Plan has the potential to preclude any further conversations. The next step would be to go to the cities. 17. Could there be a defacto shifting of funding if one community got into compression and the full funding responsibility wasn't able to be put on that community, and would that responsibility shift to other communities that weren't experiencing compression? (Pape) The way compression works is as follows: Ifa property is at compression, no additional taxes are collected. This would reduce the tax collection. There is no shifting of the financial responsibility from one jurisdiction to another to make up the difference. Compression is localized to a geographic tax code area with a specific mix of taxing districts. Reduction in funding occurs on a proportional basis among all districts in that area and no shifting occurs within the property tax. 18. What ideas does the County have to address the effect of compression for Eugene that would mitigate the $6.3 million per year? (Kelly) Page 5 of 10 A combination of Lane County assuming public safety responsibilities that are currently paid for by the city (i.e. jail contract, INET, etc), and cash payments equal to the loss under compression. The amount lost to compression would change each year as the government property tax billing rate, the real market value and the assessed value change. Further discussion with each of the cities on this issue will need to take place in the second step of the process. Public Hearing Questions (answers in italics): 1. Do the same amendment criteria apply to a fire district, library district or park district? (Sorenson) Yes. 2. Is the creation of a public safety district within urban growth boundaries consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals? (Sorenson) Yes. Statewide Planning Goal 11 only requires a Public Facility Plan for water, wastewater and transportation, as the primary growth-inducing services. None of the goals require any particular resolution of public safety service issues and leave that to local discretion. 3. Was there any testimony at the planning commissions about growth inducing policies outside the urban growth boundaries to create a public safety district that would extend outside the urban growth boundary? (Sorenson) No, there are no other comprehensive plans in Lane County that address this Mnd of district formation. Therefore, outside of the Metro Plan area, public safety services are a matter of local discretion. Because the proposed Public Safety Service District does not affect services that are growth-inducing, the amendment is consistent with the fundamental principles of the Metro Plan. 4. Will ask city staff a question on the effect of compression on future city levies? (Bettman) Compression data has been provided and will be part of the ongoing discussions. 5. County sponsored HB3301 would remove the prohibition on overlapping districts and would eliminate the cities authority to approve or disapprove. The proposed Metro Plan amendment removes Policy 15(b), which requires the 3 Metro Area general-purpose governments to concur with the proposal to form the service district. Doesn't the proposed amendment override this provision and result in the City giving up its authority? (Bettman) Page 6 of 10 No, since each city still must concur in the Metro Plan amendment and adopt a resolution supporting formation to be forwarded to the Boundary Commission. (See ORS 199.462 (2)(a)). One of the criteria for Boundary Commission approval is consistency with the ' applicable comprehensive plans. After that, the voters make the ftnal decision. 6. Could creation of Public Safety District be made contingent on gaining all of the other city approvals of the proposed Public Safety District? (Sorenson) Currently, if all the cities are to be part of the district, we need resolutions from each city to proceed to the Boundary Commission. Lane County has the option to exempt cities that do not want to participate. To create such a contingency could increase the burden in getting the district established. The Springfield Planning Commission recommended adoption of language that would make it clear that not all cities would need to participate. There might be a point where district formation may not be reasonable if too many cities opt out. 7. If the cities approve the district formation, would the Board of Commissioners set the level of taxation and the level of compression, or do the cities have a role? (Sorenson) Yes, at the time of application to the Boundary Commission the County would initially propose the tax rate. The cities, 'however, have a role because consent is required for the resolutions of support needed to go to theBoundary Commission. The level of compression is calculated under Measure 5 and is a function of all taxing district rates, including the public safety district rate. It varies from year to year The cities have a role in that changes in billing rates, changes in local option rates, and changes in urban renewal all affect the level of compression. If the Boundary Commission approves the formation, then the tax rate is proposed to the voters, along with the question of formation. 8. What role do the cities have in setting the rate once they agree to the formation of the district? (Sorenson) It is anticipated as part of the city resolution process that Lane County and the cities will have discussed and resolved tax rate issues. (See answers to public hearing question No. 7 above for more). 9. What language in Policy 15 is restrictive? (Bettman) The current language in Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15, makes it unclear whether a new district would be consistent with the Metro Plan, which seems to make the policy restrictive. Note also there are three alternatives that could limit the scope of services in proposed policy 1509, presented in increasingly restrictive language. 