HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C - Metro Plan/Spec. Dist.EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Examination of Potential Changes to Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan Concerning Special Districts
Meeting Date: June 28, 2004 Agenda Item Number: C
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Tom Coyle
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-6077
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
A work session was scheduled at Councilor Bettman's request to examine potential changes to the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) concerning changing the primary
providers of urban services. Staff understands the objective is for the City Council to determine
Eugene's appropriate role, timing, and level of involvement, including whether or not Eugene's citizenry
has adequate opportunity to be involved.
BACKGROUND
There are several recent or current inquiries about the Metro Plan's policies for providing and paying for
urban services, processing Metro Plan amendments, and jurisdictional roles in other regional planning
activities. These include:
· Exploration of a regional library district;
· Exploration of using a special district to provide Fire or EMS services (Eugene);
· Attempt to annex Fire services to Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District (Springfield);
· Region 2050, for regional growth management;
· Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) study of urban service providers; and
· Request by Springfield City Councilor for study of"pros and cons" of maintaining current Metro
Plan structure.
Council Action History
The Eugene City Council first explored options of using special districts to provide urban services to
lessen the impact of these services to the general fund. The council decided not to pursue these options
at this time. During a joint public hearing for the periodic review batch of Metro Plan amendments,
several elected officials suggested that LCOG prepare a scope of work for a study of how the Metro Plan
may be amended to allow the use of special districts. The desire for this study was again mentioned by
at least one councilor during the approval of the Metro Plan amendments for periodic review. The
LCOG study has subsequently been authorized by the city managers and County administrator.
Policy Issues
What is the City's role, if any, in preparation of the study?
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S040628C.doc
Council Goal Action Priority
The council removed this topic from Planning's priority work program in April 2004.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
It is anticipated that the LCOG study will be funded primarily by Lane County and the City of
Springfield. The outcome of the study, if changes are adopted, could affect future methods of funding
urban services.
Other Background Information
The City of Springfield's attempt to annex its fire services to the Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection
District was denied by the Lane County Boundary Commission in February 2004 because it was
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Metro Plan.
Timing
LCOG intends to start this project in July 2004, and has a tentative completion date of December 2004.
OPTIONS
The City Council has few options at this point because the study is sponsored by others. Any action
following the study will very likely involve the Eugene City Council and provide many options.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
SUGGESTED MOTION
None.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Cover Memo and Scope of Work for LCOG Study - Distributed to MPC
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Tom Coyle
Telephone: 682-6077
Staff E-Mail: tom.g.coyle~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040628\S040628C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Lane Council of Governments
99 East Broadway, Suite 400, Eugene, Oregon 97401-3111 (541) 682-4283 Fax: (541) 682-4099 TTY: (541) ~82-4567
May 5, 2004
TO: Metropolitan Policy Committee
FROM: Springfield City Manager, Eugene City Manager, and Lane County Administrator
SUBJECT: Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to
Urban Services Delivery
This memo reports on progress in obtaining agreement among the three metropolitan jurisdictions
on a scope of work for Metro Plan amendments related to urban service delivery. This item was
last before the MPC at its April 11, 2004 meeting. At that time, there was not sufficient time to
discuss the item. Subsequently, the City of Springfield and Lane County have decided to proceed
with the scope of work. Eugene will be available in a consultative role and will review the
proposed amendments when they are ready for formal review. Please see attached Scope of
Work: Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to Urban Services Delivery.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action requested. This item is presented for information only.
BACKGROUND
Administrative staff of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County met with Planning Directors to
discuss two issues raised by the elected officials at their joint meeting on February 10, 2004:
Metro Plan urban services policy and the need to clarify local autonomy in metro planning. The
attached Scope of Work incorporates the collective thinking of the staff group on the issue of
urban services. Regarding the issue of local autonomy in metro planning, the planning directors
are working with legal staff to prepare a memorandum interpreting current Metro Plan provisions.
That memorandum will be presented to the three elected bodies in the near future.
The existing urban services policy structure of the Metro Plan was adopted more than 20 years
ago. Since then, city services funded primarily with property tax revenue have been increasingly
subject to constitutional, statutory, political and practical constraints. These revenue constraints
are forcing local officials to make choices among important city services, including reducing or
foregoing some services in order to preserve or implement others. The City of Springfield and
Lane County have identified advantages in finding ways to provide services differently. The Metro
Plan sets broad policy direction for the provision of urban services in the metropolitan area, and
adjustments to these policies may be needed to accomplish local government objectives to provide
services differently in the future.
SCOPE OF WORK
The attached Scope of Work was developed by LCOG staff working in collaboration with city
and county administrative staff and metro planning directors. There was general recognition that
the work program timeline is ambitious with Metro Plan amendments submitted for adoption by
late fall, 2004. This timeframe allows for the City of Springfield to resubmit an application for fire
district annexation in early 2005, if the City decides to pursue such as application. In order to
meet the Boundary Commission's filing deadline for their February meeting, the application would
need to be submitted by January 4, 2005. This deadline is important for 2005-2006 taxing
purposes.
ATTACHMENT: Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to Urban
Services Delivery
LCOG: L:ICITYCOUNTYPLANNINGIMETROIURBANSERVICESIMPCMEM504.DOC
Last Saved: June 17, 2004
2
Scope of Work
Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to Urban Services Delivery
This Scope of Work responds to direction given by the elected officials at the joint elected
officials public hearing on Periodic Review Metro Plan amendments held on February 10, 2004
at the Eugene Library. Specifically, this scope addresses the non-Periodic Review issue of
Metro Plan urban service delivery provisions.