10. Is the $20 million that would be generated for the Public Safety District in addition to the $35 million already spent for public safety from the County General Fund? (Bettman) Page 7 of 10 (See answers to work session questions No. 8 & No. 12) 11. Is there anything that the cities have that could pre-empt the effects of compression if the Public Safety District levy is approved? (Pape) It is anticipated that when we work with the cities to obtain resolutions of support, and any necessary intergovernmental agreements, the County and cities would address the impact of compression. 12. Is compression based on market value? (Ballew) Yes, compression is based on the real market value and the Measure 5 limits. Property tax is first computed using assessed value and the billing rates and then compressed using real market value and the $10. O0 government limit. 13. As market value fluctuates, doesn't it affect the amount of compression? (Ballew) Yes, changes in real market value affect the amount of compression. Each year, an increase in real market value beyond 3 percent will decrease compression for most properties. Increases in real market value of less than 3 percent will increase compression., 14. What is the tax rate that would generate $20 million for the Public Safety District? (Ralston) $1. OO per thousand, based on 2004 values. 15. Can the County, independent of the Public Safety District, soften the problem of compression for fire protection districts, Willamalane, etc.? (Sorenson) Yes, Lane County can approach the fire districts, Willamalane and other districts and suggest plans to address compression through intergovernmental agreements. 16. Can the County give money to other districts or the cities? (Sorenson) Yes. If Public Safety District funds were used, those funds wouM be limited to expenditure for purposes outlined in the Public Safety District description. 17. What will be the effect of compression on the Glenwood Urban Renewal District? (Lundberg) District formation and application of the tax rate may have the effect of increasin~ revenue to urban renewal districts. Urban renewal increases compression for the other governmental districts. Urban renewal dollars collected from education districts are moved from the education limit and compressed under the government limit. As a Page 8 of 10 government district, the Springoqeld Economic Development District's Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan area will participate in compression like any other governmental district. 18. What is the ceiling of the deficit of public safety services the County is trying to plug with the Public Safety District? No total number has been put to the need that the County has identified? (Bettman) At the current funding level offering limited public safety services, Lane County shows a $3. 7 million deficit in FY07-08 and continuing deficits thereafter. That is why the County is pursuing the Public Safety District concept. The actual rate and revenue necessary to address citizen public safety need is still developing. We will try to include amounts necessary to address compression and other city concerns. In addition to future deficits, decades of cuts have left the public safety service system full of holes. With losses in each area, there have been subsequent impacts on the amount of services cities obtain from the County in areas such as prosecution, parole & probation, incarceration, including County jail and SB1145 functions, youth services, mental health crisis response, child and adult victims services, and drug treatment. 19. Are we asking approval of the district before we know what the financial costs of the services are? (Bettman) No. Lane County is only requesting approval of the Metro Plan amendment to clarify that the services proposed by the County would be consistent with the Metro Plan. Next, financial issues of each city could be addressed when we seek resolutions of support. Because of the length of time land use matters can take, we thought it was prudent to address this issue first. If the apparent limitations of the Metro Plan are addressed, we can work out specific city issues with district formation to obtain the resolutions.of support necessary to proceed to the Boundary Commission. 20. Would this policy amendment allow the County to locate correction facilities outside the urban growth boundary? (Sorenson) No. This Metro Plan policy amendment does not directly affect location of correctional facilities. Although there are no such plans, if the Public Safety District wanted to build a new facility it would have to locate the facility where it is consistent with the applicable zoning. For example, when Lane County located the Forest Work Camp, it was consistent with the applicable statewide goals, land use plan & zone district. Testimony: 1. Fred Simmons 2. David Hinkley 3. Charles Biggs Page 9 of 10 4. Laurie Seigel - Metro Plan, Chapter 3, Section G, Public Facilities and Services Policies are impacted by the proposed amendment and the proposed amendment would be inconsistent with this section of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan chapter on Public Facilities and Services does not expressly address public safety services. It expresses policies primarily on sewer, water, transportation, planning & coordination, schools, and solid waste. Approaching the issue from the perspective of Statewide Planning Goal 11 would only require a Public Facility Plan for water, sewer, and transportation. There is no discernable inconsistency with chapter 3, section g in a policy that would authorize formation of a public safety district 5. Rob Handy 6. Mona Lindstromberg 7. Jim Hale Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT C JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING April 19, 2005 5:30 p.m. (Commissioners' Conference Room) City Councilor John Woodrow called the meeting of the City Council of Springfield to order. Present: Anne Ballew, Joe Pishioneri, and Dave Ralston. Sid Leiken and Tammy Fitch were excused. City Councilor George Polling called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Present:: Bonnie Bettman, George Poling, Andreh Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gary Pape, David Kelly and Betty Taylor Commissioner Anna Morrison called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order. Present: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Faye Stewart and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer. 1. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/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) (NBA & PM 4/5/05). Kent Howe, Land Management, explained the purpose of the proposed plan amendment is to clarify the formation of a Public Safety District that would be consistent with Metro Plan policies. He noted there are no policies in the Rural Comprehensive Plan or other small city plans that addresses special district formation. He said it was only the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan that has policies that address district formation. He indicated at the time the Metro Plan was developed, it didn't contemplate the need for special service districts that would be providing public safety services nor did the Metro Plan contemplate the financial constraints that would be placed on local government. Howe noted the Metro Plan has policies that specifically limit the formation of special service districts regardless of the nature of the services provided. He added the Metro Plan contemplates special districts for urban services and growth management. He indicated that Policy 15 appropriately limits their formation and links them to future annexation requirements in order for cities to measure growth-reducing services. He explained the services are limited to and consistent with benefits in reaction to public safety services to provide context for determining services that would be consistent. He noted the proposed amendment does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield or their ability to annex land or to control the proliferation of other growth inducing special districts. He said there were two criteria that were applicable to the authorization of the Metro Plan amendment: that the amendment is consistent with the statewide Page 1 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T planning goals, or that the amendment would not create an inconsistency in the Metro Plan Howe indicated on February 1 there was a joint public hearing with the Planning Commissions. He added all three Planning Commissions deliberated separately and recommended approval of the proposed amendment, that it met the land use criteria for approval of the Metro Plan. He said they identified concerns that were centered on three general areas of the proposal: the "notwithstanding" exception language that is in the proposed policy; the single countywide district and the list of services that has "including some of the concerns that the Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions had with the language. He said there was a recommendation bom the Eugene Planning Commission that there be a single countywide district. He added the recommendation from Springfield was that in case there was a city that was not within the district, so there wouldn't be a potential Metro Plan conflict inthe ~ture; make it a single dis~ct within the County. Howe said the second alternative wasto delete the '~but not limited to" language so it would read that those services are included. He noted the third alternative was instead of using the word "including", to use the words "such as". He noted the fourth alternative stated that "shall be" be changed to "limited to". Howe explained that tonight's meeting and public hearing is to take testimony to improve the policy amendment lan~age that Lane County is proposing for the purpose of providing a better financial situation for public 'safew,:in Lane County. He indicated the elected officials had in their packets materials provided to the Planning Commissions at the February 1 public hearings; the staff responses to questions that they raised at the public hearing, the minutes ofthe public hearing and the draft minutes of the three Planning Commissions' deliberations: Howe indicated the. main premise is for land use. He said it is a Metro Plan policy that is being proposed to be amended and the mo criteria to be focused on is if the land use amendment is consistent with the statewide planning goals and if it would create an internal inconsistency in the Metro Plan. He noted if the elected officials find that those two are met, then the policy is worthy of being amended in the Metro Plan. Bettman commented that the need for the County is financial but the decision in the Metro Plan is land use, She said it didn't make sense to her. Howe responded there are criteria in the Metro Plan for amending it. He said the need is something they will, have to determine. He explained this was unique as the services of the district are not really metro growth inducing services. He added that the policy of the Metro Plan addresses that. He indicated the County was being cautious in making the Page 2 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Metro Plan amendment because they don't want someone to say that it is inconsistent with the Metro Plan. Bettman asked what the boundary of the safety service district would be. Howe explained it was all of Lane County. He noted there will benegotiations with each city. He said if it ends up a city doesn't agree, it would create a hole in Lane County. Bettman commented if they were inconsistent with