LCOG staff developed this scope in cooperation with the Eugene and Springfield City Managers,
Lane County Administrator, and the metropolitan Planning Directors.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this scope of work is to identify, obtain consensus on, and proceed expeditiously
to submit for adoption Metro Plan amendments to address the need to revise the Metro Plan
policy framework related to urban services.
The current policy framework for urban services in the Metro Plan dates back to 1982 when the
Metro Plan was initially adopted. Over the ensuing 22 years, the demographics of the region
have changed as have the legal and fiscal structures of the local governments. These changes
have resulted in a disconnect between the metro area's policy framework and the twin realities of
local government financing limitations and changes in the federal, state, and local legal
requirements and options. The objective of this project is to provide greater flexibility in
providing urban services and to be responsive to these changed conditions.
OBJECTIVES:
The specific objectives are:
1. To work collaboratively to improve clarity and flexibility in Metro Plan provisions
relating to urban service delivery, while maintaining the growth management principles
within the Metro Plan;
2. To provide information and build consensus on a framework for sound policy options for
local government services in the long term as well as the short term, including regional
service provision; and
3. To proceed as expeditiously as possible with Metro Plan amendments to implement
Objectives #1 and 2.
TIMEFRAME: May through December 2004
WORK PROGRAM:
Step 1. Form a Metro Services Team and Metro Services Policy Group May 2004
a. The Metro Services Team will include Development Services Directors, City
Managers, County Administrator, County Assessor, LCOG Executive Director,
and Springfield and Lane County Planning Directors. Eugene planning staff will
be available in a consultative role and will review the proposed amendments when
they are ready for formal review. The team will be facilitated by LCOG staff.
Local government legal and financial staff will review and help prepare
background materials and options.
b. The Metro Services Policy Group will include the metro area elected officials
serving on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) representing the Lane
County Board of Commissioners and the Eugene and Springfield City Councils.
The Policy Group will provide guidance to the staff team and will help to
facilitate consensus among policy makers. The Group will meet at key points in
the process to provide guidance and review and comment on materials and
proposals.
Step 2. Literature Search and Document Review May 2004
a. Research background on Metro Plan urban service delivery policy, including
Fundamental Principles of the plan that affect urban service delivery.
b. Review recent studies on the topic, including the LCOG "White Paper on Special
Districts" (February 2001), City of Eugene paper "A Review of Special Districts
as a Means to Deliver Urban Services in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area" (November 2001), and others.
c. Coordinate with and review written materials produced by or for the League of
Oregon Cities and Oregon Special Districts Association; and review Boundary
Commission standards and recent history of actions regarding special districts in
Lane County.
d. Research studies on the delivery of urban services in a property tax limitation
environment, including various models available for the delivery of urban
services from other states.
e. Summarize results in a draft paper, "Pros and Cons of Various Urban Service
Delivery Options."
f. Route paper to local financial and legal staff for review and comment. Make
revisions.
Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to Urban Services Page 2 of 4
Step 3. Convene Metro Services Team June 2004
Convene Metro Services Team in work session(s) to review paper and clearly
articulate the full scope of issues and services to be addressed in this effort. The
Fundamental Principles of the Metro Plan will serve as a guide for the scope of the
effort.
Step 4. Identify and describe Metro Plan policy framework related July-Aug 2004
to urban service delivery and prepare options or proposal.
a. Identify the text in the Metro Plan that addresses the issues, services, and
processes identified in Steps 2 and 3.
b. Present options or proposal for changing the text to address the issues.
c. Route paper to local financial and legal staff and Eugene planning staff and
Boundary Commission staff for review and comment. Make revisions.
d. Meet with Metro Services Team to review and discuss and to agree on an
approach or optional approaches.
e. Prepare proposed or optional Metro Plan text amendments.
f. Meet with the Metro Services Policy Team and legal and financial staff for review
and comment.
g. Revise proposal or options.
Step 5. Schedule public hearings and conduct stakeholder Aug 2004
and public outreach
a. Schedule joint planning commissions public hearing for
late September and send 45 day notice to DLCD.
b. Schedule joint elected official public hearing for October.
c. Prepare Public Outreach Plan and convene the Joint Planning Commissions
Committee to approve.
d. Convene group of key stakeholders, including service providers subject to
potential Metro Plan amendments and, if appropriate, the Boundary Commission.
e. Hold public event in early September, 2004 to obtain feedback on options
or proposal.
Step 6. Conduct local official review and adoption process Sept-December 2004
a. Prepare responses to public comments and issues.
b. Hold Joint Planning Commissions Public Hearing (decision on Metro Plan
amendments to be made the same night as and directly following the hearing).
c. Hold Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing in October.
d. Hold individual elected officials meetings October - November for
deliberation and decision.
e. Submit notice of adoption to DLCD
Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to Urban Services Page 3 of 4
BUDGET:
Staff time for this scope of work will be covered by the Springfield and Lane County portions of
the FY04 and FY05 Metro Contracts.
LCOG: L: ICITY COUNTY PLANNINGIMETROIURBAN SER VICESISER VICES. DOC
Last Saved: June 23, 2004
Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendments Related to Urban Services Page 4 of 4