the Metro Plan they wouldn'l: have to include language rendering all of the policies of the amendment. She said When they say it is notwithstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related polices and texts of this plan that it makes a, b, c, d, and e of PoliCy 15 neutralized. She added it also neutralizes many of the other Metro Plan policies. She thought that made it a glaring inconsistency with the Metro Plan. Howe explained this would be an exception to the other policies as it would.be~ a creation of a new special service district. Bettman indicated that earlier they made the point the services they are going to provide are specific services that are not urban services and not providedby cities. Jennifer Solomon, Peter Sorenson arrived at 6:10 p.m. Bettman asked how much the district would displaCe of the $35 million and how much would be coming to the revenue stream with the substitute part of the $35 million. Bill Van Vactor, County istrator, responded the specific details have not been worked out. He indicated they had to first work with the Metro Plan amendment then they will work on the reSOlution of support by the 12 cities of Lane County. He said at that point they would discuss whatithebalance of services should be and work those issues out. Kitty Piercy arrived at67~5 p.m. Kelly commented that on the Metro Plan criteria that the amendment shouldn't make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. He asked if it mattered legally what the definition of who provides the services is. He wanted legal feedback. He added that the Metro Plan talks about who the logical prOvider of various services is. He didn't think the distinction was made that just because~they provide money for a service, they are not necessarily a provider. He wanted to, know if there was any case law. He was dismayed that in the packet there Was no description of what the tax rate could be, what services it would provide, orwhat services that the cities now provide would go away because of compressiom~He said it made him uncomfortable to have the discussion without any documentation. Page 3 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Bill Grile, Development Service Director, City of Springfield, indicated the Springfield Planning Commission took this up and they passed it by unanimous recommendation to move it forward. He noted the Planning Commission stated this was primarily a budget issue for the elected officials to deal with. He said there was a recommendation to the Springfield City Council that the language would state there would be a single service district within the County. Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene, noted the City of Eugene Planning Commission had similar concerns as the Springfield Planning Commission. He said they noted the Metro Plan policies were written at a simpler time and it reflects services~the County is currently ~ providing. He said they thought an amendment to the Metro Plan made sense. Christine Lundberg arrived at 6:20 p.m. Yeiter indicated that the Eugene Planning Commission was the first to deliberate on the proposed amendment. He said they weren't ab~ie Xo wordsmith adequately. He said the concern was to constrain the special districts~s0 that other services that wouldn't be provided by statute are not pulled in under a broad language. He noted the closest to that was Option 4. He stated the Eugene Planning Commission discussed the public safety district as too broad a term. Bettman asked if it would cost more for rural services than for urban services and if the Planning Commissions discussed' this. Yeiter responded they didn't address any financial issue~. He said they considered growth inducing impacts and wordsmithing. Bettman asked if they were comparing services with what the statute stated. Yeiter indicated they discussed what~,:Was required by state statute and the list might have · ' beefi~t°o constrained for what could:be allowed with the exception. He said there are -, . current services that are provided that arenot required that are logically provided by state ',,, ,, statute. - ::!:i~}· ;ii:,,,,, Bettman asked if this language was internally consistent. She stated she would submit ¢ ~::~ ~4 : questions and wanted responses back. '~ i ,.:: :, :~ Alex,iGardner, Deputy District Attorney, commented that this was a rational process. He ~indicated·if there was a better alternative that he was willing to hear those ideas. He n~Sted'that service in Lane County is cost effective. He urged the elected officials to do an analysis of what it takes them to prosecute each case. He added that they are failing to prosecute over 100 cases per month and 60% to 70% of those cases come from the Eugene/Springfield area. Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Kelly agreed there needed to be improved public safety. He suggested doing it in a way that doesn't require a change in the fundamental structure of government. He thought there could be a serial levy an income or sales tax that wouldn't change the Metro Plan amendment. Bettman asked how the voting would take place. She asked if elected officials had to opt in and if they were included in the vote. Van Vactor responded that if the city council adoPts the resolution it is part of the application and the Boundary Commission authorizes the ballot. He added if a city council does not vote for it, that jurisdiction does not participate in the vote. Bettman commented in the past that when the County had a bonameasure the commissioners were not campaigning for it. She thought if they supported their own ballot measure it would pass. She said they need to establish credibility with the voters and work hard. Dwyer explained that the County has grown over 25% with the same amount of revenue that they are trying to manage with. He said they are trying to provide the same current levels of services. He added the County receives $1,27 per thousand ~ncluding bonding. He stated the Coburg Fire Department receives more per thousand than Lane County. He said they have to still provide public safety, the District Attorney's office, the jail, the Department of Health and Assessment and Taxation. He commented that the system is currently broken and it is not acceptable. He recalled that the Metro Plan was put together with the three major metropolitan areas so they don't have competing districts to compete with what the cities are going to provide. He said they have to consider the mechanism question on whether they should form this district. Green commented that.a sales tax would never pass in Oregon. He noted Lane County's public service budget is around $38 million just for public safety. He added the discretionary general fund is $50 million and 75% goes to public safety. He said they would be willing to give 'the services back to the cities to see how well they could do. He said the challenge is whether or not they could afford to do it. He said they are trying to get to a solution. Bettman said if the County starts to impact their budget, she wondered if Lane County looked at the priorities and if they are providing just the services that are mandated. She commented that she sees Lane County spending money that is frivolous. She asked if the County was still mandated by statute to provide public safety services. Van Vactor responded that crimes will be committed and to the extent they have the resources they will prosecute and incarcerate them. Page 5 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Bettman commented that services are more expensive in the rural areas and there would be non-conformity in the cities. Pryor stated this problem was not just the County's problem. He said it is everyone's problem. He said they have a jail that can't accommodate all of the criminals they do have. He said the dilemma for him is not an issue of being opposed to the idea; he said it is a matter of being skeptical with the idea. He said the County is asking cities to consider making a fundamental change in the core services the cities provide in the first place, which is public safety. He said the County is asking the city governments to look at making a fundamental change in what they had been for years believed was their core function. He wanted to make sure every option was considered before they continue :to go forward. Dwyer said Lane County is mandated to prosecute all the crimes in Lane County including cities' crimes even if they were to option out. He asked what other ideas they could come up with. Lisa Smith, Department of Youth Services, stated that the Department of Youth Services serves the entire community and they are the authorized provider of the services. She said they have had significant reductions ~ services and they lost the psychiatric hospital. She noted they have no sobering programs for youth in the community. She added the drag court is in peril and there are changes and reductions to the Oregon Health Plan. She stated their current prevention program, (which is best in the system) has been cut. She noted that for Youth Services this year they will have $1 million in reductions because of federal grant conclusions. She added in the last biennium they had a 50% reduction ~n secure custody beds and some of those were from the state. She stated that 250 beds were lost. She indicated when she came on board four years ago the cap was at 75 and today for Lane County it is 31. She explained that it wasn't because there wasn't a need it is because the state had a financial crisis. She said they lost half of their Pathways residents and all of their girl shelter programs. She commented that everything is interrelated when there are cuts. Kelly commented what is making this challenging is the intermixing of two different things. He said it would-be up to the voters to decide what they are willing to pay for services. He added itwas up to the elected officials to decide collectively what mechanism they would use to pay for the service district. He said they have to determine what is the best mechanism to collect the money. Bettman stated she supported all the services but she said they were discussing a land use issue to the Metro Plan and any other testimony is irrelevant to the criteria. She added the public hearing should be limited to the Metro Plan. She didn't know what other comp plans there were for other jurisdictions. She asked why Lane County hadn't gone out and gotten the approval of the cities so they could come to Eugene and Springfield. She said Page 6 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T that would eliminate the inequity in Florence and other cities. She asked why they were working on the Metro Plan amendment first. Morrison indicated they had been talking to cities. She said ~ere are multi-tracks because of timing. She indicated there is discussion with the:Regional Managers Meeting and the outreach had started to other city councils. Morrison recessed the meeting for the Lane County Board of Co~issioners at 6:45 p.m. Piercy recessed the meeting for the Eugene City :Council at 6~ p.m. Woodrow recessed the meeting for the Springfield City Councit at 6:45 p.m. Melissa Zimmer Recording Secretary Page 7 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T ATTACHMENT D JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING April 19, 2005 7:00 p.m. (Harris Hall) City Councilor John Woodrow called the meeting of th~ ~i~ Couh~il 6~ Sp~eld to order. Present: Anne Ballew, Christine Lundberg, Joe Pishioneri ahd Dave R~!g~ ~id Leiken and Tammy Fitch were excused. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugen~ Qi~ ~¢i~ i° order. Pri Bettman, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gar~ ~ar~ ~avid Kelly, Jennifer and Betty Taylor Commissioner Anna Morrison called the meeting of the Lan~ Cou~ ~ ~ommissioners to order. Present: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Peter S~enson, Faye S~ewartan~ Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer. 1. SECOND READING AND PA 1221/In the Matter of Amending the Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibi in the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area (Met~ ~ianl y 15) (NBA & PM 4/5/05). Kent Howe, Land Management, the purpo~ ~ ~ii~ is to hear and take testimony on the proposed to the Metro Pi~ ~ ~de~ ihe purpose of the amendment is to of a Public Safe~ c0~nty Service District is consistent with Metro it was unique in Lane County that they have to go the Metr6 ~!~ ~Ii~ies were cre~ted at a time when they didn't contemplate the dis~ that ~rovide public safety services nor did the Metro Plan service .late the financial cons ~that would be placed on local government. He explained it Metro Plan policies ~ ~ecifically limit the formation of special service districts the nature of the ~c~g provided. He added the contemplated public safety He noted the services are consistent with and public safety services. He noted that list is included and not Ii~i~ !~ ~ti~ ~ge that is intended to provide the context for determining the services that ~!~ ~ ~~t with and be complementary to the contemplated services. Page 1 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Howe stated the proposed amendment does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to other growth management policies or their ability to annex land or control the proliferation of other growth inducing special districts. He noted thatmost of the public safety services are mandated by statute and the cities do not provide the contemplated ~ublic safety services. He said the County is already providing these services in.~ Edgene Sp~ngfield metro area. He indicated the applicable land use criteria fo~ decisi°h °n th~~ed amendment is that it is consistent with the statewide goals ~d i~ will h°t e~t~ ~ internal inconsistency within the Metro Plan. "including but not limited to." He noted the packet materials Contain fo~ alternatives that increase in their restrictiveness Commissioner Anna Morrison opened up the P~Bli~ ~ng f°~ E~e County Mayor Kitty Piercy opened up the Public H~ f°r the ~ ~i~ ~il Councilor John Woodward opened up the P~!i~ ~ea~gg for the sprih~l~ City Council. Bettman commented that the two. ~ they are m~g their d~O~h on for the Metro Plan amendment is that it is consisten~,~th the state consistent with the Metro Plan. She said they should B~hearing with state land use goals, the policies in the Metro p}an the ~dment in front °~ihem and all of the land use issues. She noted it is a discrete piece ~hat ~heY ~ ~Onsidering. :onsisten~ ~ ~ ~0als to create a public safety district within urban ~ ~¢onded ~i~i~ are silent on that issue. en suggested discussing are being noted in the special district. He was willing 'n~ow the focus down to a ~g~ issue. iii an Vactor, County Admi~i~tr~, remembered in 1982 when they were drafting the on said at that point in time that the citizens in that area could form st urban levels of service outside of the cities. He said the net effect would on the edge of the Metro Plan and violate the compact urban growth policies, is why there is restrictive language in Policy 15 about district Page 2 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T formation. He added in 1982 local governments had the option of asking their citizens to approve a tax base by putting it on the ballot, there was no need for a plan amendment. He noted in 1982 tax bases grew by six percent. He commented it was a differf~t financial environment than it is now. With regard to Measure 5 passing, Van Vactor said it imposed the taxes, $10 to general government and $5 to schools. He said w~th ~hsure have increased the tax base. He noted in 1996 Measure 47 ch~ thin l islature put out to the citizens a measure addressing the issue Measure 50. He said that passed and that is now the m~ ~itec~ ~fthe today. He noted that act had the effect of producing all ~s§~gg~d v~lUatiOn on a average by 17%. He said it capped the property tax growth :at 3~ ~i~§ new constructi{ said it created that there is no legal way for Lane County t~ i~ i~ ~anent tax rate. stated they are stuck forever at $1.27 per thousand, number 35 out of 36 counties for low tax rates. He indicated costs for Lane County >ercent and it is hard to control costs at six percent with the revenu~ around three that every year they have to reduce services in order fo~ ~em to ~eP their He added they had done that the past three years He said they face the future of continuing to erode Van Vactor distributed a revised charter fo~ ~S~al Year ~ taxes and the rates and where Lane County ranks among ~°thnti~s. ~ ~0~ty is proposing an ORS. 451 County Service District. : : Ioard of ~ Commissioners would remain in charge and there wo~ld be no new go g body °~ layer of government to coordinate the service delivery syst~ servic~ p;~;gp~emment and h~ ~ ~sive infrastructure and it shouldn't be subject to the core citizen~ no~ :ap~ing the renewal and the loss of the core service. risk ;ompression and it would be a less stable :;V~ ~actor described Public Safety District with three major hurdles: getting the : ~o Plan Amendment, th~ g~ary Commission process that involves getting the resolutions ~ai~ ~uld then determine ~at the rate would be and how each city would be affected by ~ ~si~ ~a~'~d how they could ~e the proposal work for Lane County, Eugene and spri~?'. ~ indicated ~al ~ith all 12 cities is to work it out so it is a win-win for all of the juriSdictiOnS:. ~ S~d ~ ~fted this in a narrow fashion and it didn't touch on any of the other polici~ ;.~i Page 3 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Bettman noted the County sponsored a bill, HB3301 in the State Legislature that would enable special districts by removing the prohibition on overlapping districts, meaning that it could take in the City of Eugene. She added there was a provision in that bill that was onerous because it eliminated the cities from their jurisdictional authority to approve or d~aopro noted there is a promise that that provision would be taken out. She thou mt that says "Notwithstanding the above provisions of this policy ~dall in the plan" meant that nothing in the Metro Plan would apply She said it removes Policy 15b) that says the three metropoI~t~ ~a concur with the proposal to form the service district requirement for compliance for Policy 15. She said th~ ould and Eugene adopted the Metro Plan Amendment, they ~¢~ t~i~ th~elves out and agreeing to give up jurisdictional authority. Van Vactor stated the state law would remain in effect wh~l~e ~ ~i~i~ ~6~ have to give their consent before the County could go to the Boundary CommisSion. Bettman said Lane County's provision would ha~ ~~n ~is provisio~ ~ith to the safety district Van Vactor explained that their provision in th~ ~etro the provision with regard to a public safety district, not ~ith ~er Bettman thought they would be a~eeing to gige up t~ei~ ~n authori~ She requested that the City's legal team give them a comp~ensive explanation regaling ~at the state statute says and how adopting this amendment ~lfl impact thei~ abili~ ~ ~uthority in this decision. Sorenson asked if there could be ~ option for the Count~ an~ ~° cities to make the creation of this district contingent upo~ ~ii ~th~ ~i~es approving it. He wanted to make it clear that the district doesn,t come into effe~ ~il ~ ~the general-purpose governments prove it by a certain date. :: to red~a~ ~ l~guage in the proposed Metro Plan ent to they to the Boundary Commission until they application is ~ist~nt ~ith the appli~hble comprehensive plan. He said they wanted ..to have the more flexible lan~ag~ ~ :case all of the cities didn't approve. ~asked what in Policy i~ ~ ~he subsections was restrictive. ~*rh~ ~ught the langu~ ~ ihe amendment was restrictive. Bettman tho the lan e~ m~Pohcy 15 was permissive. Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Van Vactor responded that it was the overall context of Policy 15 that lists: "Will be considered only when and states sections a to e. He thought that was restrictive, as they had to meet all of the conditions. Jim Gangle, Assessor, explained if the district chooses a particular rat~ h~ aaia th~ would be a County. (Copy in file). He noted that compression would ~ on thc l~al option l~ies first. He noted the City of Eugene has a youth and library 1°~ ~i~9n has the police and fire local option levies and those di~s st~ ~mP~esSing compression moves into the permanent authority. Bettman asked if Lane County would continue to spend what ~ ~ spen~ng now., She also asked if the level they would continue to fund public safet~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ounty s general fund would include $20 million. She asked if this would be $~0 milll~ ~ ~erVices. Gangle indicated it would be $20 million of servie~ ~ ~ ~ed back. Gangle said they want balance to ~ ~d they are ask~g to maintain balance across the whole public safety system. He said th~ ~ ~; work in C°n~ ~ ~ ~i~ies. He said they are not trying to work alone. Ballew asked if the would have any effect. Gangl~ r~~ i~e real mark~ ~ increasing faster than the t~ee percent limitation on the ~ss~ valU~ they ~uld :the Measure 5 cap. He added if the real m~k~ ~I~e¢fl~en~ or ~6ntinues to, 50 value sta~s bumping up against that ~ ~0ted that ~ ~ ~O~ty s prope~i~s ~till had gaps. asked if there was ~ ~ ~or the County in te~s of the deficit the County is tr~ng to accomplish with the splice distd~ have ~ed to :~ ~Y those splices that ~e most valuable to the citizens of the and outside~, ~i~:Understanding was the cities and the County would work to what ~0~:~:~e~ices are that would be best dealt with the Public Safety District ~!hoSe ~Ounts Iff:be built into the levy. Russ Burger, She~f~ ~ained the question is whether or not the Metro el~ could be mended to allow for the se~i~ ~dct. He said they have ideas about the need but they need a Page 5 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/~05035/T conversation with the cities before they come up with the plan that is best for Lane County. He said from the Sheriff's Office perspective, they have 119 empty jail beds. He said they are empty because they don't have the funds to staff those beds. He noteO they release under 4,000 offenders a year who have either not completed their sentence or have no~ gone ~o trial yet. He asked the question on February 28 about what is going on with County for unincorporated Lane County. He noted between had 1,056 burglaries reported and 1,107 thefts. He said they had from budget cuts last year. He added that the INET Enforce~n~ T~am cuts. He stated they have a large meth problem. He said no noted the cities of Eugene and Springfield pay rent for j people they want to keep in custody. He thought the service district that Springfield is discussing building a municipal jail. He said th~ it but they cannot operate it. He thought the service district could ray for :g small receive 8,000 cases this year. He s~ at the time the ~geIoad they have had 30% reduction in prosecution staff in ~ ~hal gone from 11 investigators in the criminal divisi~fi ~b one. He Attorneys have to do more of their own legwork~ ~ ~nted that the syst~ w~g being rendered less efficient them int6 infracti{ the c6inm6fiity index crime rate is soaring. He said it 'w~ ~ Problem that :finitely. Department ices, stated she represents the Juvenile Department for She added the provide are not duplicated by any other agency within the Cities of Eugen~ ~ Springfield. She said they are the authorized juvenile that has been hei~ r>~ th~ ~nty. She said the Juvenile Department's mission is to hold youth accountable, locki~ ~ ~ Juvenile offenders who pose the greatest risk to the community and Page 6 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T they want to provide treatment so juveniles leave the system with more skills than when they entered. She indicated that they provide a full range of rehabilitative and reformative services. She said the current system has such serious reductions that their miss/on is at peril. She noted since 2001, state closed custody beds through the Oregon Youth reduced from 75 to 31 due to the state's own fiscal crisis. She said they hav~ erous offenders that could go into the Oregon Youth Authority in the community. She added they also have 32 beds of detenti°n ~hat is She indicated with reduction of other services, in dealing ~th ~outh they have to meet, when they don't, there are no other options ~ deal with i~ ~h~ ~~ted that due to some of the reductions, they have become less ~fi~ ~ith thei~ Case pl'~ She : noted they have lost 11 staff members including a voluh~ee~ ~digat~. Probation Department to the County. He said he could only send it ba~ ~ th~ state if they cut the systems are collapsing because of state an~ federal cuts ~e ~at~ th~ ~ms are interconnected and they need each other an~ ~th~ don ~ w°rk tog~ ~ would be in trouble Doug Harcleroad, District what ~ ~ities ~ hearing was a group of people who want to build a h~i~ ~Ublic safety syS~ ~i~ ~hts for all citizens in Lane County. He said they wan~ ~ mi~ ~ervices and prevenfi6~ th~ Works and is balanced. He noted there are nine police icg i~e County with 400 sworn officers. He said they bring all of their felonies to the Dist~{~~ S 0ffice. He said they have to decide on the amount of the }~ ~~ ~ ~anted th~i~i ~ ~ make a decision on the land use issue and mix of they are going to make it happen. S compression and then violate the trust of I~¢aI voters. He thou to carefullY review this before they amend the Metro Plan. :~: ~ ~aid there are potential fin~aI ~ws that would reflect against the cities of Springfield and but Willamalane ParE~ and ~creation will run into compression. He thought on its face believe it has been thou~ out well enough. He said before they go to the Boundary and the people, t~at ~have a clear plan. Davi~ Hinkl~y, ~ne, c~ ~fl that the proposed Public Safety District is a disastrous proposai fo~ ~ ~i~fi~ i~. He said in the long run, this would undermine public support for ~it'y' ~ ~ ~ernments. He asked if the special district provided all of the services, why ~ld- ~ ~ovemment be needed. He commented that public safety is the single largest impedi~ f° local tax reduction measures. He indicated the public doesn't see all Page 7 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T the services that government provides. He said the money for public safety is there. He said the Board of Commissioners (if they wanted to) could fully fund public safety, but they don't want to. He commented the Board of Commissioners has chosen to fund alot of things inadequately. He thought the solution for the County's public safety funding probi~ is budgeting, not increased taxes. He said the Board needs (with input from the publ services and programs at what is a barely adequate level of~din fund each program until the money runs out. He commented that ~ levies keep failing is because it is extortion. He said until th. they haven't demonstrated to the public that they are Charles Biggs, Eugene, was opposed to the Public being didn't think it was only a Lane County concern. He thou~ °ther ~unties were in the situation. He didn't think this was the correct direction :. He thought the County should address where the problem lies with the :ounties in the state should get together to address the problem with the state. He rate development and that is current!~ ~ot the case. Rob Handy, Eugene, said i~ ~ 1!~ ~ make, the tax breaks they give and the caps at the state level with Measures 5, 47 and 5¢ ~ ~ ~ing dollars and making decisions about funding get the lax ra~¢ ~rs and get ~ B~ in from the other cities and make it upon their m~¢ing fo~d. He was ~ncerned that without the buy in from other ~iti~:s that Eugene would en3 ~ ?bsidizing some of their services and diminishing their ability ~e the discretionary fund. Mon~ LinS~omberg, Veneta, aS~ i~he Metro Plan was the best route if the language of the ~ ~as any unintended ~6~quences as it is now written. She said it was important to get t~ ~i~i~ on Board : Jim Hale, E~ge~ ~ge~ th6 6i~Cted officials to give the District Attorney and Sheriff the broadest possibl~ I~ ~6 solve a problem that applies to everyone in Lane County. Page 8 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T Mayor Piercy closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene. Councilor Woodrow closed the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield. Commissioner Morrison closed the Public Hearing for the Lane Count~B~ard ~ ' Commissioners. MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a ~eading ~ ~ii~ation on May 3, 2005 for Ordinance No. PA 1221. Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0. (Dwyer was out of room). There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adj;~rned ih~ ~i~ at 8:45 p.m. Melissa Zimmer Recording Secretary Page 9 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005 WD bc/m/05035/T ATTACHMENT E 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, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, 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 heating 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 15). 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."